Rare Earths, Power and the New Geopolitics of Technology

The computer on which this blog is written, and the device through which it is being read, both rely on rare earth elements whose geopolitical importance has become unmistakably clear over the past year. Yttrium and terbium enable modern colour displays. Lanthanum is found in smartphone camera lenses, while neodymium powers the miniature magnets embedded in speakers. These minerals are equally indispensable to advanced military systems such as radar and drones, as well as to clean energy technologies including wind turbines and electric vehicle motors.

China occupies a commanding position in the supply and processing of these materials. In recent trade disputes, Beijing demonstrated its readiness to deploy this dominance as an instrument of state power, restricting exports of selected rare earths in response to tariffs imposed by the United States. Such actions revealed how control over critical minerals can translate into diplomatic leverage. Rare earths are only part of a broader pattern. China also leads global extraction and refining of tungsten, gallium, lithium and several other strategic minerals, exposing what many analysts now regard as a profound structural vulnerability within Western economies. Control of these resources has increasingly become a defining element of contemporary geopolitical competition.

In response, American firms and government agencies have intensified investment in mining ventures and exploration projects across multiple continents. Mineral agreements have been concluded with numerous countries, stretching from Latin America to Central Asia. Access to strategic resources has begun to shape foreign policy decisions involving regions such as Ukraine, Venezuela and Greenland. Public authorities have supplemented these efforts through loans, subsidies, direct investment initiatives and plans to establish national stockpiles alongside price support mechanisms intended to stabilise supply.

Traditionally committed to the principles of free markets, many policymakers now acknowledge that limited intervention in commodity markets may be justified under conditions of strategic vulnerability. Yet the emerging American approach raises important concerns. Public spending risks inefficiency when poorly targeted, while excessive state involvement may encourage patronage networks, rent seeking behaviour and corruption. Furthermore, suppressing market price signals can weaken incentives for technological innovation, recycling and resource conservation. A more effective strategy would combine disciplined investment with deeper cooperation among allied nations, an asset that remains insufficiently utilised in the search for secure mineral supply chains.

Beyond resource politics, strategic uncertainty also shapes contemporary military policy. Recent debates surrounding the expansion of American military deployments in the Middle East illustrate the dangers of pursuing force without clearly defined objectives. Without coherent strategic aims, military escalation risks creating a dilemma between deepening conflict and appearing politically weakened. The challenge confronting policymakers is therefore not merely one of capability, but of clarity of purpose in an increasingly volatile international order.