A detailed and well researched report.

There may be a positive resolution to this complaint for some or all parties, but I am not optimistic. Generally speaking, it would seem to me that the West and western companies should spend less time on litigation and more time on competition in the REE area. Perhaps though I don’t fully understand the current situation in the West as I am in the East or rather the northeast of China.

What about demand for rare metals that are in commercial products?

National Geographic wrote an article a year ago that talked about these metals being ¨The Secret Ingredient in almost Everything¨. I have heard that they are in 80% of all products today with new applications every year. Will supply be able to keep up with demand in the next 10 years?

Hundreds of millions of people in developing countries like India, China, South and Central America, and elsewhere are moving up from poverty into lower and middle class status and will be wanting all the products that we take for granted in the developed countries.

Hundreds of millions of people are getting electricity to their dwelling for the first time.

In the last 10 years alone 400 million Chinese have moved out of poverty while at the same time period, 40 million Americans have fallen into poverty.

It is interesting to note that it takes approximately the same amount of rare metal to produce a cheap TV or cell phone as it does to produce an expensive one.

Your thoughts on this subject would be greatly appreciated.

@Sergio Lazzarotto: thanks for the detailed comments. I think that China will definitely need to get creative when it comes to making arguments to support the activities covered under the current action, and tying in to other international obligations would certainly be one way to do it.

@Dr David Dawson: thanks for the note – will check out your Web site.

@Christina Chen: yes, it does cover rare-earth magnets. It’s an interesting addition to the scope of the action, because to my knowledge there aren’t too many, if any, restrictions on exports of those materials, as commonly understood.

Thank you for the article.
Does the restriction of “A variety of rare-earth-containing magnetic powders and alloys” include rare earth magnets?
Best,
Christina

Currently working on a relevant project to assess the UK’s vulnerability to shortage of raw materials in low carbon infrastructure (Undermining Infrastructure project), details on our website.

Look forward to more of your work,

All the best,

David

I looked with interest at your post. I only partially agree with your comments. The WTO monitors barriers to trade through its Trade Policy Review (TPR) mechanism. As such, information from the TPRs is used as the basis for the following discussion on the patterns of use of export controls, which is divided into two sections: export taxes and quantitative restrictions. For the Chinese RE Export Taxes, your comments are fair, however I think you missed one aspect and that is the Quantitative Restrictions that have to be dissociates from Export Taxes. In contrast to export taxes, which are primarily imposed for economic reasons, quantitative export restrictions are employed to meet a range of goals. More than half of the countries enforcing export bans or quantitative restrictions on products, is in accordance with their obligations under international agreements and conventions. Now, one new point have to be brought to your attention: While USA is still one of the “few remaining non signatory black sheep”, China has signed the Kyoto Protocol since Durban Dec 2011. This means that they could claim their International Obligations, to reduce their carbon emissions, to use primarly for their in house needs the RE produced in China mainly for Green Tech products used in China. Is that claim acceptable ? Well I am not sure that the other countries would have much to say, considering that several of them including Japan and EUs countries have finger pointed for more than 10 years China and that until last Decembre because of their high degree of pollution and their consistent refusal to sign the protocol. This is to say that while eventually they might be forced to remove Export Taxes, eventually they could be authorized to continue to impose Quantitative Export Restrictions. USA use this often for Security Reasons (i.e. Nuclear gear), however many othe countries use these restrictions for other reasons. USA is using them on goods including crude oil, petroleum products (other than crude oil), unprocessed western red cedar trees, and horses for export by sea under the reasons of items subject to “short supply” controls. Therefore China could use the same arguments. Lets see the outcome.

Neocolonialism is dying a slow death?

As Gareth so rightly points out the big elephant in the room is national defense, not an overt reference in the WTO complaint, nor I suspect also absent from China’s formal response.

Remember “Cliff notes” in University days?

These days I would rather wait and read the “Wikileaks” version?

At the rates WTO attorneys work, I predict a whole new world in REEs and Julian Assange shall be Australian Senator Assange prior to the WTO ruling, much less the Chinese appeal?

Let’s not get lost in the forest for the trees? China is winning!

For good reason are Chinese REEs peaking toward record highs right now whereas ROW REEs continue to be laggards. No one believes ROW attorneys can tilt the balance in favor of ROW.

Sooner ROW wakes up to the new realities the better for ROW and it’s beleaguered REE mining/manufacturing sector.

Kind regards,

@Jim: Thanks for the feedback – I can’t see where I’ve placed Alaska in Canada though, instead of the USA?