Slashdot Mirror


US, EU, Japan Complain To WTO Over China's Rare Earth Ban

eldavojohn writes "China's rare earth monopoly has resulted in a shortage as China blocks their export and the rest of the world resumes their operations. Now, in a first-ever joint filing from three members of the World Trade Organization, Japan, the EU and the U.S. are not sitting idly by as China repeatedly ignores the WTO's orders to export rare earth metals and raw materials at a fair price to other countries. China claims the embargoes are in place to protect its environment, while Obama denounces China as being unfair and not playing by the rules of the WTO. In 2009, the WTO released a report (PDF) that explained how actions like China's hurt trade partners."

43 of 218 comments (clear)

  1. Bogus article by samantha · · Score: 5, Insightful

    First of all, the WTO has no means to order any country to sell anything at what it determines is a "fair price". Second, China does not have a monopoly on rare earths. They exist is many many countries. Those countries may not be actively pursuing them and exporting them to the same degree but that is not China's fault.

    1. Re:Bogus article by LordLimecat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      At the same time, the Chinese claim that theyre doing it "for the planet" takes some serious chutzpah. I laughed a little when I read that.

    2. Re:Bogus article by headhot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Other country's rear earth providers all went bankrupt and shut down because China was dumping. Now that they are all gone, China cuts back on supply (for environmental reasons.. right) to drive prices up.

      I think the term is call 'cornering the market.' Except this time its not orange juice, and they pulled it off.

    3. Re:Bogus article by headhot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No its not, its because of dumping and market manipulation.

    4. Re:Bogus article by vga_init · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Even though it's probably not the real reason (they just want to keep the materials for themselves, obviously, which is the smart thing to do), but in politics it's often advantageous to use your opponent's rhetoric--they risk making themselves look bad if they disagree with something they themselves said earlier.

    5. Re:Bogus article by cpu6502 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Funny? I thought we are supposed to protect the environment. I guess they mean OUR environment, not China's.

      For 200+ years China was bullied by western powers. Now they have the upperhand with the resources AND the money. LOL. It's like watching the second collapse of Rome unfold (We're probably at year 400 in the timeline). Strong enough to raise an army but not strong enough for a real war. EU/US influence is shrinking.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    6. Re:Bogus article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Then start your business extracting rare earth, you will be rich !!!

    7. Re:Bogus article by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Uh, what? China isn't shutting down mines, it's increasing mining, it's just making sure that the output from the mining goes to factories in China (which have lower environmental standards than in most of the rest of the industrial world, which is a big part of the reason why companies can manufacture cheaply there) rather than being sent abroad. Although they'll quite happily send them to factories producing goods for export.

      If anything, reducing rare earth exports increases pollution in China.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    8. Re:Bogus article by retroworks · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No, it is not a "bogus article", and the WTO is not "ordering any country to sell anything at what it determines" is a fair price. WTO is a free trade agreement. China signed it.

      As such, WTO has rules which parties agree to abide by in return for protection of their own exports. WTO does not charge China with having a monopoly, but with using government rulings (environmental laws) to manipulate markets. There are rules in WTO which allow a country to limit exports of raw materials, but doing so in order to manipulate prices is against WTO rules. China doesn't have to BE in the WTO (Iran is not), and if they don't WANT to abide by the WTO ruling they can leave WTO. Or, they can live with / suffer the sanctions, as others have. But if you are in WTO and use it, you have to play by the rules.

      I'm not anti-China, and the USA deserves WTO sanctions for its agricultural subsidies. But whoever "modded up" this post doesn't understand WTO agreements. If you agree to follow WTO rules, you get unique market access to sell your products, but you also agree to sanctions if you use government to replace tariffs you've agreed not to use with "bogus" traffic laws, pollution laws, registration laws, or other "non-tariff barriers", or cut off the Japanese because you want to take over their electronics markets.

      --
      Gently reply
    9. Re:Bogus article by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 2

      Then start your business extracting rare earth, you will be rich !!!

      Right... because starting a business that handles toxic chemicals, destroys the environment, and involves feeding out of and into a huge industrial complex is a piece of cake... and once you've got it set up, China won't undersell you.

    10. Re:Bogus article by Fluffeh · · Score: 4, Informative

      The first part involved the actual dumping and eliminating competition.

      Indeed. For many years there were multiple export nations selling Rare Earth Minerals. For many years, as the demand was quite low they all sold their goods to a small market. However, when the demand started to rise, China did something that the other players didn't see coming. They started to seriously undercut the prices of competitors. Other mines such as Mountain Pass were run out of business - and due to political pressures on the environmental damage that was being caused. When China became pretty much the only place left selling any reasonable quantities of REM, they bumped the price up by orders of magnitude. This coupled with much higher (and still growing) demand for them makes it a wonderful masterstroke. They then further used it when an incident with Japan caused political turmoil between the two nations - by blocking sales to Japan completely.

      While it is possible (and being done) to re-open the old mines and cease the monopoly that is currently held, it takes time to get these things up and running. Even then, China does hold a very major share of known REM reserves, so unless another (very) major deposit is found, it is likely that China will continue to hold an interesting political/trade card to play whenever it wants to.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    11. Re:Bogus article by Xeranar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I normally try and refrain from this sort of idiotic banter running rampant in slashdot because most are IT people and get their sense of world politics from regular news sources and rarely take the time to read government research. As it stands China without a major development still lacks major resources for most things. They have rare earth elements which is awesome, but so do the US and Russia (along with various other places). We choose not to exploit them for cost mainly. If rare earth keeps increasing in value we will begin to mine it as well. As for China holding major US debt, we've only developed this debt seriously in the last 30 years, over the course of the last 230+ years we've managed to pay off our debt several times. China holds around a 1/3 of it, another 1/3 by Americans, and another 1/3 by various countries around the world. China doesn't hold the cards as much as the news likes to spin it. The US holds more cards in respect to shutting down trade it just a refusal because in the 1950s free trade became the hallmark of the western world even as it now costs us because multi-national corporations are uninterested in the plight of the US (see Steve Jobs remarks on this). The most realistic answer of "is the US in decline?" is yes, but only so much as China is on the rise. The US isn't in a backslide as China with it's roughly 3 times our population is beginning to use them to exploit capitalism. By no means are we not yet weak enough that we couldn't fight a real war. A simple draft and our advanced air and sea supremacy can still easily destroy most any nation on the planet. But we're rather interested in keeping free trade open still so any real war with China is off the table for now.

    12. Re:Bogus article by TheSync · · Score: 2

      As it stands China without a major development still lacks major resources for most things.

      China now has a trade deficit with the rest of the world. Part of that is due to copper prices, also increases in soybean imports.

    13. Re:Bogus article by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 3, Interesting

      and the cost of dog meat too I assume. Australia for example is mining like crazy just to keep China going. Presumably chinese companies are mining China like crazy too. So two huge land masses funneling production to mainly one. Chinese companies are also buying up canadian resource companies like crazy too. All the resources funnel into the country building stuff which for the most part is China.

      The WTO can be upset about it but how about making the US export strategic assets they don't want to give away? Say Iran wants to buy a few nukes. NK wants some fighter planes etc. Every country decides what is in their best interest and I don't think WTO can do anything to make China share things they want to keep to themselves. Worst case scenario they would just create unofficial mines like Iran's nuke program and deny it to death and claim all their mines have been closed.

    14. Re:Bogus article by TubeSteak · · Score: 2

      Other country's rear earth providers all went bankrupt and shut down because China was dumping. Now that they are all gone, China cuts back on supply (for environmental reasons.. right) to drive prices up.

      I'm not sure you understand what happened.
      The rare earth providers didn't go bankrupt, they got bought by China's mostly-state-owned mining company.

      China cornered the market, but not the way you're suggesting.
      Now china mines and refines almost all the rare earths in the world.
      In the next few years, old mines will be reopened and new refineries will be built in order to break China's monopoly.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    15. Re:Bogus article by JWSmythe · · Score: 2

          You see that as evil. Most see it as proper application of the free market. We see this all the time. Companies sell *under* cost, to bring in sales. For places like retail stores, they'll sell particular items at a loss, to make a higher profit on others. Look at places like Best Buy. They'll sell some electronics at or under cost, but sell you cables for 1000% over cost.

          In the case of China's application, they did it perfectly. Lower the sale cost so others can't complete and close up shop. Once that has happened, you can set your price to whatever you'd like. Limiting exports makes anything you do export more valuable, demanding even higher prices.

          The WTO, EU, US, and Japan can complain all the want. I can't imagine any of those governments would bend over backwards to provide any resources or commodities at the prices China would want. For example, China could demand that the US sell military weapons and goods. The US will refuse to provide them. Filing a complaint with the WTO or anyone else won't make it happen. It would be responded to with a laugh and the diplomatic phrasing "Fuck China."

          There is a way to fix it. It's called negotiations. I want rare earth elements. They want something. Come to the table willing to trade, and it will happen. Crying about not getting what you want without making any concessions is futile.

          Don't like that? Go elsewhere. You mentioned Mountain Pass. They shut down in 2002 because of market prices. In 2007, China began export restrictions on rare earth elements. In 2010, China further restricted the exports. In late 2010 Molycorp (owner of the Mountain Pass mine) announced it would be reopening. Construction began in 2011, and will be completed this year.

        So, when the price was down, Mountain Pass closed. Now that the price is up, they've reopened. That, sir, is how business works. If you want to open a business with virtually no profit margin, go for it. For professional businessmen, the go for where the profit is. When they're shipping again, I'd be willing to bet the pricing will be barely pennies under what the Chinese mines are charging.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    16. Re:Bogus article by Rakshasa-sensei · · Score: 4, Insightful

      WTO rulings are enforced through trade tariffs.

      Damn, what is this naive "they can't enforce any ruling, free markets yeah!!!" thing all over these comments? Don't you guys know shit about global (free) trade?

      That all the major trading partners of China have gone to the WTO, an unprecedented event, it means that a ruling (which will clearly be against China) will mean that a number of Chinese export industries get hit with tariffs at a level sufficient to redress the perceived losses. And considering the impact such REM restrictions have all the way down high-tech manufacturing chains it won't be a small sum.

      And yes, this _IS_ free markets, free markets where some things like military and high-tech trade can be limited. However other things are not allowed to be restricted, cause that's what collectively got agreed upon by the people who compromise the free market. Add some quotes to 'free market' if it doesn't fit your ideologically pure interpretation.

      Also, China will be fucked even more if the same group decides to go to the WTO over the weak Yuan. The rest of the world will obviously also be fucked, but they might decide they're less fucked than status quo.

    17. Re:Bogus article by dgatwood · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You see that as evil. Most see it as proper application of the free market. We see this all the time. Companies sell *under* cost, to bring in sales. For places like retail stores, they'll sell particular items at a loss, to make a higher profit on others. Look at places like Best Buy. They'll sell some electronics at or under cost, but sell you cables for 1000% over cost.

      The problem is that if everybody played by those rules, you'd end up with a bunch of monopolies and nothing else.

      The largest company would dump products at a ridiculously low price until the last competitor died, then crank prices up. As that monopoly became entrenched, they would get significantly lower prices on components than any new competitor could get because of their volume. At that point, it would be nearly impossible for anyone else to enter the market unless they were already a huge company that could weather the inevitable dumping campaign by the monopolist.

      Any market that allows such unfair competition can only have one end result, and that is a permanent one-company market. The company wins, but everybody else loses. So yes, I see that as evil. When you cross the line from "I want to be the best" to "I want to destroy the competition so that I'll be the only seller", you're squarely in evil territory, no matter how you try to spin it. (Mind you, I'm not saying it's never acceptable to want to destroy a competitor, but it's never acceptable to want to destroy all of your competitors.)

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    18. Re:Bogus article by WindBourne · · Score: 2

      USA had the number 1 production and exporting. That is, until reagan convinced the company to share the tech with China. Once they did, then China dumped REE on the global markets esp. on America. Once we shut down California mountain pass, then China suddenly got interested in their environment. The problem though, is that China is producing more REE than EVER before. It is just that they do not export it.

      Thankfully, a company is ramping up with this. Molycorp. I am actually surprised that USA/EU/Japan are gripping over this. However, my guess is that they are prepping to run up tariffs against China unless China starts acting honest.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    19. Re:Bogus article by WindBourne · · Score: 2

      And yet, China is mining more than what they did 5 years ago. IOW, they lied.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    20. Re:Bogus article by Ihmhi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In other news, DeBeers are sitting on large stockpiles of diamonds in order to "protect the war-torn orphans".

      Nope, not about artificially high prices at all. Nope.

  2. This is what happens... by ravenspear · · Score: 4, Insightful

    when you shut down mining and manufacturing in western countries and ship it all to China just because they are cheaper.

    Other countries have these deposits, but they determined they could just buy China's for less money.

    1. Re:This is what happens... by TFAFalcon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So the government prohibiting the export of something is a level playing field? Can the US also choose to impose a 1000% tariff on Chinese products and also call it a level playing field?

    2. Re:This is what happens... by jd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Did I say China was working on a level playing field? Nooooooooooo. Now, go take your cookies and milk then go back to kindergarten until you learn to read.

      For the rest of you, a level playing field means you do NOT hand someone the ball and then complain that you've no balls. (Take that as you will.) A level playing field means that you demand of yourself no less responsibility than you demand of others.

      A level playing field ALSO demands that ALL sides play by the rules. You know Boeing and Airbus have both been found guilty of getting illegal subsidies, right? That this isn't new and that both blocs have known for over a decade that what they were doing was indeed illegal? Sorry, I have difficulty feeling sympathy for people who are equally corrupt and criminal. Sympathy for the devil is easier to stomach than sympathy for the corporations. It also has a catchier tune.

      The US ITAR regulations banning the export of computer systems to China that can - and are - used by US corporations to cut costs -- you think that's a level playing field? When NASA made it possible to turn a pile of PCs into a supercomputer, the software was banned. (Those old enough will remember Slashdot helping smuggle the software to Canada.) Sure, they relented later, but only because they had no choice. The cat was already out of the bag and ripping people's limbs off - as cats formerly in bags tend to do.

      The US has been in trade wars with the EU, seeking to cripple EU industries via restricted exports.

      Sorry, but the moment the US did that to Europe, it LOST all rights to complain when others do the same to it. Remember, the US may have relented but it never apologized and never changed its attitudes. It grudgingly tolerated obedience to the law, but we all know perfectly well that it will violate that law every chance it has to gain an edge.

      As, indeed, it did in the 90s, when the US Government's signals intelligence passed confidential internal documents from Airbus to Boeing. The US Government, involved in industrial espionage in order to profiteer.

      A level playing field is where ALL such activity is banned, where ALL such activity leads to more than a gentle slap on the wrist but serious economic consequences, and where ALL countries are required to participate fairly, openly and (above all) honestly. THAT is a level playing field.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    3. Re:This is what happens... by TFAFalcon · · Score: 2

      I'm not advocating tariffs on ALL imports. Just on those from countries that use unfair trade practices. If China decides to sell rare earths to foreign companies for ten times the price that domestic companies pay, then why shouldn't their products be 'taxed'? I'm sure China's neighbors will be more then happy to ramp up production if China is no longer able to compete with them.

    4. Re:This is what happens... by khallow · · Score: 2

      How did it "seek" such power?

      By dumping rare earths on the market. And then artificially restricting global supply once it had driven foreign competitors out of business.

    5. Re:This is what happens... by thsths · · Score: 2

      > So, how about we don't act like the people who will be affected by this deserve it because other people from their country did it to other people?

      A simple word: democracy. With power comes responsibility.

  3. Waana be a member of the WTO? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    then you gotta surrender your sovereignty.. I think China signed... So there

  4. Hate the game not the player by bjourne · · Score: 2, Insightful

    China beat the other capitalists at their own game. By forcing the other players out of the market and then establishing a monopoly. Now they are crying foul because they lost the game? It's their rare earth metals so just pay them what they want or start making your own! You cant just demand that the rules be changed because now you're being screwed, while previously you enjoyed screwing someone else over.

    1. Re:Hate the game not the player by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually the complaint is that China didn't play the game. They cheated by dumping and are now cheating by restricting exports. Not unexpected from them, but don't claim it's capitalism in action.

  5. Re:I know where we can get some by bmo · · Score: 3, Funny

    >Kony 2012

    Is that who you're voting for this November?

    --
    BMO

    Don't blame me - I voted for Kodos.

  6. Globalist whining by nickmalthus · · Score: 2

    I am not a Chinese government fan by any means but as a sovereign country they have an obligation to protect the interests of their citizens above the financial gains of the globalists. Besides, these are the same guys that say the free market solves all problems. As the price of these materials go up alternatives should surface or recycling efficiency should increase.

    --
    If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be-T J
    1. Re:Globalist whining by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 5, Informative

      I am not a Chinese government fan by any means but as a sovereign country they have an obligation to protect the interests of their citizens above the financial gains of the globalists.

      They absolutely do, but they can't do that while still remaining a member of WTO.

    2. Re:Globalist whining by maccodemonkey · · Score: 2

      Unless they are violating their obligations under the WTO charter that they agreed to, which they are. That's what most posters seem to be missing. China previously agreed to a set of conditions upon joining the WTO (their choice) and is now violating them.

      If China doesn't want to be in the WTO, that's fine. But it means that countries like the US aren't under any obligation to follow the WTO rules with regards to China either.

  7. Slightly delusional by microbox · · Score: 5, Interesting

    For 200+ years China was bullied by western powers

    This is true. And then China proved itself to be the equal bully of Victorian era European powers.

    You are right about the declining influence of the USA and the EU. I suspect, however, that China will not rise above, but will trace a similar arc as the soviet union did. In many ways, the Chinese miracle reflects the decade-long double-digit growth of the soviet union. And likewise, both countries have serious internal problems, including /severe/ environmental issues.

    I do believe that the chinese leadership will not sit idly by on these environmental issues, and their environmental policy looks bizarre to outsiders. I suspect they are drawing down on the possibility of future technical solutions which they are now investing in. But the future of industrial china has not yet been written.

    btw, the USA, France, Britain, Germany, Japan, Russia and China are probably the only countries that can sustain a significant war. There may be a dearth of political will within the USA, France, Britain, German and Japan -- but if the will is ever galvonised, make no mistake, they could prosecute a real war anywhere on the planet.

    --

    Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
    1. Re:Slightly delusional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Simple. Gundams.

    2. Re:Slightly delusional by microbox · · Score: 4, Informative

      If you look on wikipedia, you will find out that Japan has the 7th largest military budget in the world, at only a fraction of their GDP. They have about 250k active personal, 50k reserves, and about 27 million men of service age. They have their own native high-tech defence industry, which is supplemented with US and European technology.

      If they had to go to war tomorrow, they have a significant high-tech air-force, navy and army with a modern capable war doctrine. If engaged in a protracted war, like WWII, they could draw down on over 50 million personal, and deploy a massive high tech manufacturing base and indigenous know-how. They are also the 3rd richest country in the world. (Most of their debt is domestically held.)

      --

      Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
    3. Re:Slightly delusional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      ...because of said mobile suits.

  8. It's not about mining quotas, but export quotas. by Corporate+T00l · · Score: 5, Informative

    If China were simply limiting the amount of rare earths permitted to be dug out of the ground, there would be no WTO issue. The problem is that this is an export cap which has the potential to create different pricing for rare-earths between domestic and foreign purchasers of these materials.

    Now if you look at mentions of today's prices of rare earths (by googling for "rare earth prices"), as yet, there is no such disparity. The linked WTO article also doesn't directly talk about price disparities between domestic and foreign purchasers. It turns out that global demand for rare earths went down quite a bit last year, and as a result, only about 60% of the export quota was used up (according to this FT article).

    The concern is that as the global economy recovers, if demand is seen to exceed the quota, then a huge price difference between what domestic companies and foreign companies pay will emerge. This would amount to a kind of state subsidy (making prices for domestic producers artificially cheap) and would violate WTO rules.

    The two metrics to watch to determine whether or not the claim of environmental protection vs. economic protectionism would be:

    (1) Domestic rare earth production volume (e.g. in tons) - If slope of this curve continues unchanged, then there really is no environmental effect. If the slope flattens out, then it could be argued that the quota did slow down the pace of mining and did have an environmental consequence

    (2) Domestic (China buyer) vs. Foreign (non-China Buyer) price (e.g. difference $/ton) - If this disparity is big, then there's a stronger case that there is some kind of domestic subsidy occurring, if the disparity is small, then the case that there is a subsidy is weaker.

    This is not really a matter of sovereignty since China is a willing party to the WTO and has volunteered to play by those rules.

  9. And this is a... by Dan+East · · Score: 2

    ...good thing! The mines that were shut down will eventually come back on line when it is profitable to do so again. In the meantime:
    1) Rare earth materials can be purchased cheaper because China was undercutting everyone (even if they were used for manufacturing within china, the goods were still being sold abroad).
    2) Less pollution generated in my home country (USA) because that mining was put on hold.
    3) Non-Chinese resources are preserved and will last longer while China burns through theirs.

    What we're seeing is an eventuality. Eventually China is going to wise up and realize they are going through a very valuable resource at an unsustainable rate.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
  10. Re:only about the env. when it's your backyard by Daniel+Phillips · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The ONLY reason why rare earth minerals are dominated by China is because no other country is willing sacrifice the environment to extract these minerals.

    Wrong, it is because China's ore deposits are more highly concentrated than any other, by a very wide margin.

    From my vantage point, China has every right to restrict this trade to protect its environment.

    I don't know about your argument (which seems wildly far fetched to me) but do know that subsidizing domestic industry with favorable pricing of raw materials is, in general, not allowed by the WTO.

    --
    Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
  11. Make China the bogeyman by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It all boils down to election posturing

    Obama accuses China of not selling the rare earth "at fair price" while in California there is a large rare earth mine still remain closed

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:Make China the bogeyman by Anthony+Mouse · · Score: 4, Insightful

      in California there is a large rare earth mine still remain closed

      Check again.