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."

9 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 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.

    2. 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"
    3. 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
    4. 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
  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.