The New Arms Race Isn’t About Guns – It’s About Minerals
A tank is only as good as its steel, a missile as potent as its rare earth magnets. The sobering reality is that modern warfare, and the ability to even prepare for it, hinges on access to a surprisingly small group of critical minerals. This isn’t a new concern, but the war in Ukraine has dramatically sharpened its focus, pushing the U.S. and Europe towards a critical juncture: forge deeper cooperation on securing these resources, or risk falling behind – not just in military readiness, but in the broader geopolitical competition with China.
Europe’s Rapid Re-Armament and the Mineral Bottleneck
Europe is moving with unprecedented speed to bolster its defense capabilities. The European Defence Industry Reinforcement Through Common Procurement Act, unlocking over €11 billion in joint procurement, is just one example of a continent waking up to the need for self-reliance. The ambitious €800 billion ReArm Europe Plan further underscores this commitment. But this surge in demand for armored vehicles, ammunition, and advanced weaponry creates a massive strain on supply chains – particularly for the specialized minerals required in their production.
The Critical Minerals at Stake
We’re talking about minerals like cobalt, essential for battery production in military vehicles and energy storage; rare earth elements, vital for missile guidance systems and electronic warfare; and gallium, used in semiconductors. Lithium-ion batteries, with demand projected to grow “exponentially,” are becoming increasingly crucial, not just for electric vehicles but for powering a new generation of military technologies. Without a secure supply of these materials, Europe’s rearmament efforts could stall before they truly begin.
Why U.S.-EU Cooperation is No Longer Optional
The U.S. and Europe already have deeply intertwined defense-industrial bases. The 2022 Minerals Security Partnership (MSP) was a step in the right direction, aiming to match mining projects with capital. However, the focus has largely been on minerals for clean energy and digital technologies. A shift towards prioritizing defense applications is now essential. The challenge lies in overcoming existing trade hurdles and building a framework that incentivizes collaboration, rather than competition.
Beyond Climate Change: A Security Imperative
For too long, discussions around critical minerals have been framed through the lens of climate change and economic competitiveness. While those are important considerations, the security implications are now paramount. A joint U.S.-EU strategy focused on defense-related minerals could unlock new avenues for cooperation, including coordinated trade guardrails to protect emerging industries and joint stockpiling initiatives. Consider the Nordic model of securing minerals from European mines for strategic reserves – a concept ripe for transatlantic application.
China’s Dominance and the Need for Diversification
The elephant in the room is China’s dominance of the critical minerals market. Beijing’s ability to manipulate supply, create oversupply, and impose export restrictions poses a significant threat to both the U.S. and Europe. Reducing this dependence requires a multi-pronged approach: boosting domestic mining and refining capabilities, diversifying import sources through bilateral agreements (like the 14 already in place by the EU), and strengthening partnerships with countries like those within the Minerals Security Partnership. The International Energy Agency and the G7 also offer valuable platforms for collaboration.
Trade Guardrails and Supply Chain Intelligence
Developing a system of “trade guardrails” is crucial. This could involve sectoral trade agreements focused on specific commodities, mineral-swap agreements for future access, and – critically – enhanced supply chain intelligence sharing. Understanding the flow of these materials, identifying potential vulnerabilities, and proactively mitigating risks are essential components of a robust strategy. The European Union’s recent launch of an Energy and Raw Materials Platform, with its matchmaking mechanism for suppliers and consumers, offers a promising model for the U.S. to emulate.
Lessons from Japan and the Path Forward
The U.S. and EU can learn from other nations already grappling with these challenges. Japan’s Organization for Metal and Energy Security (JOGMEC) provides a compelling example of effective mineral supply chain management. Similarly, the EU’s efforts to adapt institutions to address China’s export practices offer valuable lessons for the U.S. The proposed Critical Raw Material Centre, aiming to jointly purchase raw materials for European companies, could serve as a European equivalent to JOGMEC, if adequately funded and empowered.
Ultimately, prioritizing U.S.-EU cooperation on defense-related critical minerals isn’t just about securing resources; it’s about bolstering transatlantic security and enabling the U.S. to focus its attention and resources on strategic priorities in the Indo-Pacific. It’s a complex challenge, but one that demands urgent attention and a willingness to move beyond traditional frameworks. What steps will policymakers take to ensure the foundations of future security are built on a stable supply of essential minerals?
