Access/Access Denial: Critical Mineral Strategies amid Polycrisis

Vectors of the polycrisis such as the pandemic, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and rising geopolitical tensions have all contributed to a major economic trend of the 2020s- the securitisation of key value chains. This has been nowhere more evident than in a range of minerals (rare earths, lithium, nickel, and cobalt, among others) deemed critical for the energy transition. In line with recent theorisations of an incipient Second Cold War, this paper frames contemporary US, EU, and Chinese critical minerals strategies as part of a struggle for centrality in key global political-economic networks. EU and US dependence on China (and Chinese-invested firms in third countries) has prompted a flurry of efforts to diversify and secure critical mineral supplies. With China currently holding a dominant position in extraction and processing, US and EU strategies concentrate on securing and expanding their own access to these production networks in third states, without necessarily seeking to exclude Chinese actors. This approach contrasts to other sectors where the US and/or EU is stronger (e.g. semiconductors) and where the goal tends towards access denial, for example via export controls. China, for its part, has leveraged its domestic critical mineral dominance towards access denial strategies, including export controls on various metals, introduced in response to US semiconductor restrictions. Concurrently, Chinese firms have pursued access strategies outside China, acquiring stakes in 23 critical mineral ventures worldwide since 2018. Several mineral-exporting states seek to leverage this geopolitical competition for developmental advantage, insisting, for example, that minerals extracted by EU, US, or Chinese firms be processed domestically. Such strategies may be feasible while access remains the predominant form of critical mineral competition. However, should global powers shift towards more aggressive access denial tactics in third countries in future, this would likely substantially weaken the bargaining position of southern mineral producers.