We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
Hydraulic excavators scoop the broken rock into 100- or 150-tonne haul trucks at Agnico-Eagle's Meadowbank mine in Nunavut June 28, 2011.
Nunavut’s golden birthday present
The traditional 25th-anniversary gift is silver, but how about mines full of precious minerals? The vast northern Canadian territory of Nunavut turns 25 on Monday, and for its birthday it’ll also start having more control over decisions about its lands, waters, and reserves of gold, diamonds, iron, cobalt, and rare earth metals.
Background: Nunavut, which makes up about a fifth of Canada’s land mass, was created in 1999 from the eastern part of the Northwest Territories. The split was driven by the Inuit nation’s desire for a culturally grounded government closer to the people and lands it administers.
A January 2024 land transfer agreement gives Nunavut a say over many functions previously managed in Ottawa, putting it on the path to equal footing with the rest of Canada. As the territory’s Premier P.J. Akeeagok says, now “we'll decide our own future.”
The transfer of power from the federal to territorial governments will happen over the next three years.
If geopolitics are on your radar, Nunavut should be too. Nunavut yields minerals that are essential for battery production, which will be a source of increasing global leverage during the energy transition.
The draw of Nunavut’s (literal) goldmine of resources has already caused geopolitical tension. In 2020, Canada blocked a CA$230 million Chinese takeover of a Nunavut gold mine on national security grounds. That dealt an economic blow to the North, but sizzling US-China-Canada tensions surrounding the arrest on a US warrant of Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou and the subsequent imprisonment of two Canadians in China likely helped kill the deal. Plus, China’s assertion that it’s already an “important stakeholder in Arctic affairs” with a right to a greater role in the region — even though it is nearly 2,000 miles south of the Arctic Circle — is ringing national security alarm bells.
While the territorial government’s new autonomy over its resources won’t override the federal government’s national security concerns, we’ll be watching as Nunavut balances local economic interests with geopolitical dynamics.
For a more lighthearted geopolitical ‘dispute’ involving Nunavut, check out the 50-year Canada-Denmark “Whiskey War.”Greenpeace activists hold a protest demanding an end to deep-sea mining in Prague, Czech Republic.
Jamaica hosts deep-sea mining talks
Who lives in a pineapple under the sea?
Nauru wants to find out. The tiny Pacific island nation is trying to convince the global community to grant it permission to mine precious metals hidden deep beneath the oceans.
Starting on Monday, representatives from 168 countries will gather in the Jamaican capital of Kingston for at least three weeks of UN-hosted talks about whether to allow deep-sea mining in international waters. The meeting was triggered by the expiration of a two-year moratorium on the practice after Nauru filed in 2021 the first-ever application for a commercial license to harvest rocks containing metals like cobalt or copper.
There are two fiercely opposed geopolitical camps. On one side, France, Germany, and Chile are leading the charge for a pause on mining the seafloor until scientists better understand the risk to the marine ecosystem. On the other, China, Russia, South Korea and (!) Norway believe that deep-sea mining is fair game to find metals to power green tech.
Environmentalists fear that anything short of a new ban will cause irreparable damage to a part of the planet that's been less explored than the moon. But pro-mining countries argue that the world can no longer rely exclusively on unstable sources like the Democratic Republic of Congo, which produces 70% of the world's cobalt. And of course, China is keen to further dominate the global supply of rare-earth minerals.
What do you think? Let us know here.What would you do if you were Greenland?
It's not often that an election in a remote island of 56,000 people can reverberate across the globe like this, but trust us: it's been a wild few months in Greenland.
Earlier this year, the government collapsed over a proposal to grant a Chinese-backed mining company the rights to develop what would be one of the world's largest uranium and rare earths mines.
Supporters of the project, including the government coalition, envisioned a windfall of much-needed income and jobs. But the opposition saw a future of uranium dust and pollution blighting Greenland's pristine Arctic landscapes.
Protests erupted. Death threats flew. And the coalition government collapsed, triggering fresh elections in which opponents of the mine — the leftwing pro-independence Inuit Ataqatigiit party — have just won the most seats.
The party will now take power amid a maelstrom of economic and political challenges. And they'll do so at a time when the island nation is already in the crosshairs of some of the world's biggest geopolitical rivalries.
What's the back story?
For one thing, Greenland wants more independence. For more than 40 years, it has enjoyed autonomy from its former colonial masters in Denmark, but it's still a territory within the Danish kingdom. Most Greenlanders, including the Inuit Ataqatigiit party itself, want to be independent some day. But to do that, they need a self-sufficient economy. Right now, Greenland depends on cash from Denmark for almost half of its budget. The rest comes largely from fishing exports.
Mining is a huge opportunity. Greenland sits atop some of the world's largest reserves of rare earths, the metals that are used in everything from cell phones to fighter jets. Given the global scramble for those resources -- and the growing rivalry between the US and China over their production -- developing and selling them on the global market could be a ticket to boom town, particularly for such a small population. (Just ask the nearby Nordics of Norway, where oil discoveries in the late 1960s helped to quintuple per capita GDP in just ten years.)
Climate change is opening up more possibilities. Global warming has upended many of Greenland's traditional hunting and fishing practices, but it is also making the place more, well, green. Rising temperatures are making it easier to mine for resources and build infrastructure as once-frozen areas become easier to reach.
But all of this forces Greenlanders to answer a tough question. Are they willing to risk despoiling their environment in order to help realize their independence? (Just to be clear, if you've seen what Greenland's environment looks like, you can understand why this is such a big deal.)
There is a geopolitical angle here too. Remember when former US president Donald Trump offered to buy Greenland back in 2019? It was a moment of slapstick politics with real significance, because there is, in fact, a wider global tussle for influence in Greenland. It's partly about gaining preferential access to those mineral resources. But it's also about the battle for control over lucrative new Arctic shipping lanes that are opening up as the polar ice cap recedes — an Arctic route from Asia to Europe would cut export times in half, and would quickly become one of the world's most important economic arteries, right in Greenland's back yard.
The US-China rivalry is of course part of this. The United States government, which has an airbase in Greenland, but not a consulate, has eyed China's increased presence on the island — including via the mining project — with heightened suspicion. As the US-China rivalry deepens, Greenland could find itself drawn ever deeper into that conflict.
Can Nuuk's new leaders skillfully play that rivalry off in order to get what they want in terms of economic development and independence? We are about to find out.
With its interests in flames, what will China do in Myanmar?
Over the weekend, protesters demanding the return of democracy in Myanmar burned down and looted Chinese-owned businesses in Yangon, the country's main city. China's embassy then asked the junta to restore order. In a few hours, the generals obliged: soldiers killed scores of demonstrators, and martial law was declared.
The anti-China riots add a fresh international dimension to Myanmar's political crisis. The protesters are angry not only at the military rulers, but increasingly at China's thinly veiled support for the junta. This backlash is a big test for Beijing. As a rising global power and regional heavyweight, is China going to simply look the other way as its interests in Myanmar literally go up in flames?
China's stakes in Myanmar. China has always been upfront on what it wants from its southern neighbor: a piece of its natural resources and waterways. Beijing wants the generals to restart long-shelved plans for a controversial hydropower dam to generate electricity for China, which locals fear will damage the environment and force thousands to relocate. Beijing is likewise hungry for Myanmar's rare earth metals (production has dropped significantly since the coup, which probably influenced Beijing's recent threat to stop exporting rare earths to the US.)
China also needs Myanmar to continue building a natural gas pipeline linking China's Yunnan province to the Kyaukpyu deepwater port in Myanmar's Rakhine state to gain access to the Indian Ocean, where China is competing for maritime supremacy with India.
Beijing in the hot seat. Since the February 1 coup, Chinese interests have come under fire in Myanmar. A lot of the buzz is on social media, which has been rife with rumors that China — the new regime's most prominent international ally — helped the military seize power. Pro-democracy activists also suspect Chinese cybersecurity experts are helping the junta develop internet censorship technology similar to China's own Great Firewall.
Despite its long history of shady activity in the country, China has dismissed such claims as fake news, and pushed back against protesters' calls to boycott Chinese products and sabotage the Kyaukpyu pipeline. But Beijing, as always, is worried about instability on its border, and frustrated with the generals' failure to end the post-coup unrest.
What will China do? China is in a bind on how to respond. On the one hand, it could just wait for the protests — and attacks on Chinese-owned businesses — to subside following a sustained bloody crackdown by the junta. That's precisely what China did following the 2014 and 2019 pro-democracy rallies in Hong Kong, where Beijing now rules with an iron fist.
On the other hand, if the rising anti-China sentiment turns more violent, China could feel compelled to do something a bit more radical. Direct military intervention, however, would be anathema to China's longstanding policy of non-interference in domestic political affairs.
Non-interference vs Wolf Warrior. Right now, the Hong Kong scenario is more likely. One reason is that China is deeply concerned about its own reputation as a powerful yet benevolent Asian superpower, the main raison d'être behind its COVID vaccine diplomacy. The other is that China has no fond memories of the last time it deployed combat forces abroad. (That was in 1978, when China lost a brief war with Vietnam.)
But if Chinese businesses continue being singled out, Beijing will be wary of looking weak in the face of rising anti-China sentiment on its border. Further unrest could force Beijing's hand and unleash the "Wolf Warrior" — a new, more aggressive brand of Chinese diplomacy that draws it name from a blockbuster film depicting an extreme version of China using military muscle to defend national interests in Africa.China is considering cutting off the export of rare earths to the US. What are they, and why does this matter for everything from fighter jets to the device you're reading on right now?
China takes a “rare” swipe at the US
China now controls more than 80 percent of the world's supply of something that surrounds you all day, every day. And, according to the Financial Times [paywall], Beijing is threatening to cut the supply of that thing to the US. What are we talking about? Rare earths metals.
What are rare earth metals and why should you care about them? Rare earth metals are critical for manufacturing just about every electronic device that you, and all of the world's modern militaries, use every day. They're essential for making screens, hard drives, and precision glass.
Without rare earths, you can't use a cell phone, save a document, watch a Netflix series, drive a new car, take a digital photograph, fly a drone, target a missile, or build a fighter jet. You wouldn't even be able to read Signal — though we promise to make hard copies available if it comes to that.
It just so happens that China has a near-monopoly on the business of refining these metals for use in manufacturing. Since the 1990s, when environmental regulations in the US made it cheaper to refine rare earths in China, Beijing's share of the industry has risen from about 30 percent to more than 80 percent today. With that kind of market power, China can throw its weight around, and the US-China rivalry over technology creates a powerful incentive to do just that.
What is China threatening? According to the Financial Times scoop, China is conducting a fresh study to determine whether cutting off rare earths exports to the US would cripple the US defense industry, which relies on the stuff to make all of its key weapons systems. A single F-35 fighter jet, for example, contains close to 1,000 pounds of rare earths metals, according to a US congressional report.
The Pentagon knows all this, right? Of course. For years, Pentagon planners have been looking for ways to secure more access to rare earths mines, in particular by making inroads in southern African countries that are rich in reserves. And the Trump administration last year issued an emergency order to boost rare earths production in the US.
But the challenge isn't so much in finding rare earths — which are, despite their name, present all over the world, including in the US. It's extracting them and then refining them that costs and pollutes a lot. Private investors haven't been able to make it profitable under US rules, so US agencies and lawmakers have explored subsidizing production or making regulatory changes that make more rare earths available for refining.
But for a Biden administration that has put environmental protection at the center of its agenda, this could mean a tough tradeoff: protect the defense industry and Silicon Valley, or protect the environment.
Would China really do this? Cutting off rare earth supplies to the US would be a huge blow to the US defense industry, and could also complicate things for Silicon Valley, which relies on Chinese rare earths as well — though less so because so much of their manufacturing is actually in China at the moment.
Washington would almost certainly respond with severe sanctions or export limitations of its own. The US has already moved to limit China's ability to buy semiconductors, an area where China is almost entirely dependent on the outside world, in particular on Taiwan.
- Why John Kerry’s trip to China matters for all of us - GZERO Media ›
- The future of the Chinese Communist Party - GZERO Media ›
- Will China's tech sector be held back? - GZERO Media ›
- China and US economic interdependence hasn't lessened - GZERO Media ›
- China and US economic interdependence hasn't lessened - GZERO Media ›