Review the global resource scramble for resources nationalism emerges

The most recent storm on rare earths in China. First, Japan accused China of cutting its supply in the Diaoyu Islands ' collision, ' forcing Japan to "bully" its reliance on more than 90% of its rare earths. Later, the New York Times, said that some of China's original exports to the United States and Europe of rare earths in the customs were shelved.　　Add to the domestic media that China will further reduce export quotas next year, the maximum rate of 30%, these rumors to alert the international rare earths market, South Korea announced the investment of 15 million U.S. dollars reserves of rare Earths, Germany to Eastern Europe and Central Asia, the world's third of the United States to seek the redevelopment of domestic resources. China's rare-earth reserves have fallen to around 1/3 of the world, for environmental protection and rational use of the consideration of the adoption of limited and quota measures is not surprising, but only to roll up the storm: the United States and Europe to consider the WTO lawsuit, Germany is ready to protest at the G20 meeting, and frantic Japan even promote its ambassador to China Dan Feather Niwa mustered the United States, Britain,　　Germany, France, South Korea and other foreign ambassadors, the United States pressure on China. The chaos caused by the limited availability of rare earths is a delicate microcosm of global resource fragility and increased competition. As more and more countries join the ranks of economic modernization, the Earth's resources are being consumed at an unprecedented rate.　　Especially in the Asia-Pacific region, the widespread economic boom has further stimulated and unleashed the strong demand of nearly 5 billion large populations. The "resource nationalism" emerges in the background of globalization, the way that countries acquire resources is increased, but the sustainable development of the country relies more and more on the steady supply of external resources. Even a big mining country like America cannot survive.　　2009, its asbestos, cesium, indium, rubidium and other 19 kinds of minerals need to import in full, 38 kinds of minerals external dependence of more than 60%. Unfortunately, the global distribution of mineral resources presents a high degree of imbalance. In the case of copper, Chile has 1/4 of the world's reserves, as well as the United States, accounting for 14.2%. Bauxite is concentrated in West Africa, north-east and Oceania in South America, where Guinea and Australia are divided by more than 20% and Brazil 11.4%.　　The concentration of some resources is unimaginable, with more than 50% of tin deposits in south-East Asia, 82% of uranium in Australia, Kazakhstan and Canada, and 80% per cent of lithium resources in the narrow strip of Bolivia and Chile. The abundance of minerals in Australia and South Africa is staggering. Two mining powers share 30% of the world's gold, 47% of ilmenite, 63% of rutile and 71% of zircon. Even more outrageous, South Africa's manganese deposits account for around 80% of the world, and platinum-group metals (mainly platinum, palladium and rhodium) are close to 90%, near a country's monopoly.　　Australia, in addition to the rich resources, zinc, lead and silver resources are ranked first in the world, "sitting on the mine car," the country is worthy of the word. The prevalence of a new round of "resource nationalism" makes the uneven distribution of minerals worse. In early May, the Australian government announced a tax reform program to levy up to 40% per cent of the "resource excess" of non-renewable resourcesTax. " The plan sparked a backlash, leading to the downfall of the Rudd government. Ms Gillard, then a cabinet leader, announced a 10% per cent cut in the original tax rate and limited its tax changes to iron ore and coal. At present, the specific tax scheme has not been settled. But the government is not expected to make more concessions to the miners ' protests because the greens are holding the key party.　　In addition, Canberra has vowed to review the "Foreign Investment Act of 1975" to accommodate "changing circumstances" in order to prevent foreign investment from harming the country's interests. As in Australia, an example of a high mining tax and an investment review to stop the overexploitation of domestic resources is not uncommon in mineral countries, where the US routinely uses qualification checks to shut out Chinese investment.　　However, both taxation and censorship have to be conducted in accordance with established legal procedures, so these resource-protectionist practices are relatively not too much. Some practices are clearly discriminatory. In April this year, India, the third-largest exporter of iron ore, announced an increase in its export tariffs from 10% to 15%. To fully meet domestic economic growth, India's steel minister Attur Chatuvidi even proposed a total ban on the country's iron ore outflow. His proposal was strongly supported by Yedeyupala, Chief Minister of the southern Mining province of Karnataka. Since the end of July, all 10 ports in the state have been sealed, resulting in a sharp decline in India's iron ore exports by 47% in September.　　The situation could be broken in the past when New Delhi transported most of its iron ore to China and imported finished steel from China. Restricting or banning ore exports to extend the country's industrial chain is now commonplace.　　Cambodia, Brazil, Zimbabwe, Zambia and other countries are taking measures to encourage or demand deep processing in their home countries, unwilling to allow the loss of rich value-added abroad. Some countries simply set limits on foreign capital or stressed that resources have to be controlled by their own enterprises. Congo's Ministry of Mines, for example, plans to have a minimum 35% per cent stake in future mining ventures. After the ANC came to power, a new law called for "the disadvantaged South Africans for historical reasons" to acquire 26% of mining assets 2014 years ago. Mongolia has repeatedly revised its mining laws in recent years, and Ulan Bator is willing to transfer some stakes and then hopes to co-operate only with the right.　　The resource-rich Russia has long placed its mineral resources at strategic level and strictly restricts the entry of foreign capital. In Latin America and Africa, the Venezuelan-style "nationalisation" trend is spreading in order to control resources. In May, Bolivia's local government nationalized a Swiss company-controlled antimony ore smelter and 4 power companies. In South Africa, a mining powerhouse, there is still a continuing debate over whether to nationalize it, but Anglo-American resources and the world's third-largest platinum producer, Lonmin PLC, claim they have been stripped of mining rights in several mines.　　The South African government announced in August that it would suspend all new exploration activities in the next 6 months. Mining giants are actively trying to bully not only the mineral resources owned countries are seeking to control resources, some mining companies are also very belimoSeek monopoly rights. To some extent, there is a kind of tripartite saw-and-fight scuffle between mineral surplus countries, scarce countries and multinational corporations.　　This, in turn, exacerbates the tension and unease in the process of resource competition. According to statistics, the top 10 mining companies have control of Western countries 80% of tin, 75% of copper, 58% of gold and 57% of zinc production.　　The top 50 multinational mining companies accounted for 59% of global mining output. This is not sensational. In the iron ore field, the Vale of Brazil, the "leader", has a monopoly of 30% of global production, Rio Tinto is second to 25% and BHP Billiton is 15%. The three big Giants joined hands, prompting prices to multiply, making iron ore import big frustrated. Rio Tinto, who was in debt crisis in June 2009, joined BHP Billiton in the West Australian iron ore business after abandoning Chinalco's 19.5 billion dollar injection. The two giants emphasise that by sharing infrastructure such as ports and railways, they can save 10 billion of billions of dollars in investment for shareholders, but the risk of monopolization is frightening to consumers. The major iron and steel enterprises actively lobbied, the European Union and China, Germany, Japan, Korea and other countries of the antitrust review agencies have put pressure.　　October 18, in the face of Slim hope, the "two Billiton" eventually had to give up the 116 billion-dollar joint venture plan. It is worth mentioning that 3 years ago, BHP Billiton tried to annex Rio Tinto at a price of $173.6 billion. It failed again, but the mining "Big Mac", which has a market capitalisation of more than 200 billion dollars, is unwilling to give up lightly.　　In fact, while in Western Australia, BHP Billiton is seeking hegemony in the potash market. August 11, BHP Billiton, the world's largest potash producer, the 11th-largest mining company in 2009, the Canadian Potash Corporation, was launched at $130 per share. By refusing to "seriously underestimate" the other side, BHP Billiton directly killed its shareholders, throwing 38.6 billion of dollars in high-priced bait, imposing. Prior to that, BHP Billiton had been adding more mines and had taken over the country's second-largest potash company in January of this year. If the deal succeeds, BHP Billiton will easily redraw the potash map, changing the former by the United States and Canada Canpotex (the Potash export Union of 3 companies, including Potash Corp), the Russian-white IPC and the Israeli chemical company monopoly, to the absolute advantage of the world's first. In an attempt to thwart the country's ambitions, which prompted worries among potash's biggest consumer China, the group first tried to uralkali the Russian fertiliser group and then contacted Temasek, the Singapore investment Agency, hoping to join the bid.　　However, in the Potash War, the group is only a small role, mining giants are actively positioned to seek a favorable position. In the mining sector, ambitious BHP Billiton built a vast and diverse empire. In addition to iron ore and potash, BHP Billiton is also the world's largest manganese ore holding company and Power coal producer, the second largest chromium-iron alloy, the third largest copper producer, the main raw aluminum, alumina and zinc, uranium producers。　　Its nickel production accounts for about 17.4% of the global supply, after Russia's Norilsk nickel industry company. Rio Tinto, the world's largest copper miner, is also looking to expand its territory, targeting a 66%-year-Oyu, Mongolian-built copper-mining company, which was the target of a Canadian Ivanhoe miner last October. Rio wants to swap its Ivanhoe stake in exchange for a direct interest in Oyu, and Ivanhoe naturally does not, and in July this year liberalized its external investment cap to dilute Rio's holdings.　　Rio Tinto then introduced Chinalco, 601600, to persuade the other through China's huge market. Rio Tinto seems to have seen the joy enemy of Chinalco. It also decided in March to allow Chinalco to share a 95% per cent stake in the Guinea-Simao du-Pont project by 53:47 per cent, in order to lend its diplomatic influence to Guinea. Simao is a huge mine, Rio Tinto in 2003 to obtain the project, but the 2008 Guinean military coup, the mine in the north of the 1th and 2nd blocks of the development of the temporary government to the British BSG, this May, BSG again by Vale Holdings.　　Rio Tinto has been denied the loss of two rights, which has become a hot potato, into a multi-party melee. China produced nearly half the world's steel in 2009, when steel production in most developed countries shrank sharply. At the same time, the external dependence of iron ore climbed to 69%; copper was higher, reaching 75%; Manganese ore accounted for almost 65% of the total consumption of Si-MN and Ferromanganese in the world. Huge resource consumption, forcing China's mining enterprises in the past two years around the attack, but also rapid growth. According to statistics, China has completed 369 mergers and acquisitions in the mining and metals industry in the past 10 years, amounting to more than 50 billion U.S. dollars. But in the last year alone, China's deals amounted to $16.1 billion trillion, accounting for 27% of the world's total.　　In the first half of this year, the number of transactions increased by more than 50% over a year earlier. In addition to Chinalco, medium-color, metallurgy, Minmetals, Sinosteel and other countries large central enterprises frequently shot outside, more and more companies, including private enterprises also began to test water overseas, mergers and acquisitions from the main battleground Australia and Canada quickly spread to Latin America, China and Africa.　　In 6 July this year, China Railway Materials Corporation and Shandong Iron and steel group successively invested in the London-listed African mining company, which became the second largest shareholder of the company, which won the interest of 25% of the Tonkoilili project of the African mining industry. The politicization of resource competition in the situation of highly monopolized resources, countries will not be sustainable development of their own economy or even national security simply pinned on the so-called market omnipotent distribution.　　Diplomacy has been given more and more economic color, and resources are no longer simple, become an important carrier of political transactions. In late October, India's prime minister, Manmohan Singh, visited Japan and offered to expect Japanese companies to participate in the process of refining and processing of rare earths. As the world's fifth-largest producer of rare Earths, New Delhi's offer is no doubt a delight for Japan, which is mired in a rare-Earths supply crisis. But Mr Singh has no intention of letting Japanese companies enter their mines directly., but just want to use its advanced technology "to improve price competitiveness."　　In addition, New Delhi has a deeper intention of seeking to advance cooperation in the field of civilian nuclear energy between the two countries without the "illegal" nuclear status and its unwillingness to accede immediately to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. Naoto Kan's government will not bet on New Delhi. In fact, after the tense relations between China and Japan, Naoto Kan, at the end of September, to the Mongolian Prime Minister, Bart Batbold, who was outside the city, "for help".　　A few days later, using Japan's successful Mongolian sumo wrestlers to invite Bart Batbold to Japan, the two countries finalized rare Earth resources such as development agreement. A large number of rare earth resources have not been developed in Vietnam is also Tokyo's "Help" target. At the end of October, when the ASEAN enlargement Summit was held in Hanoi, Naoto Kan took the relevant agreements developed jointly by the two sides. In addition, in order to ensure the supply of rare earths, the Ministry of Economy and Industry is also prepared to assist more Japanese enterprises to Kazakhstan, Brazil and Australia for exploration and development, while the foreign minister has set up a dedicated department to strengthen the collection capacity of overseas mine development information.　　Of course, Tokyo does not want to lose the Chinese rare earths, while exerting pressure, has been actively seeking to communicate with the Chinese side. The role of diplomacy has been fully demonstrated in South Korea's struggle for the right to develop the Bolivian Uyuni salt marsh. Uyuni Storage has 1/3 of the world's lithium resources, in South Korea 2006 until the development of glass resources, lithium-power Japan, China and France have long been there to seek the bureau. As a successor, South Korea, although it has advanced technology of non-evaporative lithium extraction, has not been concerned. To seek a breakthrough, South Korean Senator Li Xiang to be the president's special Envoy, many times to Bolivia lobbying, the tireless marketing of its technology, finally let the other party convinced.　　In August of this year, the "high-level route" was completed and 45 years after the two countries established diplomatic ties, Mr Morales headed to Seoul as the first Bolivian leader to visit. Of course, technology and patience alone will not attract Morales, who does not catch on to foreign investors.　　During the talks, Seoul also decided to provide Bolivia with 250 million U.S. dollars in economic development Cooperation Fund loans within 4 years, and will be included in the "Shared development experience" List of major cooperating countries from next year. China's approach has been almost a fad for poor mining countries to provide the funds and technical support to help them build infrastructure such as roads, bridges and ports. Countries have followed suit, and even mining giants have packaged such commitments when competing for projects. By contrast, American exploration of mineral resources across Afghanistan is less charitable, in the guise of anti-terrorism, and by the Soviets ' reports of Afghan minerals. Despite the current level of technology in Afghanistan, it is impossible to extract at least 908.9 billion dollars worth of metal deposits in the country, but not the United States can tun. These resources should seek the most suitable mining enterprises through international tendering.　　Fierce competition, mining countries can be more conditions, in the acquisition of rich resources, but also without a brain to complete the modernization of the country. Study on China's resources diplomacyMore than that.　　In order to obtain a rich and large number of African resources, New Delhi began to engage in India-Africa summit, the European Union will be similar to the Chinese-style forum for the 3-year, Japan and India also announced that its loans to the non-preferential loan expanded by one times. Yet the outlook for Africa remains murky. Zimbabwe's chromite, platinum Group, Gold, Congo (gold) copper, cobalt, gold, diamonds, Zambia's copper, cobalt, Guinea's aluminum, Gabon's manganese ... Will the fierce competition for such high-yield resources be a hope for these countries to emerge from poverty and backwardness and unrest?　　Not！ In his book "Resource Wars: A new landscape of global conflict", American security expert Michael Clare predicts that lack of resources will be the main source of conflict in the future, and that the result of large-scale competition among countries for strategic materials such as oil and ore is bound to be a widespread regional instability, In particular, where there are abundant resources and long-standing sovereignty disputes, such as the Persian Gulf, Central Asia and some parts of Africa. The view is somewhat pessimistic, but not unreasonable.