China’s rare earth monopoly: a study of the U.S. discourse

• Název v anglickém jazyce: China’s rare earth monopoly: a study of the U.S. discourse
• Klíčová slova: Rare Earth Elements, discourse, China threat, US dependency, national security
• Klíčová slova anglicky: Rare Earth Elements, discourse, China threat, US dependency, national security
• Akademický rok vypsání: 2014/2015
• Typ práce: diplomová práce
• Jazyk práce: angličtina
• Ústav: Katedra politologie (23-KP)
• Vedoucí / školitel: doc. Martin Riegl, Ph.D.
• Řešitel: skrytý - zadáno vedoucím/školitelem
• Datum přihlášení: 15.06.2015
• Datum zadání: 15.06.2015
• Datum a čas obhajoby: 24.06.2016 00:00
• Místo konání obhajoby: IPS FSV UK, U kříže 8/661 158 00 Praha 5 – Jinonice
• Datum odevzdání elektronické podoby: 17.05.2016
• Datum proběhlé obhajoby: 24.06.2016
• Oponenti: PhDr. Michael Romancov, Ph.D.

Zásady pro vypracování

Rare earth elements (REE) have ascended to the international political foray in such short time that is incomparable to other issues. (Ting & Seaman, 2013) Its connection to an incident in the South China Sea in 2010 which resulted in an alleged embargo by China against Japan as a geopolitical leverage revealed the saliency or sensitivity of resources in international relations. Moreover, this has become a component in justifying conventional wisdom that China is a revisionist power in international politics. The ‘reactive assertiveness’ in China’s approach in consolidating its territorial integrity with the recent land-reclamation in the disputed territories in the South China Sea is a representation of the many attributes which justify the conviction that this emerging Asiatic giant will not be peaceful. The foreign policies of Beijing are examined through the paradigm of positivism by scholars.
The most cited theoretical toolkit used to analyze the insurmountable intentions of China is the power transition theory. It posits that the rise of a power necessitate the decline of the existing hegemonic state. The rising state, thus, poses a threat to an existing established order. This status quo, as it is being challenged, is often being reasserted in order to maintain the hegemonic peace. In today’s terms, this means that China’s is causally linked to the decline of the United States as a superpower. The strategy of integrating China to IO (international organisations) such as WTO proved to be a failure of the Liberal Theory of History because of the unforeseeable political reform or democratization resulting from economic liberalization. (Nymalm, 2013) Furthermore, the connections made between today’s China that is dissatisfied with the current status quo is perceived to be reshuffling the order by pragmatic assertive policies and the German Empire in late 19th century is almost serving as a basis for requiring a resolute response from the U.S. in order to maintain the status quo. This dichotomy which exists in the differences of China to the U.S. needs to be questioned for its precariousness for it could lead to deterioration of relationships between the two countries. Through the study of this particular case that involves buzzwords such as ‘resource competition’ or ‘resource race’, the knowledge/power nexus can be examined in a micro-level that is being propagated by discursive models employed in the production of ‘timeless’ knowledge.
Post-positivist approach
Reflectivist approaches argue for the rejection of the analogy between social sciences and natural sciences. The reason is that social sciences involve interpretation whilst natural sciences do not in the production of knowledge. Thus, interpretative theories oppose the claim of objectivity in the scientific approach. ‘Facts’ are subjected to interpretation and description in the social world. As a general challenger to cognitivism of observable and objective reality, they contend that positivist’s epistemological base of dualisms in subject and objective knowledge is constituted by the social. (Ryan, 2006) (Laclau & Mouffe, 1987) Reality is not one but a multiple ‘reality’ with multiple truths. Thus, emphasis is put on experience and interpretive methods which pulls back the relevance of a realist ontological approach to construe legitimate knowledge. Furthermore, David Campbell posits that the world exists independently of language, but we can never know that (beyond the fact of its assertion), because the existence of the world is literally inconceivable outside of language and our traditions of interpretation. (Campbell, 1998). By the same token, an object is ‘something’ (obtains meaning) only to the extent that it establishes a system of relations with other objects, and these relations are not given by the mere referential materiality of the objects, but instead, they are socially constructed. (Laclau & Mouffe, 1987) However, this does not mean that an object does not exist if it does not integrate within this system of relations. Rather, any object can exist independently from any system of social relations. But they can become objects or obtain new meaning if assigned to a new system of relations. Diamonds, for example, become the commodity with added material value when it is assigned to the determinate system of social relations. They become valuable when presented in jewelry stores whereas the same object can have different values at another location or system of meaning, for example, in the mines. (Laclau & Mouffe, 1987) An example in International Relations (IR) theory, Alexander Wendt’s famous contention of how anarchy is socially constructed in an established relationship between states. ‘Anarchy is what states make of it.’ (Wendt, 1992)
Discourse
Discourse as a system of relations constructs the meaning of an object. This totality of linguistic and extra-linguistic elements constitute the structures of signification and relations that construct social realities. (Milliken, 1999) However, there are more than one definition and utilization of this term albeit they operate on the same paradigm found in the post-positivist realm of theorizing reality and production of knowledge. John Paul Gee provides a definition that encompasses many aspects discourse could be explained and understood before allowing researchers to create a framework of analysis in their critical studies.
“[Discourses],crucially involve (a) situated identities; (b) ways of performing and recognizing characteristic identities and activities; (c) ways of coordinating and getting coordinated by other people, things, tools, technologies, symbol systems, places, and times; (d) characteristics ways of acting-interacting-feeling-emoting-valuing-gesturing-posturing-dressing-thinking-believing-knowing-speaking-listening (and, in some Discourses, reading-and-writing, as well)” (Gee, 2005, p. 33)
As mentioned previously, meaning is compounded out of cases of a word’s use that entails the importance of pragmatics (total operation). However, the meaning is also only ascribed by the contexts of actual use of the term and as Gee puts it that all meaning is local ‘on site’ and are influenced by the social and discursive practices – every identity or discursive object is constituted in the context of an action. (Milliken, 1990) Since contexts are not given naturally, they are constituted by what Gee calls Discourse models in which the institutionalised, largely unconscious theories that humans hold to aiding our perception of the world. They are simplified, ‘assumptions’ and ‘experiences’ that governs our behaviour and social interactions. The existence of discourses means the existence of other discourses too. Because it requires the establishment of a relationship between contrasting elements in order to realise the existence of an object. Therefore, a discursive totaliy is never closed nor complete. (Laclau & Mouffe, 1987) (Ashley, 1989) Since there is never a closed totality, there are bound to be subjected to subversion by contingency and counter-discourses. These discourses are reproduced constantly as ‘repetition of acts’ that reinforces the production of knowledge and truth. So, it neccestates the continual reproduction in face of difference. (Ashley, 1989) Other popular research interests within discursive studies include hegemony and identity. Both are relevant in the study of politics and scholars tend to have a focus of either one. Laclau and Mouffe focuses on how a discourse achieves hegemony in their seminal work Hegemony and Socialist Strategy detailing the discursive struggles that gave a foundation for radical democratic movements. David Campbell’s Writing Security instead focused on the construction of political identity with a geneaology of the American identity based on a dichotomy of difference which explained the contemporary social consciousness during the Thirteen Colonies and later the Post-War conditions in which America happens to find itself without an ideological archenemy and the subsequent redefintion of its role in world politics further justifying its interventionist policies.
The arguments found in the formers work is on hegemonic and discursive struggles which will be a crucial aspect for examination because revealling the contesting discourses can help explain the origins of a hegemonic truth because it had been normalised. In the latter’s work, the focus on identity can help explain justifications in foreign policies because of the articulation of difference in constructing an identity. In David Campbell’s words, “identity is not fixed by nature, given by God, or planned by intentional behavior. Rather, identity is constituted in relation to difference. Moreover, the constitution of identity is achieved through the inscription of boundaries that serve to demarcate an ‘inside’ from an ‘outside’, a ‘self’ from and ‘other’, a ‘domestic’ from a ‘foreign’.” (Campbell, 1998, p. 9)
Aims
REEs have become a strategic resource in the U.S. and other nations that are importing them for a wide array of applications. There are 17 of these metals found in the periodic table and some are in higher demands than others. Nonetheless, these resources are not rare at all despite the word ‘rare’ that is attached to them. REEs are abundant on the earth’s surface and can be extracted around the world. The assigned ‘rarity’ or the attribution of ‘rareness’ to the elements arose from the fact that they are difficult to produce. The process of mining to a finished product is long and costly. Processing a specific element as a metal or oxide can damage the environment with radioactive wastes and corrosive chemicals that leaves mining or processing areas in dire conditions and infertile soils. This leaves the land unsafe for growing food or simply for people to inhabit in, rendering the site a barren waste land. The production of REEs to products is essential to modern conditions. Civilian uses include the use of powerful REEs magnets or other related products used for a wide range of advanced technologies, they include smart phones, televisions, hard-drives for computers, wind turbines and car engines. The more controversial side of this element is the role it plays in also the production of military technologies that uses the powerful magnets that has REEs inside. The securitsation of REEs or its ascension to become a strategic material for national security arguably has origins from this specific aspect, albeit it will be later proven that civilian uses dominate the percentage of consumption whereas defense consumptions of REEs is merely a fraction of the total percentage. The alleged embargo by China on REE export drew worldwide coverage and later academic studies over this ‘resource competition’. The entire process began with a frantic media sensation depicting China as ‘having stranglehold over Western countries’ which is then followed by the augmenting the issue as a national security concern with an extended study by the US DOD (United States Department of Defense). This is then responded by U.S. congressional pressures on various departments urging the need to secure these materials for national security. However, this sensation soon dissipated without any further impact on the consciousness of the public. Stories of REEs became rare and depictions in the similar fashion of the ‘tragedy of the commons’ followed suit.
The story of the REEs case serves as an example of how a small narrative can be an attribute, as part of its construction, to the reproduction of the American identity as well as a hegemonic discourse on China posing negative ‘difference’ in the discursive sense. This reproduction serves as a process of representation of the dichotomy of self and other, a political identity that justifies the existing power structures. Throughout my studies, I shall formulate a succinct research programme that fits for the purpose of my research goals. Using a compound discourse analysis method from a range of scholarly work, my aim is to combine the best and most useful methodological toolkits utilized by various authors and then apply them to my research.
The research questions and aim that I seek to answer are the following:
1. How did the discursive construction of China’s monopoly and subsequent ‘national security threat’ come about since the fishing trawler incident?
2. The discursive construction could be traced through the lens of identity, specifically the reintroduction of U.S.’s identity in light of the pivot to Asia in 2011. To what extent did this influence the justification of labelling China as the ‘boogeyman’?
3. Has the specific ‘threat’ posed by China’s monopoly been dissipated since the announcement by Molycorps and other Western mining companies of progress in the mining efforts to alleviate US dependence over Chinese exports?
4. If not, how powerful is this discourse in continuation of U.S. efforts to commit itself to break free from dependence?
Hypothesis
a) The REEs case is another ‘hyped up’ one created by the US given the existing Western discourses on China that it is a threat. The US response is a resolute move to bolster its claim to be an important and ‘indispensable nation’ in the Asia-Pacific region, hence the pivot to Asia in 2011.
b) This case serves to justify the post-war identity reshape that the U.S. seeks since the 90s and now it has entered a new phase with the pivot to Asia after a disastrous practice of foreign policy in the Middle East. It is another identity building task in relations with existing conflictual discursive elements over which how the U.S. foreign policy direction should be heading.
c) By legitimizing further presence in Asia, the U.S. is justifying its expansion of democracy, neo-liberalism and cooperation with developing countries as well as existing partners in the region so that it remains relevant in the years to come.
d) In order to this, there needs to be a strong articulation of the differences that poses as a challenge to the U.S.’s role. China is assigned with the identity as the boogeyman or ‘bully’ in the region because it is perceived to be a growing power seen in its geopolitical moves and it is ‘flexing its muscles’ against smaller nations around it in order to establish its own primacy. The U.S. self-assigns the role of peacekeeping and the subsequent lawsuit at WTO demonstrates it role to be a guarantor of ‘international justice’.

Seznam odborné literatury

Anderson, E. W., & Anderson, L. D. (1998). Strategic Minerals. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Ashley, R. (1989). Living on Border Lines: Man, Poststructuralism and War. In J. Der Derian, & M. Shapiro, International/Intertextual Relations (pp. 259-323). Lexington: Lexington Books.
Brodsgaard, K. E., & Heurlin, B. (2002). China's Place in Global Geopolitics. London: RoutledgeCurzon.
Butler, C. J. (2014). Rare Earth Elements: China’s Monopoly and Implications for U.S. National Security. The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, 23-39.
Cáceres, S. B., & Ear, S. (2012). The Geopolitics of China's Global Resources Quest. Geopolitics, 47-79.
Campbell, D. (1998). Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity. Minnesota: The University of Minnesota Press.
Chernoff, F. (2007). Theory and Metatheory in International Relations: Concepts and Contending Accounts. Palgrave Macmillan.
Clapper, J. R. (2014). Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community. Washington D.C.: Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
Clinton, H. (2011). America's Pacific Century. Foreign Policy Magazine.
Coppel, E. (2011). Rare Earth Metals and U.S. National Security. Washington D.C.: American Security Project.
Council, I. O. (2012). Situation and Policies of China’s Rare Earth Industry. Beijing: Foreign Languages Press Co. Ltd.
Defense, D. o. (2012). Sustaining U.S. Global leadership: Priorities for 21st century defense . Washington D.C.: Department of Defense.
Gee, J. P. (2005). Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method. London: Routledge.
Gholz, E. (2014). Rare Earth Elements and National Security. New York: Council on Foreign Relations.
Glaser, W. R. (2012). U.S. Rare Earths Policy: Digging Out of the Rare Earths Quandary. /luce.nt/.
Grasso, V. B. (2013). Rare Earth Elements in National Defense: Background, Oversight Issues, and Options for Congress. Washington D.C.: Congressional Research Service.
Hayes-Labruto, L., Schillebeeckx, S. J., Workman, M., & Shah, N. (2013). Contrasting perspectives on China'srare earths policies:Reframing the debate through a stakeholder lens. Energy Policy, 55–68.
Humphries, M. (2013). Rare Earth Elements: The Global Supply Chain. Washington D.C.: Congressional Research Service.
Hurst, C. (2010). China’s Rare Earth Elements Industry: What Can the West Learn? Washington D.C.: Institute for the Analysis of Global Security (IAGS).
Inspector General US DoD. (2014). Procedures to Ensure Sufficient Rare Earth Elements for the Defense Industrial Base Need Improvement. Washington D.C.: DoD.
Jacques, M. (2009). When China Rules the World: The End of the Western World and the Birth of a New Global Order: Second Edition. Penguin.
Kaplan, R. D. (2015). Asia's Cauldron: The South China Sea and the End of a Stable Pacific. New York: Random House Trade Paperbacks.
King, A., & Armstrong, S. (2013, 08 18). Did China really ban rare earth metals exports to Japan? Retrieved from East Asia Forum: http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2013/08/18/did-china-really-ban-rare-earth-metals-exports-to-japan/
Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (1987). Post-Marxism without Apologies. New Left Review, 79-106.
Larner, W., & Walters, W. (2004). Global Governmentality: Governing international spaces. London: Routledge.
Le Billon, P. (2004). The Geopolitical economy of ‘resource wars’. Geopolitics, 1-28.
Le Billon, P. (2013). Wars of Plunder: Conflicts, Profits and the Politics of Resources. Columbia University Press .
Ly, J. K. (2012). Rare Earth Elements in United States Defense, China’s Impact on American National Security, and Risk Mitigation Options for Congress. Denver: University of Denver.
Mancheri, N., Sundaresan, L., & Chandrashekar, S. (2013). Dominating the World: China and the Rare Earth Industry. Bangalore: National Institute of Advanced Studies.
Mearsheimer, J. J. (2006 , April). China's Unpeaceful Rise. Current History, pp. 160-162.
Milliken, J. (1999). The Study of Discourse in International Relations: A Critique of Research and Methods. European Journal of International Relations, 225-254.
Morrison, W. M., & Tang, R. (2012). China’s Rare Earth Industry and Export Regime: Economic and Trade Implications for the United States. Washington D.C.: Congressional Research Service.
Müller, M. (2010). Doing discourse analysis in Critical geopolitics. L'Espace Politique.
Nymalm, N. (2013). The End of the 'Liberal Theory of History'? Dissecting the US Congress' Discourse on China's Currency Policy. International Political Sociology, 388–405.
Ó. Tuathail, G. (1996). Critical Geopolitics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press .
Paladni, S., & George, S. (2011). Chinese corporations and the scramble for resources. A study in the oil business. L'Espace Politique, 1 - 19.
Ryan, A. B. (2006). Post-Positivist Approaches to Research. In Researching and Writing your thesis: a guide for postgraduate students (pp. 12-26). Maynooth Adult and Community Education.
Ting, M. H., & Seaman, J. (2013). Rare earths: Future Elements of Conflict in Asia? Asian Studies Review, 234-252.
Tse, P.-K. (2011). China’s Rare-Earth Industry. Virginia: U.S. Department of the Interior & U.S. Geological Survey .
U.S. Department of Energy. (2011). Critical Materials Strategy Report December 2011. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy.
US Department of Energy. (2010). Critical Materials Strategy Report of 2010. Washington D.C.: US Department of Energy.
Wendt, A. (1992). Anarchy is what States Make of it: The Social Construction of Power Politics . International Organization, 391-425.

Předběžná náplň práce

1. Title Page
2. Copyright page
3. Abstract
4. Dedication, Acknowledgements, Preface
5. Table of contents
6. Introduction (Case of the REE presented – the ‘traditional’ narrative)
7. Methodology (Discourse analysis)
a. and paying homage to literatures – Gee, Laclau & Mouffe, Campbell, Ó Tuathail)
b. Data collection and justification
8. Discourse analysis & discussion– genealogy of a China monopoly on REE – construction/justification and the argumentation (the hype/media frenzy)
a. Identity of US in relation to China (Why? What purpose? Aims?)
b. Process of articulation and hegemonic achievement
c. Post-hype and residue ‘strength’ of discourse (60 Minutes segment as epilogue)
9. Conclusion
10. References
11. Appendices

Předběžná náplň práce v anglickém jazyce

1. Title Page
2. Copyright page
3. Abstract
4. Dedication, Acknowledgements, Preface
5. Table of contents
6. Introduction (Case of the REE presented – the ‘traditional’ narrative)
7. Methodology (Discourse analysis)
a. and paying homage to literatures – Gee, Laclau & Mouffe, Campbell, Ó Tuathail)
b. Data collection and justification
8. Discourse analysis & discussion– genealogy of a China monopoly on REE – construction/justification and the argumentation (the hype/media frenzy)
a. Identity of US in relation to China (Why? What purpose? Aims?)
b. Process of articulation and hegemonic achievement
c. Post-hype and residue ‘strength’ of discourse (60 Minutes segment as epilogue)
9. Conclusion
10. References
11. Appendices