The L.A.C. Economy and its Geopolitical Implications

Introduction: The End of an Era and the Dawn of the L.A.C. Economy

The global economic and political order of the late 20th century was constructed upon a singular, powerful logic: the arbitrage of cheap international labor. This paradigm fueled four decades of hyper-globalization, creating intricate, continent-spanning supply chains designed to optimize production costs by manufacturing goods wherever labor was most abundant and inexpensive. That era is now decisively over. A confluence of systemic shocks—from the supply chain paralysis induced by the COVID-19 pandemic to the sharp escalation of geopolitical rivalries—has shattered the foundational assumption of a stable, frictionless global marketplace. The logic of cost-efficiency is being rapidly superseded by the imperative of supply chain resilience. Consider the concept of geopolitical economy.

This is not merely a political or cyclical adjustment; it represents a structural and permanent transformation of the global economy. We are witnessing the dawn of a new paradigm of production, one defined not by labor, but by a new triad of economic power: Land, Automation, and Capital (L.A.C.). In this emergent order, the traditional sources of national power and competitive advantage are being rendered obsolete. A large, low-cost workforce, once the bedrock of industrial might for developing nations, is becoming a diminishing asset. Instead, national power is being fundamentally redefined by sovereign control over two new pillars of production. The first is the physical pillar: privileged access to the raw materials of the 21st-century industrial base, or Land, specifically the critical minerals and rare earth elements that form the building blocks of all modern technology. The second is the digital pillar: mastery over the means of production itself, which encompasses advanced Automation technologies like robotics and artificial intelligence (AI), and the immense Capital required to develop and deploy these systems at scale.

This tectonic shift from a labor-based to a L.A.C.-based economy is not an evolution; it is a geopolitical revolution. It is actively dismantling the logic of the old globalized system, making extended supply chains a strategic liability rather than an economic advantage. In its place, a new world order is being forged. This new order is characterized by the fragmentation of the global commons into competing techno-industrial blocs, the re-localization of manufacturing within these secure zones, and a new, more intense great-power competition. The geopolitical chessboard is being redrawn, and the contest is no longer for territory or ideology in the traditional sense, but for direct control over the foundational assets of the L.A.C. economy: the mines, the refineries, the chip fabs, and the AI labs. This report will analyze the forces driving this transformation, map the contours of the new competitive landscape, and outline the strategic consequences for the decades to come.

Part I: The Great Unwinding – Automation and the Collapse of Globalized Labor

The intricate web of global supply chains that defined the late 20th century is unraveling at an accelerating pace. This process, often termed deglobalization, is not a temporary political phenomenon but a deep, structural economic realignment. It is driven by the dual forces of escalating geopolitical risk, which has made hyper-extended supply chains untenable, and the maturation of advanced automation technologies, which has made localized production economically viable for the first time in generations. Together, these forces are systematically dismantling the labor-arbitrage model of globalization and replacing it with a new logic of production centered on resilience, proximity, and technology.

Section 1.1: The Reshoring Revolution: A Structural Break from the Past

For decades, the prevailing corporate strategy was to offshore manufacturing to leverage lower labor costs, a model predicated on a stable geopolitical environment and reliable global logistics. This model has now fractured under the weight of its own success and the changing nature of global risk.

The first major shock came from the COVID-19 pandemic, which exposed the profound fragility of hyper-extended supply chains.¹ Sudden lockdowns, port closures, and shipping disruptions created cascading failures that halted production lines across the globe, demonstrating that the cost-savings of offshoring had come at the price of extreme vulnerability. This was compounded by a rapid escalation in geopolitical tensions and trade policy uncertainty (TPU), including tariff wars and the weaponization of trade dependencies.² Businesses began to view distant production centers not as cost-saving assets but as critical points of failure and strategic liabilities. The calculus has shifted decisively from a singular focus on cost optimization to a more balanced strategy prioritizing risk mitigation and supply chain resilience.³

This strategic reconsideration is now visible in hard economic data, marking a clear break from the past. In the United States, 2022 witnessed an unprecedented surge in manufacturing job announcements driven by reshoring and foreign direct investment (FDI), totaling over 360,000 jobs—a 53% increase from the previous record set in 2021.⁴ This trend has been sustained for over a decade, but its recent acceleration points to a structural shift. Significantly, this new wave of investment is not randomly distributed; it is heavily concentrated in the foundational industries of the emerging L.A.C. economy. Investments in electric vehicle (EV) batteries and semiconductors, spurred by strategic industrial policies like the U.S. CHIPS and Science Act and the Inflation Reduction Act, accounted for a remarkable 53% of all announced jobs in 2022.⁴ This demonstrates a conscious, state-supported effort to rebuild domestic capacity in the most critical sectors of the 21st-century economy. The trend of U.S.-headquartered companies bringing production home (“reshoring”) has now outpaced FDI for three consecutive years, indicating that domestic firms are increasingly internalizing the new logic of localized production.⁴

The realignment of global manufacturing is not simply a binary choice between domestic and foreign production. It is a more nuanced reorganization of supply chains into regional, geopolitically aligned blocs. This has given rise to the strategies of “nearshoring” and “friend-shoring.” Nearshoring involves relocating production to geographically proximate countries, such as Mexico or Canada for the U.S. market, to shorten lead times, reduce logistical complexity, and operate within similar time zones.² Friend-shoring extends this logic to a broader set of politically aligned nations, creating secure supply networks among allies to mitigate geopolitical risk. These strategies represent a fundamental departure from the old model of seeking the lowest labor cost anywhere in the world. Instead, they prioritize stability, control, and predictability. The critical enabler for this entire strategic realignment is automation, which makes it economically feasible to manufacture in higher-wage allied nations by neutralizing the labor cost differential that drove the initial wave of offshoring.²

The economic logic that sustained the offshoring paradigm for nearly half a century has been fundamentally inverted. That model was predicated on a world where labor was the primary variable cost and geopolitical risk was low. In that environment, moving production to access cheap labor was the rational competitive strategy. Today, the equation has changed entirely. Geopolitical risk is now a high and quantifiable cost, as evidenced by the impact of trade policy uncertainty on corporate decision-making.³ Simultaneously, advanced automation has dramatically reduced the labor component of production costs, in some cases by up to two-thirds for specific tasks.⁷ The primary drivers of manufacturing cost are no longer labor, but capital investment in automated systems, access to critical raw materials, and proximity to end markets to ensure speed and resilience. This inversion means that localized, highly automated production is no longer just a defensive measure against supply chain shocks; it is becoming the new standard for competitive manufacturing. The old model is not merely becoming less attractive—it is becoming structurally obsolete.

Section 1.2: Automation and the Structural Displacement of Labor

The strategic imperative to reshore manufacturing would be an economic impossibility for high-wage nations without a technological solution to the labor cost problem. Advanced automation is that solution. However, while it serves as the critical engine making the deglobalization of manufacturing possible, its core economic function is to systematically substitute capital for labor, accelerating the transition to a post-labor economy.

Economists Daron Acemoglu and Pascual Restrepo provide a task-based framework for understanding this shift, identifying two opposing forces: a displacement effect and a reinstatement effect.⁸ The displacement effect occurs when technology allows machines to perform tasks previously done by humans, reducing labor’s role. The reinstatement effect is the historical counterweight, where new technologies create entirely new tasks in which humans have a comparative advantage.¹⁰ For most of modern history, these forces remained in a rough balance.

However, empirical evidence shows that since the 1980s, this balance has been broken. The displacement effect, particularly in manufacturing and routine clerical work, has accelerated while the reinstatement of labor through the creation of new tasks has significantly weakened.⁸ This growing imbalance is the primary engine behind the “Great Decoupling”—the stark and persistent divergence between productivity growth and the compensation of a typical worker that began in the late 20th century.¹² As productivity has soared, the gains have flowed primarily to the owners of capital, not to labor. This is reflected in the corresponding long-term decline in the labor share of national income, which has fallen to historic lows over the past two decades.¹⁴

The current wave of AI-driven automation represents a fundamental break from the past. Previous technologies automated routine manual and cognitive tasks, hollowing out the middle of the labor market but leaving a refuge for high-skilled cognitive work.¹⁶ AI is different. It is coming for the last bastion of human labor: complex, non-routine cognitive tasks.¹⁸ Professions once considered safe—including computer programmers, financial analysts, lawyers, and managers—are now facing significant exposure to automation.²⁰ This new reality threatens to break the historical cycle where displaced workers could find new opportunities by moving up the skill ladder. The technology that displaces the worker is now capable of performing the new, more complex tasks that are created, making the reinstatement of human labor a fleeting phenomenon.

This technological revolution is fundamentally transforming the modern factory into a highly integrated technological ecosystem built on a suite of interconnected technologies:

Robotics and Cobots: Industrial robots and collaborative robots (“cobots”) form the backbone of the automated assembly line, handling everything from heavy material movement to delicate component placement and packaging.²²
Artificial Intelligence and Machine Vision: AI-driven quality control systems use advanced sensors to inspect products in real-time, while AI-powered predictive maintenance analyzes operational data to foresee equipment failures.²²
Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) and 5G: A dense network of sensors collects vast amounts of real-time data, transmitted over high-bandwidth networks to optimize scheduling, resource allocation, and workflow.²²
Automated Storage and Retrieval Systems (ASRS): The factory’s logistics are as automated as its production lines, with fleets of Autonomous Mobile Robots (AMRs) managing inventory and transporting goods with minimal or no human input.²²

The global race to adopt these technologies can be quantified through the metric of robot density—the number of industrial robots installed per 10,000 employees in the manufacturing industry. The 2023 data from the International Federation of Robotics reveals a stark geopolitical hierarchy of automation readiness.²⁴ The world’s most automated economies are concentrated in Asia and Europe. The Republic of Korea leads by a significant margin with a density of 1,012, followed by Singapore (770), China (470), Germany (429), and Japan (419).²⁴ In stark contrast, the United States ranks only tenth globally with a robot density of 295.²⁴ Perhaps most telling is China’s trajectory. Having only entered the top ten in 2019, it has surged to third place by more than doubling its robot density in just four years, a clear testament to a state-driven, strategic national mission to dominate the future of manufacturing.²⁴

This data reveals a critical reality of the L.A.C. economy: automation is not merely a collection of factory tools but a new, essential form of national infrastructure. In the 20th century, a nation’s industrial power was contingent upon its physical logistics infrastructure—its highways, railways, and ports—which were necessary to move goods produced by its labor force. In the 21st century, industrial power is becoming contingent upon a nation’s “automation infrastructure”—its capacity to deploy and integrate automated systems at scale to produce goods with minimal labor. A nation’s robot density, its investments in AI, and its 5G network coverage are becoming indicators of manufacturing competitiveness as vital as container port throughput was in the previous era. Nations that fail to build out this new infrastructure will find themselves unable to compete in the reshoring revolution, regardless of their political rhetoric or trade policies. They risk becoming the 21st-century equivalent of a country without a modern highway system, unable to participate effectively in the new geography of production. This understanding explains the frantic pace of automation investment in nations like China and South Korea, who recognize that leadership in this domain is foundational to future economic and geopolitical power.

Part II: The Twin Pillars of 21st Century Power

In the emerging L.A.C. economy, the foundations of national power are being rebuilt. The old metrics of population size, military mass, and even raw economic output are being supplemented, and in some cases supplanted, by a nation’s mastery over two new, indispensable pillars. The first is the digital pillar: sovereign control over the technologies of automation, encompassing the software of artificial intelligence and the specialized hardware of semiconductors that give it form. The second is the physical pillar: secure and reliable access to the raw materials that build the automated world, specifically the critical minerals and rare earth elements that constitute the “Land” in the L.A.C. paradigm. The global geopolitical contest is increasingly a struggle to establish dominance over these twin pillars, as control over them confers the ability to shape the future of production, innovation, and security.

Section 2.1: The Digital Pillar – The Race for Technological Supremacy

The digital pillar is the nervous system of the L.A.C. economy, comprising the AI “brain” that directs automated processes and the semiconductor “neurons” that execute them. The race to lead in these domains is not merely a commercial competition; it is a zero-sum struggle for strategic advantage that has fractured the global technology landscape.

The competition for AI supremacy has crystallized into a global contest with three distinct strategic approaches, each reflecting the core geopolitical identity of its proponent.

The United States: The U.S. strategy is fundamentally market-driven, relying on the innovative dynamism of its private sector—Big Tech firms and a deep venture capital ecosystem—to push the technological frontier.²⁵ This commercial leadership is paired with an assertive geopolitical strategy aimed at creating a techno-industrial bloc of allies. The U.S. seeks to export its full AI stack—hardware, models, software, and standards—to friendly partners while using export controls and other restrictive measures to deny these technologies to strategic adversaries, principally China.²⁵ The primary strength of this approach lies in its unparalleled capacity for innovation, fueled by massive private investment that dwarfs that of other nations.²⁷ However, its principal weakness is a potentially alienating “with us or against us” posture, which risks limiting its influence in a multipolar world where many nations in the Global South prioritize sovereignty and pragmatism over strict political alignment with Washington.²⁵
China: In direct contrast, China is pursuing a state-directed, centralized model of AI development. This strategy, articulated in national plans like “Made in China 2025” and the “New Generation Artificial Intelligence Development Plan,” aims to achieve technological self-reliance and ultimately surpass the West.²⁵ The plan sets an unambiguous goal for China to become the world’s primary AI innovation center by 2030.²⁹ It is characterized by massive state subsidies, the direct coordination of universities and companies, and the doctrine of “Military-Civil Fusion,” which erases the distinction between commercial and defense technology development.²⁵ On the global stage, China projects an approach of “open governance” and “no-strings-attached” technological cooperation, an offer that is highly attractive to developing nations seeking access to advanced technology without accepting Western political conditions.²⁵ While China’s top AI models still lag slightly behind those of the U.S., the performance gap has narrowed dramatically to near parity on key benchmarks, demonstrating the rapid progress of its state-driven approach.²⁷
The European Union: The EU has chosen a third path, positioning itself as a regulatory superpower rather than an innovation leader. Its strategy is epitomized by the EU AI Act, a comprehensive legal framework that seeks to establish a global gold standard for “trustworthy AI”.³² By leveraging the size of its single market, the EU aims to compel global technology companies to adhere to its human-centric, risk-based rules—a phenomenon known as the “Brussels Effect”.³³ The strength of this approach is its normative power and its focus on mitigating the societal risks of AI. However, the EU lags significantly behind both the U.S. and China in AI investment, venture capital, and the presence of major tech companies, creating the profound risk that it will become a highly regulated but technologically dependent continent, setting the rules for technologies developed elsewhere.³⁴

This strategic competition plays out on the physical battlefield of semiconductors. The modern world runs on these microscopic circuits, but their production is dangerously concentrated. A single company, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC), controls approximately 55% of the global foundry market for contract chip manufacturing, particularly for the most advanced nodes.³⁵ Along with giants in South Korea like Samsung and SK Hynix, this concentration in a single, geopolitically volatile region represents arguably the most critical strategic vulnerability in the global economy.³⁶ A military conflict over Taiwan could instantly sever the world’s access to the advanced semiconductors that power everything from AI data centers to advanced military hardware, triggering a global economic catastrophe.³⁶

Recognizing this existential threat, the West has launched a monumental counter-offensive through industrial policy. The U.S. CHIPS and Science Act and the EU Chips Act represent a historic pivot away from decades of free-market orthodoxy toward direct state intervention to rebuild domestic semiconductor capacity and compete with China’s own state-led drive for self-sufficiency.³⁶

The U.S. CHIPS and Science Act: This is a massive legislative initiative authorizing roughly $280 billion, with $52.7 billion directly appropriated for “new money” investments in the domestic semiconductor industry.³⁹ The package includes $39 billion in direct subsidies for constructing new fabrication plants (“fabs”) and a generous 25% investment tax credit for manufacturing equipment.³⁶ Critically, the act contains stringent “guardrail” provisions that prohibit any company receiving funds from materially expanding its advanced semiconductor manufacturing in China or other “countries of concern” for a period of ten years.³⁶ This explicitly ties the subsidies to the geopolitical goal of decoupling the advanced technology supply chain from China.
The EU Chips Act: The European effort is more modest and structurally different. It aims to mobilize €43 billion in public and private investment, but this figure largely represents a redirection of existing EU funds combined with anticipated contributions from member states, rather than a large infusion of new centralized funding.³⁶ The Act’s goal is to double the EU’s share of the global semiconductor market from 10% to at least 20% by 2030.⁴³ However, its implementation is seen as more bureaucratic and less geopolitically aggressive than its U.S. counterpart, with a more complex approval process for state aid and less stringent conditions regarding investment in China.³⁶

The early results reflect these different approaches. The U.S. CHIPS Act has already catalyzed massive investment commitments from industry leaders like TSMC, Intel, and Samsung to build new, advanced fabs on U.S. soil.³⁶ The EU is also attracting significant investment, but the pace is perceived to be slower, hampered by the complexities of its funding structure.³⁶

The divergent strategies of the U.S., China, and the EU create a complex “three-body problem” in global technology governance. The U.S. and China are locked in a direct, zero-sum competition for technological supremacy, viewing leadership in AI and semiconductors as fundamental to their national security and economic futures. Their policies are explicitly designed to out-compete one another through aggressive state-led investment, industrial policy, and export controls.²⁵ The EU, by contrast, is playing a different, indirect game. Its primary strategic goal is not to win the innovation race outright but to establish normative influence by defining what constitutes “acceptable” technology.³² Due to the sheer size of its market, the EU’s regulations will force both American and Chinese technology companies to adapt their products and services to meet European standards if they wish to operate there.³² This grants the EU a powerful, albeit reactive, role in shaping global technology. It can set the rules of the game, but it is not currently positioned to create the core technologies that define the game itself. This unique position casts the EU as a potential “referee” in the U.S.-China tech war, but with the inherent risk of becoming a technologically dependent rule-maker rather than a sovereign game-changer.

Feature	United States	China	European Union
Core Objective	Market Dominance & Geopolitical Leadership	State Control & Technological Self-Reliance	Normative Leadership & Market Stability
Funding Model	Private Sector/VC-led, supported by massive federal subsidies (CHIPS Act) ²⁸	State-directed, centralized investment through national plans & SOEs ²⁵	Public funds (largely redirected), reliant on member state & private investment ²⁸
Regulatory Approach	Aggressive deregulation to spur innovation; “de-ideologizing” AI models ²⁵	Tight state control and censorship to align with political values ²⁵	Comprehensive, risk-based legal framework (AI Act) to protect consumer rights ³²
Geopolitical Strategy	Build a techno-industrial bloc of allies; restrict technology access for adversaries ²⁵	“No-strings-attached” tech outreach to the Global South; achieve supply chain dominance ²⁵	Export regulatory standards globally via market power (the “Brussels Effect”) ³³

Section 2.2: The Physical Pillar – The Scramble for Critical Minerals

The digital pillar of the L.A.C. economy, for all its sophistication, rests on a foundation that is brutally physical. The transition to a green, automated future is, at its core, a materials transition. The geopolitical dependencies of the 20th century, centered on the flow of fossil fuels like oil and gas, are being decisively replaced by a new set of dependencies on the critical minerals and rare earth elements that are the indispensable ingredients of 21st-century technology.⁴⁸ This shift fundamentally alters the logic of resource security. Oil is a consumable fuel; once burned, it is gone. Critical minerals, by contrast, are components of a durable capital stock—the batteries, motors, semiconductors, and sensors of the automated world. This means they can, in theory, be reused and recycled, shifting the long-term security equation from merely securing a constant flow of resources to controlling the entire, circular supply chain, from mine to manufacturer to recycler and back again.⁴⁸

The entire L.A.C. economy is built from a specific palette of these geological assets. Each technological domain has its own unique material requirements:

AI & Semiconductors: The production of advanced microchips is impossible without ultra-pure silicon, high-purity alumina (HPA), and copper for wiring. Performance is enhanced by next-generation materials like gallium and germanium, which offer superior conductivity, while elements like palladium are essential for connecting chips to circuit boards.⁵²
Robotics & Automation: The physical bodies of robots and automated systems require a host of specialized alloys to ensure strength, durability, and heat resistance. These are made with aluminum, titanium, chromium, manganese, nickel, and molybdenum. Their high-performance electric motors rely on powerful permanent magnets, which are made from rare earth elements such as neodymium, praseodymium, and dysprosium.⁵³
Batteries & Capital Storage: The ability to store and deploy electrical energy, which is central to everything from EVs to grid stabilization, is currently dependent on lithium-ion battery chemistries. These require vast quantities of lithium, cobalt, nickel, manganese, and high-purity graphite.⁵⁴

An analysis of the global supply chains for these materials reveals a critical and dangerous vulnerability for the Western world. The chokepoint is not primarily at the mining stage—where production is relatively distributed—but in the midstream processing and refining stages. Here, China has methodically and strategically established a near-monopolistic position over the past several decades, giving it a stranglehold on the global supply of high-value, technology-ready materials.⁴⁸

This pattern of Chinese midstream dominance is consistent across the most vital minerals:

Rare Earth Elements (REEs): While China accounts for approximately 70% of global REE mining, its dominance in processing is near-total, controlling between 90% and 99% of the world’s refining capacity.⁶² The United States, despite having its own major rare earth mine, currently exports the vast majority of its raw concentrate to Asia—primarily China—for the complex separation and refining processes that turn it into usable metals and oxides.⁶³
Lithium: The world’s top lithium miners are Australia and Chile. However, China is the undisputed leader in refining this raw material into battery-grade lithium hydroxide and carbonate, controlling approximately 60% of global processing capacity.⁶⁶
Cobalt: The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) is the source of over 70% of the world’s mined cobalt. Yet, this raw ore is overwhelmingly shipped to China, which controls between 70% and 95% of the world’s cobalt refining capacity, turning it into the chemical salts required for battery cathodes.⁶⁶
Graphite: China produces 100% of the refined natural graphite used in battery anodes.⁶⁶

This strategic dependency is not accidental; it is the result of a long-term state-directed industrial strategy. China has positioned itself as the world’s indispensable mineral refinery, importing raw ores and concentrates from every continent and exporting the high-value, purified materials that no other nation can produce at scale.⁵⁷

Crucially, Beijing has demonstrated a clear willingness to weaponize this supply chain dominance for geopolitical ends. This is not a theoretical risk but a historical and present reality.

The 2010 Japan Incident: In response to a territorial dispute over the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands, China unofficially but effectively halted all exports of rare earth elements to Japan.⁶⁹ As Japan’s high-tech manufacturing sector was entirely dependent on these imports, the move triggered global panic, sent prices skyrocketing, and served as a stark wake-up call to the West about the dangers of this dependency.⁶⁹ It forced Japan and other nations to begin the long, slow process of seeking alternative supplies and developing substitute materials.⁶⁹
Recent Export Controls (2023-2025): As the U.S. has escalated its “chip war” by restricting China’s access to advanced semiconductor technology, Beijing has retaliated by targeting the foundational inputs of the industry. In 2024, it imposed export controls on gallium and germanium, two minerals critical for high-performance semiconductors where China controls the majority of global production.⁴⁸ Even more strategically, in late 2023, China banned the export of technologies for rare earth extraction and separation, a direct move to prevent other countries from building their own competing processing industries.⁷³ In 2025, this was followed by explicit export licensing requirements for seven specific rare earths and their related products, causing immediate and severe disruptions to global automotive and electronics manufacturing.⁷¹

The nature of this control makes it a far more potent and sophisticated geopolitical weapon than OPEC’s control over oil production in the 20th century. OPEC’s power was derived from its ability to coordinate the restriction of crude oil extraction at the wellhead. The primary counter-strategy for consumer nations was to discover and develop new oil fields in non-OPEC countries or to invest in alternative energy sources. China’s power, however, is derived from its dominance over the technologically complex midstream processing of an entire suite of minerals sourced from all over the globe.⁵⁷ This creates a fundamentally different and more challenging strategic problem. Even if the United States or the European Union successfully finances a new lithium mine in Australia or a new cobalt mine in Africa, the raw ore produced at those sites would, under the current market structure, still likely need to be shipped to China for refining into battery-grade chemicals.⁶³

Breaking this dependency requires not just finding new mines, but building an entire parallel, technologically advanced, and capital-intensive processing supply chain from scratch. This is a multi-decade endeavor, complicated by stringent environmental regulations in the West and the immense cost of building new refineries.⁶³ China’s decision to ban the export of its advanced processing technology is a calculated move to make this catch-up effort as difficult and slow as possible.⁷³ This has created a deep, structural dependency that leaves the Western world highly vulnerable to Chinese economic coercion for the foreseeable future.

Mineral	Top 3 Mining Countries (2023, % Global Share)	Top Processing/Refining Country (2023, % Global Share)
Rare Earths	1. China (69%) 2. United States (12%) 3. Myanmar (8%) ⁶³	1. China (~90-99%) ⁶²
Lithium	1. Australia (47%) 2. Chile (21%) 3. China (18%) ⁷⁶	1. China (~60%) ⁶⁶
Cobalt	1. DR Congo (74%) 2. Indonesia (7%) 3. Russia (4%) ⁷⁶	1. China (~70-95%) ⁶⁶
Graphite (Natural)	1. China (Leading Producer) ⁶⁶	1. China (100% of refined natural graphite) ⁶⁶
Gallium	1. China (Controls primary global reserve) ⁵²	1. China (Dominant) ⁵²
Germanium	1. China (>50%) ⁵²	1. China (Dominant) ⁵²

Feature	20th Century Oil Economy	21st Century Critical Minerals Economy
Resource Type	Consumable Fuel	Durable Capital Stock Component
Key Chokepoint	Extraction (Wellhead)	Midstream Processing (Refinery)
Security Logic	Securing continuous flow	Controlling the full, circular supply chain
Recyclability	Negligible	High (in theory), creating “urban mines”
Dominant Geopolitical Actor	State-based Production Cartel (OPEC)	Single-State Midstream Hegemon (China)

Part III: The New World Order – Blocs, Flashpoints, and Strategic Imperatives

The transition to the L.A.C. economy is inexorably reshaping the global order. The unipolar, hyper-globalized system of the post-Cold War era is giving way to a more fragmented and contentious landscape. This new world is defined by the emergence of competing techno-industrial blocs, the rise of new geopolitical flashpoints centered on resource control, and the empowerment of a new class of strategic actors among resource-rich nations. Navigating this complex and volatile environment requires a fundamental rethinking of national strategy, moving away from the assumptions of the past and embracing the new realities of geoeconomic statecraft.

Section 3.1: The Rise of Competing Blocs and Strategic Resource Nationalism

The universal logic of globalized free trade is fracturing under the pressure of great-power competition. The world is bifurcating into at least two distinct and rivalrous techno-industrial ecosystems, each striving for self-sufficiency in the core technologies and materials of the L.A.C. economy.⁴⁸

The U.S.-led Bloc: This bloc is coalescing around the strategic concepts of “friend-shoring” and “de-risking.” Its primary objective is to reduce its profound dependence on China for critical technologies and materials. This is being pursued through a combination of massive domestic industrial policy, such as the CHIPS and Science Act, and the forging of deep supply chain partnerships with a network of trusted allies and partners.⁷⁷ The goal is to create secure, resilient, and redundant supply chains for semiconductors, batteries, and critical minerals, even if this results in higher costs compared to the old globalized model. This bloc is defined by shared political values and security interests, creating a geopolitical boundary for trade and investment.
The China-centric Bloc: This bloc is driven by Beijing’s ambition to achieve complete technological independence from the West and to establish itself as the dominant hub of global advanced manufacturing.⁵⁶ It is actively exporting its technology, infrastructure investment (via initiatives like the Belt and Road), and development model to nations in the Global South, offering an alternative to the Western-led order that does not come with conditions related to democratic governance or human rights.²⁵

This bipolar competition is creating a new dynamic for resource-rich nations, empowering them to pursue a more assertive and sophisticated form of “resource nationalism.” Unlike the crude expropriations of the past, this new resource nationalism is a strategic play to maximize national benefit from the great-power scramble for minerals. Mineral-rich countries are no longer passive price-takers in a global market; they are becoming strategic actors, leveraging the intense demand for their resources to move up the value chain and accelerate their own industrial development.⁴⁸

This strategy is being implemented through several key policy tools:

Bans on Raw Material Exports: A prominent example is Indonesia’s ban on the export of unprocessed nickel ore. This policy effectively forced foreign companies, primarily from China, to invest billions of dollars in building nickel smelters and refineries within Indonesia, thereby capturing a much larger share of the economic value locally.⁴⁸
State Control and Partial Nationalization: Nations are reasserting sovereign control over what they deem to be strategic assets. Chile, for instance, has moved to nationalize its vast lithium reserves, requiring private companies to partner with a state-owned enterprise for future projects. Mexico has taken similar steps.⁴⁸ This ensures the state has a direct stake in and oversight of the exploitation of its most valuable resources.
Mandates for Local Value Addition: Across Africa and South America, there is a growing political demand to end the neocolonial economic model of exporting raw, unprocessed ore. Governments are increasingly requiring mining companies to invest in local processing and refining facilities as a condition of their operating licenses. Zimbabwe’s policy on lithium exports and the U.S.-backed Lobito Corridor rail project—designed to facilitate in-country processing for cobalt and copper from the DRC and Zambia—are clear indicators of this trend.⁸⁴

The emergence of these empowered resource states adds a new layer of complexity to the global geopolitical landscape. The world is not simply splitting into two clean blocs. Instead, a multi-polar resource order is taking shape. The intense competition between the U.S. and China for access to critical minerals provides immense leverage to resource-rich nations in Africa, South America, and Southeast Asia.⁸⁵ These countries are increasingly unwilling to simply choose a side in the great-power contest. Instead, they are adeptly playing the blocs against each other to extract the best possible terms for their own national development. This forces both Washington and Beijing to offer more than just capital; they must now compete on the quality of their partnership, offering technology transfer, infrastructure investment, and support for local industrialization.⁸⁵ The result is a more transactional and fluid international system, where mid-tier powers have newfound agency to reshape global supply chains on their own terms, complicating the neat bipolar division that the great powers might prefer.

Section 3.2: Geopolitical Flashpoints in the L.A.C. Era

The global scramble for the foundational assets of the L.A.C. economy is creating new and intensifying old geopolitical flashpoints. The competition is no longer confined to boardrooms and trade negotiations; it is increasingly playing out in fragile states and contested territories, where the immense strategic value of mineral deposits can fuel instability and conflict.

Africa: The Epicenter of the Mineral Scramble: The African continent holds a commanding share of the world’s reserves of many critical minerals, including over 70% of cobalt, 85% of manganese, 80% of platinum, and a third of all bauxite.⁸⁴ This geological endowment has transformed Africa into a central arena for 21st-century great-power competition. This contest, however, is unfolding against a backdrop of often-weak governance, pre-existing conflicts, and a legacy of resource exploitation, creating a high risk of exacerbating instability.⁸⁴
Case Study: The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC): The DRC is the quintessential example of a modern resource flashpoint. It supplies over 70% of the world’s cobalt, a mineral without which the global lithium-ion battery industry—and thus the entire electric vehicle revolution—would grind to a halt.⁷⁶ This immense strategic value has turned the mineral-rich eastern provinces of the country into a theater of proxy conflict. The M23 rebel group, widely reported to be backed by neighboring Rwanda, has seized control of key mining areas, directly inserting itself into the global cobalt supply chain.⁸⁸ The conflict is not just a local insurgency; it is a geopolitical battle over resources that involves regional powers, international peacekeepers, and the strategic interests of global powers like China, whose companies control the majority of the DRC’s industrial cobalt mines.⁴⁶ The situation in the DRC demonstrates with brutal clarity how the demand generated by the L.A.C. economy can directly fuel armed conflict and destabilize entire regions.
South America: The Lithium Triangle: The arid high plains where Argentina, Bolivia, and Chile converge hold over half of the world’s known lithium reserves, making this “Lithium Triangle” the Saudi Arabia of the battery age.⁸³ The region has become a focal point of intense competition between the U.S., China, and Russia for access and influence.

Divergent Political and Risk Landscapes: The geopolitical dynamics within the triangle are not uniform. Argentina has adopted a more liberalized, decentralized approach, with mining policy largely set at the provincial level, creating an open field for foreign investment.⁸³ Chile, a more established producer, is pursuing a strategy of partial nationalization, seeking to partner with private firms through its state-owned enterprises to maintain greater control.⁸³ Bolivia, possessing the largest reserves but the least developed industry, has historically pursued a model of full state control. This has often resulted in stalled development and has created an opening for state-owned enterprises from China and Russia to secure highly favorable deals that offer little benefit to the Bolivian state, raising concerns about corrosive capital and elite capture.⁹⁴
Great-Power Competition: China has established a formidable presence in the region through years of strategic investment, mergers, and acquisitions; Chinese-owned or partially-owned firms are now involved in two-thirds of the lithium operations across the triangle.⁹⁵ Russia has also secured a significant foothold in Bolivia.⁹⁴ The United States is attempting to counter this influence through diplomatic initiatives like the Minerals Security Partnership and by promoting U.S. firms as alternative partners. However, Washington is widely perceived as having been slower and less proactive than its rivals, creating a high-stakes competition for influence that could easily be destabilized by the region’s volatile politics.⁸⁹

A crucial strategic implication arises from these flashpoints. In the L.A.C. economy, resource-rich but poorly governed states are no longer peripheral concerns or mere humanitarian crises to be managed. They are becoming critical geopolitical assets. This inverts the traditional logic of foreign policy. In the 20th century, instability in a non-oil-producing developing country was largely seen as a tragedy with limited strategic impact on the great powers. In the 21st century, a state like the DRC, despite its profound governance challenges, controls a global chokepoint resource essential for the entire green transition and digital economy.⁷⁶ This creates a perverse incentive structure. Actors who are willing and able to operate in high-risk, low-transparency environments can gain a significant strategic advantage. They can secure lucrative mining concessions through opaque deals with local elites or by partnering with armed non-state actors—methods that are off-limits to Western corporations bound by anti-corruption laws and ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) standards.⁴⁶ In this context, the very weakness and instability of a state can become a feature, not a bug, for certain geopolitical players. The objective is not necessarily to stabilize the country in the Western sense of building robust institutions, but rather to secure exclusive resource extraction rights amidst the chaos. This dynamic ensures that these regions will remain persistent flashpoints for proxy competition and conflict for the foreseeable future.

Section 3.3: Strategic Imperatives for the L.A.C. Future

The emergence of the L.A.C. economy and the accompanying fragmentation of the global order demand a fundamental re-evaluation of national strategy for Western nations. The passive reliance on market forces and the assumption of a stable, rules-based international system are no longer tenable. Survival and prosperity in this new era will require a proactive, multi-layered, and long-term geoeconomic strategy that directly addresses the new pillars of power. This strategy must be built on three core imperatives: building resilient domestic capabilities, forging strategic value-based alliances, and embracing the tools of geoeconomic statecraft.

Pillar 1: Build Resilient and Redundant Domestic Capabilities: The first imperative is to reduce strategic vulnerabilities by strengthening the domestic industrial base.

Accelerate Onshoring and Permitting Reform: The initial funding from legislation like the CHIPS Act and the European Critical Raw Materials Act is a necessary but insufficient first step. The deeper challenge lies in dismantling the structural barriers that inhibit domestic production. This requires a radical overhaul of permitting processes for new mines, refineries, and fabrication plants. The current timelines, which can stretch over a decade, are incompatible with the urgency of the geopolitical challenge. Reform must aim to dramatically accelerate project approval while maintaining high environmental and social standards, treating the construction of this new industrial infrastructure as a national security priority.⁹⁷
Invest in the Full Lifecycle and Circular Economy: True resilience cannot be achieved through primary extraction alone. A massive, coordinated investment in building a circular economy for critical materials is essential. This involves scaling up technologies for recycling and “urban mining”—the recovery of valuable minerals from e-waste and other industrial scrap. Creating a robust secondary source of supply from recycled materials reduces dependence on foreign mines, insulates against price volatility, and mitigates the environmental impact of new extraction.⁵⁸
Manage the Post-Labor Transition: The shift to a highly automated, digital economy creates a profound structural skills gap. National strategy must focus on managing this transition by investing in education and retraining programs geared towards the small number of high-skill roles required to design, oversee, and maintain automated systems. This must be treated as a foundational element of national security and industrial strategy.⁹⁸
Pillar 2: Forge Strategic, Value-Based Alliances: No single nation, not even the United States, can achieve complete self-sufficiency in all critical domains. Collective resilience through deep alliances is therefore indispensable.

Deepen “Friend-Shoring” and Bloc Integration: The concept of “friend-shoring” must evolve from a loose trade preference to a deep, structural integration of techno-industrial supply chains among core allies (e.g., the U.S., EU, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and Canada). This requires coordinating industrial policies, aligning R&D efforts, harmonizing investment screening mechanisms to prevent adversarial acquisitions, and creating a unified export control regime for sensitive technologies. The goal is to create a cohesive and resilient allied bloc that can innovate, produce, and trade securely within its own ecosystem.⁷⁷
Create a Compelling Counter-Offer to the Global South: To compete with China’s influence, the West must offer resource-rich nations a fundamentally better and more attractive partnership model. This cannot be a return to the transactional, extractive models of the past. It must be a genuine partnership that aligns with the goals of the new resource nationalism. This means offering significant investment in local processing and refining facilities, supporting the development of critical infrastructure (as exemplified by the Lobito Corridor project), transferring technology, and upholding the highest ESG standards. By helping these nations capture more value from their own resources, the West can build durable, trust-based alliances that provide a clear and superior alternative to China’s often-predatory model.⁸⁵
Pillar 3: Embrace Geoeconomic Statecraft: The L.A.C. era is one of persistent geoeconomic competition. Western nations must develop and deploy the tools of statecraft appropriate for this new battlefield.

Proactive Supply Chain Intelligence: Governments must build sophisticated capabilities to map, monitor, and model critical mineral and technology supply chains in real-time. Leveraging AI and advanced data analytics can help forecast potential disruptions—whether from geopolitical events, natural disasters, or market manipulation—and allow for pre-emptive policy interventions to mitigate risks before they become crises.⁹⁹
Strategic Stockpiling: National strategic stockpiles must be modernized and expanded. This means going beyond holding reserves of raw materials to also stockpiling high-purity processed minerals, key chemical precursors, and critical technological components (like specialized magnets or substrates). These dynamic stockpiles can serve as a crucial buffer against politically motivated supply disruptions and deter economic coercion.⁷¹
Deter and Respond to Economic Coercion: The allied bloc must develop a clear, credible, and unified framework for deterring and responding to the weaponization of supply chains. An act of economic coercion by an adversary against one member of the bloc must be met with a swift, coordinated, and punitive response from all members. This collective economic security guarantee is the only way to deter future actions like China’s restrictions on rare earths and other critical materials, demonstrating that such tactics will incur costs that far outweigh any perceived benefits.⁵⁸

Works cited

Globalisation is here to stay, but not as we’ve known it | World Economic Forum, accessed September 4, 2025, https://www.weforum.org/stories/2025/07/chief-economist-on-future-of-globalisation-global-trade/
Nearshoring and Regional Manufacturing: AI and Automation Make it Economically Viable, accessed September 4, 2025, https://www.sandtech.com/insight/nearshoring-and-regional-manufacturing-ai-and-automation-make-it-economically-viable/
Will Trade Uncertainty Boost Automation? – San Francisco Fed, accessed September 4, 2025, https://www.frbsf.org/research-and-insights/publications/economic-letter/2025/09/will-trade-uncertainty-boost-automation/
2022 Data Report – Reshoring Initiative®, accessed September 4, 2025, https://reshorenow.org/content/pdf/2022_Data_Report.pdf
Nearshoring and Offshoring: Shaping The Future of Global Staffing – Gini Talent, accessed September 4, 2025, https://ginitalent.com/nearshoring-and-offshoring-shaping-the-future-of-global-staffing/
Automation-induced reshoring and potential implications for developing economies – Maastricht University, accessed September 4, 2025, https://cris.maastrichtuniversity.nl/files/139052268/wp2023_018.pdf
Benefits of Warehouse Automation for Reshoring | The Complete Guide, accessed September 4, 2025, https://www.kardex.com/en-us/blog/reshoring-manufacturing-with-asrs
Automation and New Tasks: How Technology Displaces and …, accessed September 7, 2025, https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.33.2.3
Artificial Intelligence, Automation and Work | NBER, accessed September 7, 2025, https://www.nber.org/papers/w24196
Automation and New Tasks: How Technology Displaces and Reinstates Labor, accessed September 7, 2025, https://docs.iza.org/dp12293.pdf
Automation and New Tasks: How Technology Displaces and Reinstates Labor∗ – Boston University, accessed September 7, 2025, https://www.bu.edu/econ/files/2019/05/JEP_automation_March_29_nber.pdf
Decoupling of wages from productivity – Wikipedia, accessed September 7, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decoupling_of_wages_from_productivity
The Great Decoupling | Request PDF – ResearchGate, accessed September 7, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264524004_The_Great_Decoupling
Are Workers Losing to Robots? – San Francisco Fed, accessed September 7, 2025, https://www.frbsf.org/research-and-insights/publications/economic-letter/2019/09/are-workers-losing-to-robots/
Labor share of income: A new look at the decline in the United …, accessed September 7, 2025, https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/employment-and-growth/a-new-look-at-the-declining-labor-share-of-income-in-the-united-states
How automation and other forms of IT affect the middle class: Assessing the estimates, accessed September 7, 2025, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-automation-and-other-forms-of-it-affect-the-middle-class-assessing-the-estimates/
How automation and other forms of IT affect the middle class …, accessed September 7, 2025, https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Siu-Jaimovich_Automation-and-the-middle-class.pdf
Artificial Intelligence and Employment: New Cross-Country Evidence – PMC, accessed September 7, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9127971/
Tommie Experts: Generative AI’s Real-World Impact on Job Markets, accessed September 7, 2025, https://news.stthomas.edu/generative-ais-real-world-impact-on-job-markets/
How Will AI Affect the Global Workforce? | Goldman Sachs, accessed September 7, 2025, https://www.goldmansachs.com/insights/articles/how-will-ai-affect-the-global-workforce
AI is coming. Prepare for the worst – Grattan Institute, accessed September 7, 2025, https://grattan.edu.au/news/ai-is-coming-prepare-for-the-worst/
Automation to tackle reshoring manufacturing, tariffs and labour shortages – eeNews Europe, accessed September 4, 2025, https://www.eenewseurope.com/en/automation-to-tackle-reshoring-manufacturing-tariffs-and-labour-shortages/
Boosting Domestic Production: How Automation is Driving the Reshoring Revolution, accessed September 4, 2025, https://wes-tech.com/knowledge-center/boosting-domestic-production-how-automation-is-driving-the-reshoring-revolution/
Global Robot Density in Factories Doubled in Seven Years …, accessed September 4, 2025, https://ifr.org/ifr-press-releases/news/global-robot-density-in-factories-doubled-in-seven-years
U.S. and Chinese AI Strategies – Competing Global Approaches …, accessed September 4, 2025, https://www.chinausfocus.com/finance-economy/us-and-chinese-ai-strategies-competing-global-approaches
AI strategy comparison: China’s “open” imperialism versus the United States’ “race for dominance” – Andrea Monti, accessed September 4, 2025, https://blog.andreamonti.eu/ai-strategy-comparison-chinas-open-imperialism-versus-the-united-states-race-for-dominance/
The 2025 AI Index Report | Stanford HAI, accessed September 4, 2025, https://hai.stanford.edu/ai-index/2025-ai-index-report
Who Is Winning the AI Race: China, the EU or the United States?, accessed September 4, 2025, https://datainnovation.org/2019/08/who-is-winning-the-ai-race-china-the-eu-or-the-united-states/
Full Translation: China’s ‘New Generation Artificial Intelligence …, accessed September 4, 2025, https://digichina.stanford.edu/work/full-translation-chinas-new-generation-artificial-intelligence-development-plan-2017/
Translation: Chinese government outlines AI ambitions through 2020 – New America, accessed September 4, 2025, https://www.newamerica.org/cybersecurity-initiative/digichina/blog/translation-chinese-government-outlines-ai-ambitions-through-2020/
China’s ambitions in Artificial Intelligence – European Parliament, accessed September 4, 2025, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ATAG/2021/696206/EPRS_ATA(2021)696206_EN.pdf
The Geopolitics Of AI Regulation – The Yale Review of International Studies, accessed September 4, 2025, https://yris.yira.org/global-issue/the-geopolitics-of-ai-regulation/
Charting the Geopolitics and European Governance of Artificial Intelligence, accessed September 4, 2025, https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2024/03/charting-the-geopolitics-and-european-governance-of-artificial-intelligence?lang=en
AI regulation in the EU, the US and China: An NLP quantitative and qualitative lexical analysis of the official documents – Journal of Ethics and Legal Technologies, accessed September 4, 2025, https://jelt.padovauniversitypress.it/system/files/papers/JELT-2024-2-7.pdf
Top Semiconductor Manufacturing Countries in 2020-2030: Production and Export Stats, accessed September 4, 2025, https://patentpc.com/blog/top-semiconductor-manufacturing-countries-in-2020-2030-production-and-export-stats
A World of Chips Acts: The Future of U.S.-EU Semiconductor Collaboration – CSIS, accessed September 4, 2025, https://www.csis.org/analysis/world-chips-acts-future-us-eu-semiconductor-collaboration
The Missing Strategy in Europe’s Chip Ambitions – Stiftung Neue Verantwortung, accessed September 4, 2025, https://www.interface-eu.org/publications/europe-semiconductor-strategy
Chips War 2025 – CEPA, accessed September 4, 2025, https://cepa.org/commentary/part-five-chips-war-2025/
CHIPS and Science Act – Wikipedia, accessed September 4, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHIPS_and_Science_Act
The US CHIPS Act and Its Impacts on the WTO and China – Kluwer Law Online, accessed September 4, 2025, https://kluwerlawonline.com/journalarticle/Journal+of+World+Trade/58.5/TRAD2024039
The CHIPS Act: What it means for the semiconductor ecosystem – PwC, accessed September 4, 2025, https://www.pwc.com/us/en/library/chips-act.html
Techno-Geopolitical Uncertainty and International Business: Implications of the United States Chips and Science Act, accessed September 4, 2025, https://www.queensu.ca/sps/sites/spswww/files/uploaded_files/Events/Trade/JIBS%20-%20Chips%20Act%2020220923.pdf
U.S. Semiconductor Legislation and Policies – Chips Act, accessed September 4, 2025, https://www.european-chips-act.com/USA_Semiconductor_Legislation.html
China’s drive toward self-reliance in artificial intelligence: from chips to large language models | Merics, accessed September 4, 2025, https://merics.org/en/report/chinas-drive-toward-self-reliance-artificial-intelligence-chips-large-language-models
The Geopolitics of AI Regulation – Global Policy Research Group, accessed September 4, 2025, https://www.globalprg.org/publications/the-geopolitics-of-ai-regulation
CHINA’S MONOPOLY OVER LITHIUM’S UPSTREAM AND DOWNSTREAM SUPPLY CHAIN, accessed September 4, 2025, https://orcasia.org/article/602/chinas-monopoly-over-lithiums-upstream-and-downstream-supply-chain
The EU’s new AI Act could have global impact | Chatham House, accessed September 4, 2025, https://www.chathamhouse.org/2024/03/eus-new-ai-act-could-have-global-impact
The Geopolitics of Critical Minerals – The Diplomat, accessed September 4, 2025, https://thediplomat.com/2025/03/the-geopolitics-of-critical-minerals/
The Geopolitics of Access to Critical Minerals Necessary to Support Energy Transition, accessed September 4, 2025, https://www.euppublishing.com/doi/full/10.3366/gels.2024.0122
Is the world replacing oil dependency with critical minerals? | World …, accessed September 4, 2025, https://www.weforum.org/stories/2024/04/critical-minerals-dependency-supply-geopolitics/
Energy Transition and Geopolitics: Are Critical Minerals the New Oil? – The World Economic Forum, accessed September 4, 2025, https://www.weforum.org/publications/energy-transition-and-geopolitics-are-critical-minerals-the-new-oil/
AI Needs Critical Materials, Fast! But From Where?, accessed September 4, 2025, https://www.gravel2gavel.com/ai-critical-materials/
Critical Minerals and Robotics | SFA (Oxford), accessed September 4, 2025, https://www.sfa-oxford.com/knowledge-and-insights/critical-minerals-in-low-carbon-and-future-technologies/critical-minerals-in-robotics/
The geopolitics of green minerals – European Central Bank, accessed September 4, 2025, https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/blog/date/2024/html/ecb.blog240710~bb2bab6345.en.html
Lithium-based batteries supply chain challenges, accessed September 4, 2025, https://rmis.jrc.ec.europa.eu/analysis-of-supply-chain-challenges-49b749
The geopolitics of the Gulf states’ push for critical minerals, accessed September 4, 2025, https://www.iiss.org/online-analysis/charting-middle-east/2025/07/the-geopolitics-of-the-gulf-states-push-for-critical-minerals/
Global maps of critical mineral production in 2023 – USGS Publications Warehouse, accessed September 4, 2025, https://pubs.usgs.gov/publication/fs20253038/full
The Geopolitics of Critical Minerals – Diplomacy and Law, accessed September 4, 2025, https://www.diplomacyandlaw.com/post/the-geopolitics-of-critical-minerals
Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee Staff, Rob MacGreg, accessed September 4, 2025, https://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/hhrg-119-ii06-20250206-sd002.pdf
The US wants to end its reliance on Chinese lithium. Its policies are doing the opposite., accessed September 4, 2025, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/the-us-wants-to-end-its-reliance-on-chinese-lithium-its-policies-are-doing-the-opposite/
The U.S. Critical Minerals Dilemma: What to Know | Council on Foreign Relations, accessed September 4, 2025, https://www.cfr.org/article/us-critical-minerals-dilemma-what-know
qz.com, accessed September 4, 2025, https://qz.com/rare-earths-by-country#:~:text=Top%20producers%20of%20rare%20earths&text=While%20China%20and%20the%20United,refining%20capacity%20as%20of%202023.
Can the U.S. Reduce Its Reliance on Imported Rare Earth Elements? | Econofact, accessed September 4, 2025, https://econofact.org/can-the-u-s-reduce-its-reliance-on-imported-rare-earth-elements
Finding and Processing Rare Earths Outside of China – NAM, accessed September 4, 2025, https://nam.org/finding-and-processing-rare-earths-outside-of-china-34055/
Rare earths by country: Production totals and known reserves – Quartz, accessed September 4, 2025, https://qz.com/rare-earths-by-country
The geopolitics of critical raw materials: Who controls the future? – Diplo, accessed September 4, 2025, https://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/the-geopolitics-of-critical-raw-materials-who-controls-the-future/
The development of China’s monopoly over cobalt battery materials – USGS.gov, accessed September 4, 2025, https://www.usgs.gov/publications/development-chinas-monopoly-over-cobalt-battery-materials
Geopolitics of Cobalt Supply Chain Vulnerabilities → Scenario – Prism → Sustainability Directory, accessed September 4, 2025, https://prism.sustainability-directory.com/scenario/geopolitics-of-cobalt-supply-chain-vulnerabilities/
Rare Earths in the Trade Dispute Between the US and China: A Deja Vu – Intereconomics, accessed September 4, 2025, https://www.intereconomics.eu/contents/year/2019/number/6/article/rare-earths-in-the-trade-dispute-between-the-us-and-china-a-deja-vu.html
The 2010 Senkaku crisis – NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence, accessed September 4, 2025, https://stratcomcoe.org/cuploads/pfiles/senkaku_crisis.pdf
China Rare Earth Export Restrictions: Global Trade Impact and …, accessed September 4, 2025, https://www.e2open.com/blog/china-rare-earth-export-restrictions-global-trade-impact/
Market structure and economic sanctions: the 2010 rare earth elements episode as a pathway case of market adjustment – Notre Dame International Security Center, accessed September 4, 2025, https://ndisc.nd.edu/assets/344352/market_structure_and_economic_sanctions_the_2010_rare_earth_elements_episode_as_a_pathway_case_of_market_adjustment.pdf
What China’s Ban on Rare Earths Processing Technology Exports …, accessed September 4, 2025, https://www.csis.org/analysis/what-chinas-ban-rare-earths-processing-technology-exports-means
China’s Rare Earth Export Restrictions and Other Countries’ Responses: Strategies for the Main Battleground of Economic Security | SPF China Observer, accessed September 4, 2025, https://www.spf.org/spf-china-observer/en/document-detail062.html
Commission must tackle China’s export restrictions on rare earth elements | News, accessed September 4, 2025, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20250704IPR29456/commission-must-tackle-china-s-export-restrictions-on-rare-earth-elements
Mineral Commodity Summaries 2024 – USGS Publications Warehouse, accessed September 4, 2025, https://pubs.usgs.gov/periodicals/mcs2024/mcs2024.pdf
US Critical Mineral Policies and Alliance Strategies in an Age of Geopolitical Rivalry – Cogitatio Press, accessed September 4, 2025, https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/download/8186/3841
The Impact of Resource Nationalism on Africa’s Critical-Minerals Policy – ResearchGate, accessed September 4, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/393059318_The_Impact_of_Resource_Nationalism_on_Africa’s_Critical-Minerals_Policy
Emerging markets exerting more control over strategic minerals – Maplecroft, accessed September 4, 2025, https://www.maplecroft.com/products-and-solutions/geopolitical-and-country-risk/insights/emerging-markets-exerting-more-control-over-strategic-minerals/
Resource nationalism | Clifford Chance, accessed September 4, 2025, https://www.cliffordchance.com/content/dam/cliffordchance/briefings/2011/12/resource-nationalism.pdf
Protectionism spiking as critical minerals race intensifies – Verisk Maplecroft, accessed September 4, 2025, https://www.maplecroft.com/products-and-solutions/geopolitical-and-country-risk/insights/protectionism-spiking-as-critical-minerals-race-intensifies/
Resource nationalism in the age of green industrialisation – ECDPM Discussion Paper 365, accessed September 4, 2025, https://ecdpm.org/application/files/3217/1497/9233/Resource-Nationalism-Age-Green-Industrialisation-ECDPM-Discussion-Paper-365-2024.pdf
Resource Nationalism in the Lithium Triangle: Analyzing the Investment Environment for China’s Projects in the Lithium Industry – International Relations Review, accessed September 4, 2025, https://www.irreview.org/articles/2025/5/15/resource-nationalism-in-the-lithium-triangle-analyzing-the-investment-environment-for-chinas-projects-in-the-lithium-industry
Africa’s Critical Minerals at a Critical Juncture – Africa Center, accessed September 4, 2025, https://africacenter.org/spotlight/africas-critical-minerals-at-a-critical-juncture/
Africa’s Minerals Will Shape the Future of Global Power – Policy Center, accessed September 4, 2025, https://www.policycenter.ma/publications/africas-minerals-will-shape-future-global-power
Africa’s critical minerals – Mo Ibrahim Foundation, accessed September 4, 2025, https://mo.ibrahim.foundation/sites/default/files/2022-11/minerals-resource-governance.pdf
The “Geopolitics of Climate Change and Conflict” Series: A Summary, accessed September 4, 2025, https://www.crisisgroup.org/africa/horn-africa/geopolitics-climate-change-and-conflict-series-summary
On conflict, critical minerals and the need for renewed global …, accessed September 4, 2025, https://www.cisl.cam.ac.uk/news/blog/conflict-critical-minerals-and-need-renewed-global-leadership
The Geopolitics of South America’s Lithium Triangle, accessed September 4, 2025, https://globalamericans.org/the-geopolitics-of-south-americas-lithium-triangle/
South America’s Lithium Triangle: Opportunities for the Biden Administration – CSIS, accessed September 4, 2025, https://www.csis.org/analysis/south-americas-lithium-triangle-opportunities-biden-administration
Lithium and Latin America are key to the energy transition – The World Economic Forum, accessed September 4, 2025, https://www.weforum.org/stories/2023/01/lithium-latin-america-energy-transition/
The Geopolitics of Lithium in 2025 – The National Interest, accessed September 4, 2025, https://nationalinterest.org/blog/energy-world/the-geopolitics-of-lithium-in-2025/
What Are the Geopolitical Risks of Lithium? → Question – Energy → Sustainability Directory, accessed September 4, 2025, https://energy.sustainability-directory.com/question/what-are-the-geopolitical-risks-of-lithium/
Countering Authoritarian Influence in the Lithium Triangle – Center …, accessed September 4, 2025, https://www.cipe.org/blog/2025/05/30/countering-authoritarian-influence-in-the-lithium-triangle/
SECURING CRITICAL MINERALS AMID U.S.-CHINA RIVALRY: LEVERAGING LATIN AMERICAN LITHIUM TO MITIGATE SUPPLY RISKS, accessed September 4, 2025, https://cgsr.llnl.gov/sites/cgsr/files/2024-08/Mineral-Security.pdf
Critical Minerals and the US–China Rivalry in South America – RUSI, accessed September 4, 2025, https://my.rusi.org/resource/critical-minerals-and-the-uschina-rivalry-in-south-america.html
Framework for Securing American Critical Mineral Supply Chains | Bipartisan Policy Center, accessed September 4, 2025, https://bipartisanpolicy.org/explainer/us-critical-mineral-supply-framework/
CHIPS and Science | NSF – National Science Foundation, accessed September 4, 2025, https://www.nsf.gov/chips
AI-driven critical mineral forecasting – Charles River Analytics, accessed September 4, 2025, https://cra.com/darpa-awards-4-5m-to-charles-river-analytics-to-develop-ai-powered-prediction-technology-for-critical-minerals-supply-chain/
Critical Mineral Resources: The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Role in Research and Analysis – FAS Project on Government Secrecy, accessed September 4, 2025, https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R48005.pdf

This essay is part of the research foundation for The Theory of Recursive Displacement — a unified framework examining how AI-driven automation reshapes labor markets, capital flows, governance structures, and human economic agency. Read the full theory for the complete analysis.

💬

Ask questions about this content?

I'm here to help clarify anything

Chat

Hello! Lets explore this topic together

The L.A.C. Economy and the New Geopolitical Chessboard