As soon as the G7 summit ended, the nerves of the global manufacturing industry became tense again.
The Group of Seven took the lead in announcing that it will vigorously push forward the reform of the key mineral supply chain, and directly stated the target plan clearly: before 2030, the dependence on minerals from a single country, including China, will be reduced to less than 60%.
It was even said that if conditions permit, it will have to be gradually reduced to 50%.
It sounds like he is making up his mind, but in fact he is planning better than anyone else.
Things are not that simple.
In fact, China has been prepared for a long time, and its policies are already ahead of the curve – export restrictions, license approvals, and military-related exports of various key metals are almost stuck. From 2025 to 2026, especially for high-end materials such as tungsten and rare earths, the valve will be tightened on relevant Japanese companies, basically clearing out supplies for military purposes.
There are also windows for the civilian part, but the prerequisite is that they are compliant and legal.
Critical minerals are actually the lifeblood that supports downstream manufacturing industries such as new energy, military industry, and electronics.
On the surface, everyone talks about supply security, but in fact, the bottom line is “who has the stronger say.”
Many people think that China only has “raw ore”, but the real ability lies in the series of high-end separation, precision smelting, and finished product delivery.
To put it simply, everyone can see that the G7 wants to reduce dependence, but there are still many “technical gaps” that have not been filled.
The G7 talks beautifully about forming alliances and reserves. It also sets up an emergency coordination mechanism, subsidizes the mining of new mines, and promotes recycling. But looking back at the reality of the industry, new mines cannot be opened just because they want to, and time, funds, and environmental protection are all tied up.
How much of the mines in Australia and Canada are capable of digesting?
Besides, if Europe and the United States could immediately take over the industrial chain of core materials, they would have done it long ago. Would it be their turn to shout out numbers?
Last year, China officially brought unpopular high-value metals such as tungsten, tellurium, bismuth, and molybdenum into export control. As a result, the market responded directly—Japanese companies could not import tungsten. The first reaction was that prices jumped, manufacturing capacity was compressed, and many high-tech orders had to be postponed.
In fact, the operations in other regions are similar. For example, the silicon wafer industry was once restricted by Southeast Asia, which directly triggered a global chip price increase. In the end, it was only through the frequent adjustments of plans by first-tier manufacturers that the situation was slowly slowed down.
The core logic of the policy is actually not difficult to guess: China acts as a “rule designer” while managing exports simply.
It’s not simply cutting off the supply, but “you can use it if it complies with the rules, but if you don’t, I’ll cut off the supply.”
When it comes to maintaining stable global supply, the bottom line is always national security and industrial interests.
Of course, there are patchwork methods in the same industry. For example, when high-end materials in Japan are out of supply, companies are working hard to recycle them, increase inventory management, and rush to buy new batches of products.
However, these measures treat the symptoms rather than the root cause and rely too much on emergency procurement and off-site recycling. Once the limelight is over, they still have to return to the main production chain.
This is a bit similar to the chip shortage back then. In the end, raw materials determined success or failure.
G7 actually has its own problems.
The United States promotes supply chain security, German and French companies calculate costs in their minds, Australia and Japan play with bilateral agreements, everyone acts together?
It sounds simple, but when it comes to providing money and resources, everyone often has to settle their own accounts.
There are many reports that the United States has recently roped in Canada to open mining, but it still needs to make up for China’s involvement in large-scale military and new energy industries.
The problem is that no one is willing to “pay for others.”
At the same time, domestic and foreign supply chain observations are not one-sided.
For example, in the early years, the U.S. semiconductor industry tried to get rid of its reliance on East Asian manufacturing and invested heavily in local production capacity. However, reality soon hit the face – new factories were delayed, and rising costs reshaped the price system. In the end, many old projects had to resume supply in Asia.
This trend is very similar to the current G7 “de-reliance on mineral resources”. It is not easy to reverse it in a short period of time.
What the global manufacturing industry is facing is actually a double attack of “cost pressure + rising policy tide”.
Whoever can endure the price increase cycle and whoever supports supply first will have a stronger say.
Therefore, what the G7 wants is a window for the supply chain to breathe, while what China wants is the real power to “switch and regulate” exports.
Now everyone is striving for reserves, promoting cooperation, and negotiating new rules. In fact, they are bargaining based on their own bottom line.
The road ahead will not be smooth.
Rare earths, tungsten, MO, gallium, indium, and new nanomaterials are all game points in the supply chain.
You subsidize your production capacity, and I upgrade my technology. In the end, all the pressure is passed on to the companies that use the products and ordinary buyers.
Manufacturing price increases and innovation slowdown have become the norm, and this step seems unstoppable.
No one is sure how it will end, but the supply chain reshuffle has just begun.
China can decisively tighten the grip, and the G7 will vigorously fill the gap. Everyone is waiting to see who will let go first at the next hurdle.
The advantages of domestic supply still exist, and the pressure for cooperation from international alliances is increasing.
The test of this game is not about shouting slogans, but about real money and industrial accumulation.
Let’s wait and see who will finally have the actual control.
