美日欧锁定18种核心矿，中国掌控90%加工产能，博弈焦点在哪

Core Viewpoint - The recent focus of the U.S. on critical minerals during diplomatic efforts, particularly in Asia, highlights a long-standing issue of mineral supply dependency, which has become a central theme in U.S. foreign policy [1][17]. Group 1: Historical Context - The U.S. has recognized the importance of strategic minerals since at least 1921, when the first official list was created [3]. - In 2010, the U.S. established a "Critical Minerals Subcommittee," and by 2018, it published a list of 35 critical minerals, revealing a heavy reliance on imports for 31 of them, with 13 having no domestic supply capability [3][5]. Group 2: Current Dependency and Supply Chain Issues - By 2025, the critical minerals list expanded to 54, focusing on those essential for new energy and artificial intelligence [5]. - The U.S. Geological Survey developed a model to simulate the impact of supply disruptions for 84 minerals across over 1,200 scenarios, indicating significant economic risks [5]. - The top 10 critical minerals are predominantly controlled by other countries, with samarium and rhodium being heavily reliant on China and South Africa, respectively [8][10]. Group 3: Global Competition and Cooperation - The U.S., Japan, and Europe share a consensus on 18 core minerals, which are crucial for strategic industries, but their distribution is highly concentrated in a few countries [8][10]. - China dominates the production of non-energy minerals, accounting for over half of global output and leading in rare earth processing [10]. Group 4: Challenges in Building a Domestic Supply Chain - The U.S. has attempted to create a mineral supply chain with allies like Canada and Australia, but faces significant challenges, including infrastructure limitations and high costs of establishing production facilities [12][15]. - The U.S. lacks sufficient skilled labor in mineral processing, with a shortfall of over 20,000 professionals in the field [14]. Group 5: Strategic Implications - The U.S. approach to mineral security has led to increased costs in global mineral trade and a fragmented supply chain, which may not benefit its own industries [15][17]. - The agreements signed during Trump's Asia trip are seen as temporary measures that do not address the underlying supply chain issues, emphasizing the need for cooperative strategies rather than competitive ones [17].