Strategic Mineral Dependence: Are We Addressing the Real Problem?

To many who for years have scrutinized the US mineral supply picture, recent, often strident debate on present-day security of many critical mineral supplies echoes sentiments repeatedly expressed in the past decade by the minerals industry. At no time since the last world war has such a flurry of public concern been expressed for the economy's mineral sector. Where once mineral availability problems were relegated to the newspaper's business section or not reported at all, today comprehensive analyses of our international mineral posture are discussed in detail by some of the nation's most respected and widely read periodicals. In past years, disinterest was also experienced whenever the mining industry attempted to carry its message to Congress, the public, and the government's executive branch. Among minerals professionals, the past decade was a time of particular frustration clue to serious erosion ill US ability to competitively produce the vast array of raw materials vital to the economy acid national defense. Fervent calls for immediate attention were simply not answered. These professionals have understood that mining and agriculture are the primary sources of wealth, fulfilling virtually all needs and creating and sustaining jobs. Why then has it been so difficult to raise the consciousness of the American public, and even more surprisingly, of the government and national leadership? The answer to this question is perhaps endemic to how government functions, but pore important, it begs that mining professionals capitalize on the opportunity and the attention now at hand. Carefully conceived and implemented actions by both private and public sectors are needed more than ever before in the past 35 years. To this end, it is vitally important to seek out and resolve the root causes of supply problems and not dwell on superficial solutions. The following discussion attempts to establish a simple framework to view this process. It does not presume to be an exposition of cause and effect, but hopefully identifies some needed steps. Growing Awareness in the 1970s Of all events stimulating current concern, certainly the OPEC oil embargo has left the deepest impression. It was inevitable that after such a shock, man. Americans would begin asking whether the US was as vulnerable to cutoffs of minerals as it was to oil cutoffs. Then, when serious trade security questions surfaced in sonic mineral-rich nations in Africa and the Persian Gulf, the ominous term ''resource war" began to be heard. Countries such as South Africa, Zaire, Zambia, and Zimbabwe have suddenly become key areas for testing our national security resolve. As the US witnesses the influx of Marxist influence in many sub-Saharan exporting nations and the rising threat to free world access to critical materials and energy, the assurance of adequate supplies is becoming a national issue at last. The US is now learning that self-sufficiency for many vitally important mineral commodities has vanished. Of course, it did not vanish overnight; it had been leaking away for years, and the trend was noted by industry and a few in government. Within the minerals community, suspected weaknesses in America's resource posture were sought and found. As a result, the country's heavy reliance on foreign sources fur more than a score of minerals, many extremely vital to security, has been forcefully documented and the case for drastically altering the supply unbalance hits been proposed. The renewed concern for national defense is central to almost all proposals for minimizing US foreign mineral dependence. It is not surprising that many of the voices heard today on the dependency issue are active members or alumni of the militate establishment. Unfortunately, their almost total focus on the security aspects of dependency has tended to obscure important underlying issues which are not directly defense-related. Some of the proposals advanced might mitigate the deeps-dency problems, but they still fall short of curing the underlying problems that have led to a steady loss in mineral self-sufficiency. In almost all instances these problems call be traced to increasing government influence on the free market minerals economy. Some national security proponents seek to attain total self-sufficiency in minerals. Such arguments must he tempered by existing realities. It is easy to demonstrate that the US obtains substantial quantities of sonic essential minerals from potentially insecure sources abroad. That the US will continue to do so in the foreseeable future is not in doubt Uncertainty begins, however, when we try to interpret the significance of these facts. It is important to understand that mineral dependency does not irrevocably lead to vulnerability. Unlike oil, no mineral commodity combines the same degree of universal indispensibility and centralized foreign control of supplies. Moreover, although many US-required minerals are produced by fewer countries than export oil, those minerals cannot approach petroleum in economic or industrial importance. Finally, most foreign supplies come front friendly, secure nations such as Canada, 'Mexico, and Brazil. This, aid more, constitutes a vital element in US economic health as a world trading nation. The Cost of Interruption The US is currently stronger and more resilient than many expected after absorbing the oil embargo shock and subsequent price increases. Nevertheless, major worldwide