China lead mine plan weighs heavily on Myanmar tribe
AP image
PEKON: Hundreds of protesting Myanmar tribespeople march up a hillside to a cavernous facility where a Chinese joint venture's giant milling machines stand ready to grind up the rocks of their ancestral homeland for lead ore.
Demand for the heavy metal is forecast to rise, driven by its use in the batteries needed for the global energy transition.
But its extraction can pollute the environment and the Pradawng tribespeople carry banners reading: "No transparency, no responsibility".
"We don't have any plan to exchange this inheritance from our ancestors for money or riches," said 24-year-old protest leader Khun Khine Min Naing.
"This land is the dignity of our tribe."
Since a 2021 coup, Myanmar has been riven by civil war and shattered into a patchwork of loosely governed territories ripe for exploitation by unregulated miners.
And neighbouring China is keen to scoop up the minerals and metals Myanmar can supply.
The Pradawng - a little-known sub tribe of the Kayan ethnic group - claim around 3,000 members and a 381-year lineage in Shan state, in Myanmar's east.
They say Myanmar firm Four Star Company and a Chinese partner have planned a mega-project mining lead upriver from their village, Thi Kyeik, in Pekon township.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Switch to UnionBank Rewards Card
UnionBank Credit Card
Apply Now
Undo
Heavy machinery began to be installed in February, but the tribe say they were not consulted on the scheme and fear it will taint the area with hazardous chemicals.
Locals have blockaded roads to turn back vehicles, and threatened to seize mining equipment, defying possible violent backlash in a country where the right to assemble often depends on the whims of armed guards.
Lead is a toxic metal, most commonly mined for use in lead-acid batteries.
Extracting it can pollute local soil and water supplies, with children particularly vulnerable to exposure, according to the WHO.
"We don't want to leave this land environmentally damaged for the next generation," said Khun Khine Min Naing. "We don't want to be regarded as historical criminals."
The Pradawng say Four Star Company has been active locally for two decades and is linked to the local ruling Kayan New Land Party, whose armed wing maintains a ceasefire with Myanmar's military.
The firm could not be reached for comment.
Their Chinese partner company is harder to identify, and locals say its involvement was only revealed when its representatives attended a joint event with Four Star Company intended to address community backlash.
China shares a 2,100-kilometre (1,300-mile) border with Myanmar and has long been a lucrative market for the country's natural resources, including jade, gemstones, teak logs and metal ores.
It accounts for nearly 98 percent of Myanmar's lead ore and concentrate exports, according to 2023 World Bank data.
The figures say 49,000 tonnes worth $20 million were exported to China that year, but that is likely far short of the true amount.
The lack of a central authority means tracking the real scale of mining operations across Myanmar is difficult.
But satellite imagery analysis of one hotspot on the Myanmar-China border by the Britain-based Centre for Information Resilience showed the expanse of mining operations there nearly doubled in size between 2018 and 2024.
Rechargeable lead-acid batteries are widely used in vehicles, including EVs where they provide auxiliary power, as well as for storing power generated by renewable technologies such as wind and solar.
The metal - identified by the WHO as "one of 10 chemicals of major public health concern" - sells for around $2,000 per refined tonne on the global market.
But the Pradawng people suspect they will see none of the profits.
Along with health risks, locals fear environmental damage, with villagers saying increased mining in recent years has led to more flooding and mudslides that carried off entire homes.
Mu Ju July, 19, ekes out a living picking through mine slag heaps for scraps of lead to sell.
A flurry of prospecting could be a windfall for her, but she worries it will squander the livelihoods and homes of future generations.
"If we allow them, we will be okay for only one or two years," she said.
"It will leave only stones when the time comes for our children."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
26 minutes ago
- Time of India
US B-2 stealth bombers, GBU-57 bunker buster bombs, Tomahawks, and bases behind the strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities
The United States launched one of the most audacious airstrikes in recent history in the early hours of June 22, targeting three of Iran's most fortified nuclear facilities, Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. The operation was spearheaded by the US Air Force 's elite B-2 Spirit stealth bombers and supported by submarine-launched Tomahawk cruise missiles, in a campaign aimed at destroying Iran's nuclear capabilities. President Donald Trump , addressing the nation hours after the strike, declared: 'Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated. A full payload of BOMBS was dropped on the primary site, Fordow. All planes are safely on their way home.' by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Buy Brass Idols - Handmade Brass Statues for Home & Gifting Luxeartisanship Buy Now Undo The weapons used At the centre of the operation were the B-2 Spirit bombers. Stealthy and silent, the B-2 is one of the most advanced aircraft in the world, capable of penetrating the most sophisticated air defenses without being detected. Less than two dozen bombers were ever built, each costing over $2 billion. Live Events What made this mission historic was the payload, the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP). Weighing 30,000 pounds, the MOP is the most powerful non-nuclear bomb in the US arsenal. It is designed specifically to destroy deeply buried bunkers like the Fordow facility, which lies beneath a mountain. Each B-2 can carry two MOPs. Trump confirmed five or six were dropped on Fordow, while 30 Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles (TLAMs) were fired at the Natanz and Isfahan sites. Launched from the Pacific air base Several B-2 bombers were tracked moving west over the Pacific. By June 21, they were confirmed to be deployed at Andersen Air Force Base in Guam, a key US outpost roughly 6,000 miles from Iran. It is from here that the US stages its long-range deterrence operations. In sync with Israel The attack was coordinated with Israel, which had already dismantled much of Iran's air defense network, leading up to the US strike through 'Operation Rising Lion.' However, Israel lacked the bunker-busting capacity required for Fordow, prompting its request for American assistance. Republican leaders in Washington praised the mission. Senator Roger Wicker called it 'the correct decision to strike Iran's nuclear sites,' asserting that 'Iran made the choice to continue its pursuit of a nuclear weapon and would only be stopped by force.' But criticism came swiftly from Democrats. Senator Tim Kaine (D-Va) warned that 'the American public is overwhelmingly opposed to the US waging war on Iran' and accused Trump of 'recklessly' bypassing congressional authority. Further escalation? With Iran yet to officially respond, tensions remain dangerously high. The Pentagon has since moved larger aircraft out of Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar and placed regional forces on high alert, anticipating potential retaliation from Iran or its proxies. Trump, however, issued a stern warning in his address: 'There will be either peace or there will be tragedy for Iran far greater than we have witnessed.'
Mint
41 minutes ago
- Mint
US joins Israel-Iran war: How Russia, China, Tehran, other world media reacted — ‘American recession will be next'
US President Donald Trump stunned the world by announcing on Saturday that US aircraft had struck Iran's Fordo nuclear enrichment plant, plus the Natanz and Isfahan facilities. Later, in a four-minute address to the nation, he said the US "completely and totally obliterated" Iranian nuclear sites. He also threatened to attack more targets in the Islamic country "if peace does not come quickly." However, Iran said there were 'no signs of contamination' after US attacked its key nuclear sites. The US' attack on Iran on Saturday has raised fears of a larger conflict in the Middle-East. It drew the world's reaction even as United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said the US strike on Iran "is a dangerous escalation in a region already on the edge." Here's how media channels across the globe reported on US strikes against Iran: Several US media outlets focused on Donald Trump's statement that the US had 'completely and totally obliterated" Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities. They also highlighted America's warning to Tehran that there 'are many targets left.' Credit: New York Times The front-page headline on the New York Times website read, "U.S. ENTERS WAR AGAINST IRAN". An analysis piece on its page was titled "US Military Is Pulled Back Into Middle East Wars". It said, "The strikes on Iran ushered in a period of high alert as the Pentagon braced for almost-certain retaliation against American forces in the region." Meanwhile, the Washington Post's headline was titled: "US warplanes strike nuclear sites in Iran". It also reported on how" Israeli strikes on Iran cap dramatic shift in Mideast strategic balance." The Washington Post report stated, "Israel has emerged as an unchallenged military power, Iran and its 'axis of resistance' are in disarray, and the foes — for the first time — are fighting directly." It further noted that 'Iran is weakened but not defeated.' The USA Today also headlined its top article as "US bombs Iran", while NBC reported, "Trump warns future attacks "would be far greater" if Iran does not negotiate a peace settlement." The Chinese media didn't go big on the US joining the Iran-Israel conflict. While the state media, Global Times, placed just one article - titled "Trump says Iran's key nuclear facilities were 'totally obliterated' in strikes" – on its front page, Xinhua news agency's article read, "Trump threatens Iran with more strikes if 'peace does not come quickly'." Credit: Global Times But China Daily seemed to highlight the conflict comparatively more as one of its top news stories referred to the efforts by Chinese authorities to bring its nationals from Iran. It also published a report with UN chief Guterres' statement calling US strike on Iran a dangerous escalation. The top headline of Iran International, as of 9:40 am IST, read, "US strikes Iran nuclear sites, Trump promises bigger blows if attacked". It cited Nour News, an Iranian outlet affiliated with the Supreme National Security Council, as reporting: "By attacking Iran's nuclear facilities, Trump admitted that his proxy force [Israel] has failed." Meanwhile, the top news on Tehran Times was: "AEOI issues statement after attack on Iran nuclear sites". One of its reports also read, "How many coffins will Trump send home for the sake of Israel?". It claimed that "an American recession will be the next immediate consequence of US intervention in Israel-Iran war" and added that 'A US strike is not even guaranteed to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities.'
Time of India
43 minutes ago
- Time of India
Democrats divided as Trump announces US strikes on Iran nuclear sites
After nearly two years of stark divisions over the war in Gaza and support for Israel, Democrats seemed to remain at odds over policy toward Iran. Progressives demanded unified opposition before President Donald Trump announced U.S. strikes against Tehran's nuclear program but party leaders were treading more cautiously. U.S. leaders of all stripes have found common ground for two decades on the position that Iran could not be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon. The longtime U.S. foe has supported groups that have killed Americans across the Mideast and threatened to destroy Israel. But Trump's announcement Saturday that the U.S. had struck three nuclear sites could become the Democratic Party 's latest schism, just as it was sharply dividing Trump's isolationist "Make America Great Again" base from more hawkish conservatives. Ken Martin, chair of the Democratic National Committee , noted that in January, Trump suggested the U.S. could "measure our success not only by the battles we win, but also by the wars that we end, and perhaps most importantly, the wars we never get into." by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 혈관이 조여오는 느낌이 드신다면.. 메디셜 더 읽기 Undo "Today, against his own words, the president sent bombers into Iran," Martin said in a statement. "Americans overwhelmingly do not want to go to war. Americans do not want to risk the safety of our troops abroad." Sen. Peter Welch, a Vermont Democrat, said the U.S. entering the war in Iran "does not make America more secure." Live Events "This bombing was an act of war that risks retaliation by the Iranian regime," Welch said in a statement. While progressives in the lead-up to the military action had staked out clear opposition to Trump's potential intervention, the party leadership played the safer ground of insisting on a role for Congress before any use of force. Martin's statement took a similar tact, stating, "Americans do not want a president who bypasses our constitution and pulls us towards war without Congressional approval. Donald Trump needs to bring his case to Congress immediately." Virginia Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine called Trump's actions, "Horrible judgement" and said he'd "push for all senators to vote on whether they are for this third idiotic Middle East war." Many prominent Democrats with 2028 presidential aspirations had been silent on the Israel-Iran war, even before Trump's announcement - underscoring how politically tricky the issue can be for the party. "They are sort of hedging their bets," said Joel Rubin, a former deputy assistant secretary of state who served under Democratic President Barack Obama and is now a strategist on foreign policy. "The beasts of the Democratic Party's constituencies right now are so hostile to Israel's war in Gaza that it's really difficult to come out looking like one would corroborate an unauthorized war that supports Israel without blowback." Progressive Democrats also are using Trump's ideas and words Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., had called Trump's consideration of an attack "a defining moment for our party." Khanna had introduced legislation with Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., that called on the Republican president to "terminate" the use of U.S. armed forces against Iran unless "explicitly authorized" by a declaration of war from Congress. Khanna used Trump's own campaign arguments of putting American interests first when the congressman spoke to Theo Von, a comedian who has been supportive of the president and is popular in the so-called "manosphere" of male Trump supporters. "That's going to cost this country a lot of money that should be being spent here at home," said Khanna, who is said to be among the many Democrats eyeing the party's 2028 primary. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent who twice sought the Democratic presidential nomination, had pointed to Trump's stated goal during his inaugural speech of being known as "a peacemaker and a unifier." "Supporting Netanyahu's war against Iran would be a catastrophic mistake," Sanders said about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Sanders reintroduced legislation prohibiting the use of federal money for force against Iran, insisted that U.S. military intervention would be unwise and illegal and accused Israel of striking unprovoked. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York signed on to a similar bill from Sanders in 2020, but so far was holding off this time. Some believed the party should stake out a clear anti-war stance. "The leaders of the Democratic Party need to step up and loudly oppose war with Iran and demand a vote in Congress," said Tommy Vietor, a former Obama aide, on X. Mainstream Democrats are cautious, while critical The staunch support from the Democratic administration of President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris for Israel's war against Hamas loomed over the party's White House ticket in 2024, even with the criticism of Israel's handling of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Trump exploited the divisions to make inroads with Arab American voters and Orthodox Jews on his way back to the White House. Today, the Israel-Iran war is the latest test for a party struggling to repair its coalition before next year's midterm elections and the quick-to-follow kickoff to the 2028 presidential race. The party will look to bridge the divide between an activist base that is skeptical of foreign interventions and already critical of U.S. support for Israel and more traditional Democrats and independents who make up a sizable, if not always vocal, voting bloc. In a statement after Israel's first strikes on Iran, Schumer said Israel has a right to defend itself and "the United States' commitment to Israel's security and defense must be ironclad as they prepare for Iran's response." Sen. Jacky Rosen, D-Nev., said "the U.S. must continue to stand with Israel, as it has for decades, at this dangerous moment." Other Democrats have condemned Israel's strikes and accused Netanyahu of sabotaging nuclear talks with Iran. They are reminding the public that Trump withdrew in 2018 from a nuclear agreement that limited Tehran's enrichment of uranium in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions negotiated during the Obama administration. "Trump created the problem," Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., posted on X. The progressives' pushback A Pearson Institute/Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll from September 2024 found that about half of Democrats said the U.S. was being "too supportive" of Israel and about 4 in 10 said their level of support was "about right." Democrats were more likely than independents and Republicans to say the Israeli government had "a lot" of responsibility for the continuation of the war between Israel and Hamas. About 6 in 10 Democrats and half of Republicans felt Iran was an adversary with whom the U.S. was in conflict.
