Latest news with #ElbridgeColby
Reuters
3 hours ago
- Business
- Reuters
Japan scraps US meeting after Washington demands more defense spending -FT
WASHINGTON, June 20 (Reuters) - Japan has canceled a regular high-level meeting with its key ally the United States after the Trump administration demanded it spend more on defense, the Financial Times reported on Friday. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had been expected to meet their Japanese counterparts in Washington on July 1 for annual 2+2 security talks. But Tokyo scrapped the meeting after the U.S. side asked Japan to boost defense spending to 3.5 per cent of GDP, higher than an earlier request of 3 per cent, the paper cited unnamed sources familiar with the matter, including two officials in Tokyo, as saying. A U.S. official who did not want to be identified confirmed Japan had "postponed" the talks but said the decision was made several weeks ago. The source did not cite a reason. A non-government source familiar with the issue said he had also heard Japan had pulled out of the meeting, but not the reason for it doing so. U.S. State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce said she had no comment on the FT report when asked about it at regular briefing, and the Pentagon also had no immediate comment. Japan's embassy in Washington did not respond to a request for comment. The Financial Times said the new higher spending demand was made in recent weeks by Elbridge Colby, the third-most senior Pentagon official, who has also recently upset another key U.S. ally in the Indo-Pacific by launching a review of a project to provide Australia with nuclear-powered submarines. In March, Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba said that other nations do not decide Japan's defense budget after Colby called in his nomination hearing to be under secretary of defense for policy for Tokyo to spend more to counter China. Japan and other U.S. allies have been engaged in difficult trade talks with the United States over U.S. President Donald Trump's worldwide tariff offensive. The FT said the decision to cancel the July 1 meeting was also related to Japan's July 20 Upper House elections, at which the ruling Liberal Democratic Party is expected to suffer a loss of seats. It comes ahead of a meeting of the U.S.-led NATO alliance in Europe next week, at which Trump is expected to press his demand that European allies boost their defense spending to 5 percent of GDP.
Asia Times
14 hours ago
- Business
- Asia Times
How China got the US over a rare earth barrel
Who's gonna tell you when it's too late? Who's gonna tell you things aren't so great? You can't go on, thinking nothing's wrong, but now Who's gonna drive you home tonight? – The Cars 'Just when I thought I was out,' Michael Corleone lamented, 'They pull me back in.' This column was originally intended to be about the lamentable state of America's rare earths dependency and how decades of delusional thinking – 'Rare earths are not rare!', 'We taught China rare earth processing!' – led to the current predicament. But who cares about rare earths now; the Middle East is once again a conflagration likely to ruin all of US Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby's best-laid pivot to Asia plans whether President Donald Trump drops that 30,000-pound bomb on Iran or not. The Persian Gulf and Eastern Mediterranean will tie down US naval assets for another decade. Michael Corleone's fatal flaw was that he did not understand what business he was in. He was a gangster, and there is no escape from murder, death and ruin in that line of work. Karma came for Philip Tattaglia, Barzini, Cuneo, Stracci, Moe Green and Hyman Roth. Why would it be any different for Michael and the Corleone family? Since the end of World War II, the United States has run a maritime empire and there is no escape from entanglement, overstretch and ruin in that line of work. Karma came for the Minoans, Phoenicians, Italian merchant states, Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch, British and Japanese empires. Why would it be any different for America? The reason the US is dependent on China for rare earth elements is that ores with extractable concentrations are, in fact, rare and processing these ores into usable concentrates is, in fact, incredibly difficult. The purpose of maritime empires is to harvest wealth from far-flung imperial possessions – or, more palatably, a rules-based international order. This need not be as self-serving as it sounds. Japan was allowed to have a very nice four-decade-long run between 1945 and 1985. Europe got the Marshall Plan and eight decades of security, allowing the old country (literally) to fund generous pension and welfare programs. Nixon's rapprochement with Mao removed the US Seventh Fleet as a Pacific threat, paving the way for China's coastal industrialization. In return, the US got decades of Middle Eastern oil arguably for free (crude oil paid for in dollars recycled into US investments). America also got manufactured goods from Asia and Europe on the same trade and creamed off the best and brightest from all corners of the world to become the empire's minions. All of the above should be grounds for celebration. It's all America could have asked for as a maritime empire. And yet, we are all familiar with the downsides. Maritime empires contain the seeds of their own destruction, magnifying capitalism's iniquities as wealth concentrates in ever fewer hands. Karl Marx wrote 'Das Kapital'at the height of the British Empire, showcasing brutal exploitation in Britain's own factories. The Trump presidency (both terms) is a reaction to America's neglected working class. The reason the US is dependent on China for rare earth elements is because processing technology has advanced multiple generations in the past two decades. The majority of the world's rare earths are now processed in Baotou Inner Mongolia, largely using third-generation sulfuric acid roasting technology, having long ago abandoned polluting in-situ leaching. Because of unavoidable foreign entanglements, maritime empires are not able to enjoy what should be a major perk of hegemony – to not have to expend resources on the military. The spoils of maritime empires can only be collected with expensive navies and far-flung bases if not occasional (perhaps continual) spillage of blood. And America's collected spoils have, of late, not been well distributed among the citizenry, particularly among those asked to do the bleeding. Mischief is irresistible for empires with forward-deployed militaries. The US has conducted about 200 military interventions since the end of WWII, 50 since the end of the Cold War. The most significant of these have been abject disasters – Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan – draining the empire of blood, treasure, domestic vitality and international goodwill. Mischief is once again at work, enticing America back into the Middle East just a few short years after humiliatingly crashing out of Afghanistan. America's pivot to Asia will never happen, just like Michael Corleone could never extricate the family business from its criminal past. The empire has collected too many barnacles. This is the exact opposite of the domino theory. It does not get easier. At some point, foreign entanglements stop benefiting the empire and become, at best, leeches and, at worst, ruinous distractions. The US, bled dry by two decades of never-ending wars, can only pivot to Asia by abandoning the Middle East and Ukraine. But like bickering concubines, manipulative allies conspire for the emperor's favor. In every stable of concubines, there is always a favorite who outmaneuvers the rest and imposes her will on a besotted emperor. America's Wu Zetian just unleashed a surprise attack on Iran demanding the emperor's total attention, leaving beautiful, faithful, innocent and delicate Taiwan to twist in the wind. The US is dependent on China for rare earth elements because rare earth chemistry programs are offered at dozens of Chinese universities versus none in the US. China has produced over 50,000 rare earth patents in the past two decades versus a de minimis number anywhere else. Cutting-edge science in the field is published in a handful of dedicated Chinese rare earth journals. China does not do foreign entanglements. Historically, China expanded organically by incorporating different polities into the Chinese state. That is what makes China China. Unlike maritime empires, the entire purpose of the Chinese state is to harness the major perk of hegemony– not having to waste resources on the military and, instead, deploy them on public works projects, from Yellow River dykes to high-speed rail. In the early 15th century, after commissioning seven magnificent imperial treasure voyages over three decades, reaching as far west as the east coast of Africa and establishing China as the world's pre-eminent seafaring nation, the Ming Dynasty court suddenly turned its back on maritime power. Historians have asked why ever since. Whether it was economics, Confucian conservatism or banal power struggles, abandoning maritime power set China up for European and Japanese predation in the 19th and 20th centuries. In a full accounting of history, maritime empires have not fared much better. Competition for overseas assets led to the slaughter of two World Wars, immolating much of Europe's accumulated wealth. Imperial possessions, acquired over a span of four centuries, evaporated in the blink of a few decades. The reason the US is dependent on China for rare earth elements is because of a maddening inability to concentrate. The US has known of its risky reliance on China for rare earths for two decades. In 2010, China weaponized its rare earth stranglehold on Japan during an East China Sea border dispute. In 2019, after President Trump launched a trade and tech war, China State Television not so subtly broadcast President Xi Jinping's visit to a rare earth processing plant. And somehow, in 2025, China has become an even more dominant supplier of rare earth elements. In all these instances, the exact same narratives were parroted by the English media – rare earths are not actually rare, China dominates rare earth processing because it is polluting, the US transferred rare earth processing technology to China. These shibboleths, which fall apart on close scrutiny, have tied America's hands for two decades. Halfhearted efforts to resolve the problem fell by the wayside when China refrained from pulling the rare earth trigger – until now, in 2025, when China is putting the squeeze on rare earth exports for military use just as strategic competition with the US is entering its most intense phase and right when conflicts in Israel and Ukraine are consuming an inordinate amount of military hardware. Like Michael Corleone, the US tried to convince itself that it was in a different business. 'The Godfather' is a tragedy worthy of – and rhyming with – both 'Macbeth' and 'King Lear.' Michael was blinded by ambition, thought of himself as more than a gangster and ultimately brought ruin onto himself and the Corleone family. The US consciously chose to be a maritime empire, stationing troops in 800 bases across the world, and then convinced itself that it was more than just an extractive empire, above the nitty-gritty, dirty work of resource extraction and immune from manipulation by vassals. Let us hope that this does not end in a Godfather-esque tragedy.
South China Morning Post
2 days ago
- Business
- South China Morning Post
Is the Aukus submarine deal dead in the water under Trump?
The flagship project of Australia's future maritime defence architecture, Aukus , has been placed under review in Washington. For some time, muted speculation about the status of Aukus Pillar I, an A$368 billion (US$238.5 billion) deal between Canberra, Washington and London to help Australia acquire nuclear-powered submarines (SSNs), has been circulating among analysts and policymakers in Australia amid the upheaval of the Trump administration. Advertisement In Canberra, the government has maintained an anxious silence, most likely in an attempt to limit any noise that may land unfavourably on US President Donald Trump's desk. Now it is clear that a review by the Australian government of Aukus Pillar I must be forthcoming. A starting point will be a potential conditional rise in Australia's defence spending on further cooperation with the Pentagon. Elbridge Colby, US undersecretary of defence for policy, is advocating a 5 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP) minimum defence spending threshold among allies, 'not only in Europe but in Asia as well'. US Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth has stated that 'Australia should increase its defence spending to 3.5 per cent of its GDP as soon as possible'. Australia now spends 2 per cent of GDP on defence. But even with a strengthening of funding for Aukus platforms, projections for 2029 indicate only a modest increase to 2.25 per cent. This spending hike is certain to rub up against existing agreements under the Aukus 'Optimal Pathway', which will see the United States sell three used Virginia-class SSNs to Australia in 2032, 2035 and 2038. Advertisement The feasibility of the Optimal Pathway is quickly diminishing amid the hype around escalating costs and the limited capacity of the US defence industrial base to meet ambitious delivery timelines.
Sky News AU
5 days ago
- Business
- Sky News AU
Australia warned it could 'never replicate' at risk AUKUS deal as Anthony Albanese prepares for crucial talks with Donald Trump
A foreign policy expert has warned Australia and the United Kingdom could "never replicate" AUKUS without support from the United States ahead of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's crucial meeting with President Donald Trump. Concerns about President Trump's approach to AUKUS were raised to new heights following the announcement last week his administration was launching a review into the the trilateral pact. Set to be led by AUKUS sceptic Elbridge Colby, the review has stoked fears the US could walk away from the agreement in what would come as a huge blow to Australia's defence and strategic plan. Mr Albanese is now facing significant pressure to convince President Trump of AUKUS' value, with many analysts expecting the US leader will pressure his Australian counterpart on defence spending when the two meet on the sidelines of the G7 on Wednesday. British Foreign Policy Group senior research and programs manager Eliza Keogh warned there was a "real possibility" President Trump would pull out of the pact, with the Australian and UK governments now jointly scrambling to keep the deal alive. "AUKUS offers clear strategic advantages for the US - from regional proximity to China, to access to Australian facilities for docking and servicing - and there is a possibility the review could just be the Trump administration increasing pressure on Australia to boost its defence spending to 3.5 per cent of GDP," she told "Nevertheless, there is a real possibility the US could withdraw from AUKUS, particularly with AUKUS sceptic Elbridge Colby leading the review. "The Trump administration's tendency to prioritise short-term political calculations over strategic foresight means that it may opt to withdraw from AUKUS, despite its long-term focus on countering the rise of China, as short term interests - predominantly keeping US-built submarines at home - will win out." Several analysts and observers have highlighted flagging US submarine manufacturing as a potential dealbreaker, with the nation at risk of missing its goal to increase the size of its fleet to 66 vessels by 2049. Debate over the provision of Virginia class submarines to Australia - a stop-gap measure to ensure Australia remains well equipped while AUKUS vessels are constructed - has raged for almost two years and has drawn scrutiny from both Democrats and Republicans. Some have suggested President Trump may demand Australia increase the $3 billion it will send to the US to help offset production costs for the submarines in order to ensure the deal remains on tract, although Mr Albanese ruled out that possibility in 2023 and appears unlikely to change course. Instead, the Prime Minister is expected to emphasise the in-kind benefits AUKUS provides the US during his sit down with President Trump, while also pointing to Labor's $57 billion boost to defence spending over the next decade. According to Ms Keogh, highlighting Australia's role in deterring Chinese ambitions in the Indo-Pacific is likely to be another effective tactic given the US' desire to see "partners stepping up in the region". She also offered a more radical solution, which, while likely to appease President Trump, could also leave Australia dependent on the US until the first AUKUS vessels come online in the 2030s. "If they are looking to placate Trump, UK and Australian negotiators could look to renegotiate parts of the deal, including offering to loan submarines back to the US if necessary," Ms Keogh said. It remains to be seen what, if any concessions, Mr Albanese makes to the US President, but the foreign policy expert warned it would be impossible to replace AUKUS should Australia and the UK fail to maintain American support. "The UK and Australia have already agreed to negotiate a bilateral AUKUS treaty, but this could never replicate the scale and weight of the trilateral agreement," Ms Keogh said. Publicly both nations have sought to downplay the risk of US withdrawal, with Britain's Labour government highlighting the fact it held a similar review after it came to power. However, Ms Keogh explained officials were privately "very nervous" about how the Trump administration would proceed. The UK has made a flurry of announcements, including a pointed commitment to boost its own submarine production in coming years, as it attempts to demonstrate it is serious about raising its defence spend. Meanwhile, the Australian government has taken a different approach, pushing back against US calls to increase spending and insisting its current strategic plans are adequate. This has prompted intense criticism from a number of leading defence experts, who warn Australia is both weaker and less capable then in previous decades while also at risk of jeopardising its relationship with its most significant defence partner.
AU Financial Review
6 days ago
- Politics
- AU Financial Review
The glaring flaw in AUKUS that even America's top defence official knows
Defence Minister Richard Marles has dismissed the Pentagon's review of AUKUS as merely a routine undertaking by a new administration of a policy they inherited from their predecessors, which he expects will confirm the nuclear submarine deal. If he really believes that he is making a big mistake. AUKUS makes no strategic sense for America, and the man conducting the review, US Under-Secretary of Defence for Policy Elbridge Colby, knows this as well as anyone.
