Critical resources, imperialism and the war against Russia

Gabriel Black

All the major wars and military interventions of the United States over the last quarter century have begun with pretensions of grand moral purpose.

In Iraq, the American population was told a madman was developing weapons of mass destruction. In Afghanistan, the Taliban Jihadists needed to be removed to free the country and Osama Bin Laden found. In Libya, Muammar Gaddafi obstructed the country’s yearning for “democracy” and “human rights.”

By conservative estimates, between 755,000 to 786,000 people have died directly from combat in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, and Yemen since US led conflicts began there, largely civilians. In Libya, where tens of thousands were killed, the country has been ruined by a decade of civil war. Total estimates of deaths from American-led conflicts over the last quarter century begin far higher, from 3 million to as high as 12 million, due to the catastrophic impacts of medical, nutritional and infrastructural breakdown.

This staggering destruction belies the pretension that these wars of aggression were based on anything remotely resembling a moral purpose.

It is no secret that war has at its base more fundamental economic and geopolitical causes.

Why would it be the case that in the United States—a land where everything revolves around money—war, one of the country’s greatest exports, would be an exception? Does the Middle East, the centerpiece of the “war on terror,” just happen to be the global focal point of the cheapest future reserves of oil and gas? Is it merely a happy coincidence for the Pentagon that Gaddafi and Hussein sat on two of the largest untapped supplies of that sought-after commodity?

As Alan Greenspan, former Chairman of the Federal Reserve and key architect of US economic policy, stated in a 2007 memoir, “I’m saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: The Iraq war is largely about oil.” Greenspan was harshly rebuked for even making this simple observation.

Wars, of course, require vast mobilizations of economic and political resources. Tens of trillions of dollars have been spent by the US conducting war over the last twenty-five years. And, while some grow horribly rich off this expenditure, the high costs would not be paid unless they reaped an outcome.

Imperialism and the driving forces behind US/NATO encirclement of Russia

It is in this context that the current drive towards war against Russia must be understood. A serious understanding of any major military conflict must analyze these economic and geopolitical forces. However, the media coverage of the escalating war in Ukraine is devoid of any such analysis.

To the extent that these issues are mentioned, it is in the most puerile and one-sided fashion: Russia bullies its neighbors through its important supply of natural gas, and the US and Europe seek to heroically intervene to stop this. No questions, however, are asked, as to what interests the United States and its European allies have in Ukraine or, for that matter, Russia.

If an honest historian of war sought to understand this conflict, they would be compelled, regardless of their conclusions, to at least ask the following questions:

• What are the economic and geopolitical interests of expanding NATO and the EU eastward?
• What is the importance of geopolitically and economically controlling Ukraine?
• What interest would the United States have in dismembering Russia into smaller states with no military forces? How might they seek to accomplish this?
• What is the relationship between the present war in Ukraine and the United States’ geopolitical goals in Eurasia?

The American ruling class does have answers to these questions, they just prefer not to share them too publicly.

As far back as 1997, Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former US national security advisor and architect of US foreign policy in Ukraine stated, “America’s capacity to exercise global primacy” depends on whether the US can prevent “the emergence of a dominant and antagonistic Eurasian power.”

Zbigniew Brzezinski

Brzezinski, speaking for American imperialism on the heels of the dissolution of the USSR, had specifically in mind Russia. He argued that Ukraine was critical to the US asserting its hegemony against Russia in Eurasia. “Without Ukraine,” he wrote, “Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire.” Of course, Brzezinski’s friends at the State Department and the Pentagon never questioned the central premise, that the US has the right to “exercise global primacy,” nor tallied the corpses of that ambition.

Following the 2014 coup in Ukraine, during which the US and Germany intervened to remove pro-Russian president Viktor Yanukovych, Brzezinski laid out the American military’s intention of drawing Russia into a prolonged and costly invasion of Ukraine.

In an article, “The West Should Arm Ukraine,” published by the Atlantic Council in 2014, Brzezinski speaks of a Russian invasion of Ukraine as a near certainty. He emphasizes that US and NATO countries should provide

weapons designed particularly to permit the Ukrainians to engage in effective urban warfare of resistance. There’s no point trying to arm the Ukrainians to take on the Russian army in the open field… If the major cities, say Kharkiv, say Kiev, were to resist and street fighting became a necessity, it would be prolonged and costly. And the fact of the matter is—and this is where the timing of this whole crisis is important—Russia is not yet ready to undertake that kind of an effort. [Emphasis in the original]

Ultimately, the US and EU gave over $20 billion of military and economic aid to Ukraine between the 2014 coup and 2019—backing Ukraine’s war against Russian separatists in the Donbas which took the lives of thirteen thousand people, mainly ethnically Russian civilians, another fact conveniently absent from the war coverage. Now, the US is in the process of flooding Ukraine with armaments, including advanced anti-tank missiles, artillery, and other gear. The US is on track to spend over $40 billion this year alone, which does not include arms from European states.

Brzezinski’s strikingly accurate anticipation of the present “prolonged and costly,” largely urban war contradicts, in its logical anticipation of what was to come, the two-dimensional propaganda that Putin, a mad man, invaded Ukraine out of irrational, imperial ambitions. However desperate and reactionary Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine was, the fundamental causes of the war are found in these deeper, calculated ambitions of US imperialism in Eurasia following the dissolution of the USSR, involving the aggressive expansion of NATO eastward.

Lenin on imperialism

In his work, Imperialism: the highest stage of capitalism, written in 1916, Lenin argued that the increasing technical development of world capitalism—the socialization and concentration of the forces of production—had ushered in a new and final era for capitalism, the imperialist epoch. While the incredible development, or socialization, of the productive forces called for socialist ownership, an increasingly narrow handful of financial oligarchs controlled the productive forces in the form of tightly controlled cartels and monopolies ruled by finance capital—what today appears as the gigantic multinational corporation, connected in a web of ties to the major banks and financial institutions.

Lenin stressed that imperialism was not a policy choice but an inescapable drive of advanced capitalist production in the imperialist epoch. “Domination,” Lenin wrote, “and violence that is associated with it—such are the relationships that are most typical of the ‘latest phase of capitalist development’; this is what must inevitably result, and has resulted, from the formation of all-powerful economic monopolies.”

Vladimir Lenin

Lenin emphasized that, among other things, this development and concentration of the productive forces under finance capital would motivate a rapacious hunt to control the world’s key resources. “The more capitalism develops,” he wrote, “the more the need for raw materials arises, the more bitter competition becomes, and the more feverishly the hunt for raw materials proceeds all over the world, the more desperate becomes the struggle for the acquisition of colonies.”

The transformations in the world economy identified by Lenin in 1916 have only intensified. The development of the productive forces over the last 100 years makes the turn of the century capitalist economy seem only like a shadow of its current size and complexity.

Controlling raw materials is not crudely about a country hoarding resources for its own use. It is equally, if not more so, about ensuring that key commodities and markets remain in the hands of an alliance of imperialist powers led, in today’s world, by the United States.

In this context, the importance of denying access to these materials (or having the capacity to deny access in the event of war) to adversaries is also pivotal. In the RAND Corporation’s detailed analysis of how the United States could win a war against China, for example, it states, “If China is vulnerable to critical shortages in a war with the United States, it could be… in oil supplies, of which it imports about 60 percent and has a declared strategic reserve of just ten days.” The bulk of China’s oil comes from the Persian Gulf region, which the US dominates.

Importantly, Lenin also noted that it was not just a question of the current production of raw materials. Lenin explained that finance capital “is also interested in possible sources of raw materials, because present-day technical development is extremely rapid, and because land which is useless today may be fertile tomorrow…”

In other words, the leading capitalist firms strive to anticipate their future need for raw materials from across the globe, to prepare themselves for the incessant pace of technical development.

The vast riches of Russia

The purpose of this essay is to contribute to the World Socialist Web Site’s analysis of the historical and political origins of the escalating threat of armed conflict between the US and Russia. Particularly, it examines the role of geostrategic resources in the drive of US/NATO forces to dominate the Eurasian landmass.

Russia is the largest country in the world. While its economy is relatively minuscule compared to the imperialist powers, its landmass spans across two continents, with a total size of 6.6 million square miles. The runners up, Canada (3.8 mi²), China (3.7 mi²) and the US (3.6 mi²) are significantly behind in terms of size. Russia alone comprises 11 percent of the entire world’s landmass.

Map showing the eastward expansion of NATO since 1949 (Credit: Wikimedia)

In this vast landmass are an array of important minerals and resources.

Russia produces roughly 40 percent of the EU’s natural gas and almost 12 percent of the world’s oil. Russia is also the second largest holder of coal reserves in the world, 175 million tons. These resources play a key role in the ongoing conflict. Amid tightening global energy supplies, these resources are a major impediment to US imperialism globally, but particularly in its effort to combat the rise of China. This issue will be the subject of a future article.

In addition to hydrocarbons, Russia contains massive quantities of basic metals. Russia is the third largest reserve holder of iron, with 25 billion tons. It also holds the second largest reserve of gold (6,800 tons) and is near tied for the fifth spot in silver. The country is also the largest producer of diamonds, producing, on average, about a third of the world’s diamonds last decade.

While each of these resources deserves attention in understanding the geostrategic ambitions of the United States and its allies, this article looks at a lesser-known aspect of global resource politics: critical minerals. Critical minerals refer to a host of metals and minerals increasingly vital to global production which, over the next two decades, are expected explode in demand. Russia sits on substantial sources of a diverse array of critical minerals that the US believes will be crucial to global economic and political power in the 21st century.

Critical minerals and the growth of the productive forces

The United States and its imperialist allies are in a scramble for so-called critical minerals and metals. The US currently has a list of fifty minerals it deems critical. Some, like aluminum or platinum, are relatively well known. Others—such as neodymium, a rare earth, or rhodium, a member of the platinum metal group—are barely known even though they are increasingly vital to the global economy.

Driving the growth of the importance of these minerals is the advancement of the electronics industry and its integration into many other manufacturing processes and finished products.

Industries once conceived of as separate from electronics have driven new demand for all sorts of advanced digital and high-performance equipment. Cars, for example, “now have more tech in them than computers,” according to a report by the logistics company DHL. McKinsey, the global consulting firm, predicts the semiconductor industry will grow from $590 billion in 2021 to over $1 trillion in 2030, with automobile semiconductors tripling in size from $50 billion to $150 billion.

Critical minerals are necessary for this explosion in high-tech gadgetry. As the Semiconductor Industry Association writes, “In many instances, there are no known alternatives to these materials that satisfy our functional needs, and therefore a secure and continuous supply of critical materials is of critical importance to our industry.” Some $40.4 billion worth of minerals goes into the semiconductor industry alone each year.

Another key force behind the rush to control these resources is the renewable energy transition. While insufficient for the dramatic changes needed to address climate change, substantial demand increases have begun in renewable technologies. The electronic vehicle (EVs) and battery storage market are set to grow explosively from $185 billion in 2021 to $980 billion by 2028.

The International Energy Agency (IEA), which operates under the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), released a report in 2021, The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions, which made careful estimates of the future demand growth for a series of minerals. The IEA noted that even in its less ambitious Sustainable Development Scenario, global demand for lithium would increase 42-fold between 2020 and 2040. During the same time, the agency predicts that global demand for graphite would multiply by 25, cobalt by 21, nickel by 19, and rare earth metals by seven.

These astonishing estimates are a cause of concern for the OECD and the US-led geopolitical order it represents. As Fatih Birol, the IEA’s director, stated last year, “the data shows a looming mismatch between the world’s strengthened climate ambitions and the availability of critical minerals that are essential to realizing those ambitions.” This “mismatch” has the potential to plunge economies into disarray and, importantly, constrain the imperialist ambitions of the United States.

The United States, China and critical minerals

Among the fifty critical minerals cited by the US government, what is remarkable is that barely any of them are primarily produced within the United States. Due to a mixture of geology and economics, the US only produces the majority of its supply for five out of the fifty minerals on the list. Twenty-nine of the fifty minerals are 100 percent imported, and forty are 75 percent or more imported.

This reliance of the US on foreign supplies of critical minerals has been a source of deepening worry within the American ruling class, especially as it prepares for a military confrontation with China.

In September 2020, the Trump administration signed into law Executive Order 13953 which declared a national emergency confronting the US in its securing of critical minerals. The order stated, “These minerals are indispensable to our country,” but “we presently lack the capacity to produce them in processed form in the quantities we need … For 31 of the 35 critical minerals, the United States imports more than half of its annual consumption. The United States has no domestic production for 14 of the critical minerals and is completely dependent on imports to supply its demand.”

Almost half a year later, in February 2021, the Biden Administration signed Executive Order (EO) 14017 to “strengthen the resilience of America’s supply chains.” The order added to Trump’s EO 13953, giving jurisdiction to the Department of Energy to investigate supply chain risks and offer recommendations.

President Joe Biden listens during an event in the South Court Auditorium in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building on the White House complex, Tuesday, Feb. 22, 2022, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

The results of the first year of this order were released on February 24, 2022, the same day as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, in a “Plan to Revitalize American Manufacturing and Secure Critical Supply Chains.” Two days prior, a meeting promoting the measures as they pertain to critical minerals was held. In attendance was the head of the United Steelworkers, Tom Conway, who Biden then met with privately to ensure the union would stop a national oil strike and back the war drive. During this meeting, Biden stated that his administration had helped facilitate billions of dollars of new investments into “critical minerals like lithium, graphite, rare earths… which are badly needed for so many American products.”

On March 31, 2022, Biden invoked the Defense Production Act to secure “reliable” supplies of these minerals. The act is a war time order dating to the Korean War that allows the government, in the name of national defense, to control and direct private investment.

The concern of the American state is not simply that it does not produce and control these vital resources, but rather that China, the principal target of its geostrategic ambitions, does.

China dominates the processing of critical minerals. It also plays a major role in the extraction (mining) of many minerals as well. In contrast, the United States leads neither the extraction nor processing of any of these major minerals. The strongest example is the rare earths. This set of 17 minerals, now vital to the global electronics and defense industry, is almost exclusively processed in China. The US produces more than 10 percent of the world’s rare earths but is dwarfed by China.

For a period, the US had been content enough to allow China to dominate the processing, and to a lesser extent, the mining of these minerals. Extracting and processing metals and minerals is one of the most environmentally hazardous parts of global industry. Doing so cheaply means rampant pollution and toxic waste that constitutes a major human health problem. China has served as the sweatshop of the capitalist economy for several decades. With the productive operations of the imperialist nations concentrated in the immense factory towns of China, including electronics, it made sense to concentrate global economic mineral processing there, including its waste.

Increasingly over the last fifteen years, however, the United States has viewed China as an existential threat to its global hegemony and has reoriented its global military strategy to “contain,” that is hem in and subjugate, China. Creating competing supply chains for these vital materials is a key part of this effort.

Under the Obama administration, a massive re-pivoting of the US armed forces was conducted to encircle China and assert American political and economic power in the Asia-Pacific region. In 2016, then Army Chief of Staff General Mark A. Milley, noting a “rising China,” declared that in the coming decades a war between the United States and a major adversary “is almost guaranteed.” In March 2021, outgoing head of the US Indo-Pacific Command, Admiral Phil Davidson, warned of the potential for war with China within six years. Just a few months later, in November, General Milley, now Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated that a war could even occur within the next two years.

It does not take much imagination to consider how a war, directly comprising 40 percent of the world’s economy and almost two billion people, could quickly unravel into a third world war of catastrophic proportions.

While the US military spends trillions of dollars of preparing for this conflict, it is particularly concerned about the question of rare earth and other critical minerals which are vital to the general economy as well as sophisticated weaponry. The general strategy of US imperialism to stop the rise of China and subjugate its vast domestic market to American finance capital, thinks the Pentagon, will not succeed without larger, better protected supply chains for these critical minerals. The US has major leverage over China when it comes to China’s oil imports, but China has leverage over the US when it comes to critical minerals.

As the March 31 White House press conference announcing the use of the Defense Protection Act to secure critical minerals stated, “The United States depends on unreliable foreign sources for many of the strategic and critical materials necessary for the clean energy transition—such as lithium, nickel, cobalt, graphite, and manganese for large-capacity batteries… We’ve had to import a significant portion of them—close to 100 percent importation—from other countries, particularly China.”

A similar sentiment has been expressed in the European press, with an article from the Telegraph stating, “China’s dominance of critical minerals may be as dangerous for Europe as Russia’s energy weapon… Europe has woken up very late to the global scramble for critical materials.”

Russia’s critical minerals

The deep need of American finance capital to dominate current and future sources of critical minerals, as well as the disproportionate control of China over them, forms an important part of the backdrop to the drive to war against Russia.

While Russia is not the exclusive provider of any major critical mineral, the analysis below details how it plays a leading role in the production of a variety of key minerals, holding an important piece of global reserves. In understanding the broader drive of the United States to dominate Eurasia and subjugate Russia, the role of these key resources cannot be overlooked.

Below is detailed several major critical minerals, their use, and the role of Russia in their production and reserves.

Nickel

Russia is one of the largest extractors of nickel in the world. It is usually ranked third or fourth, following Indonesia, the Philippines, and near tying with South Africa.

The world extracts almost 2.5 million tons of nickel every year. The largest use of this critical metal is steel. Stainless steel production requires infusing steel with other elements to create an alloy. So-called class one nickel, the purist form of nickel, makes steel stronger and harder, especially in low temperatures. It also provides heat and rust resistance.

Two-thirds of nickel production goes into stainless steel, which is in turn used in construction, ships, some cars, in the medical industry (for a variety of instruments), in energy and industry (particularly when lightweight, corrosive-resistant storage is required), as well as in cookware. Nickel also forms a variety of more sophisticated alloys used in the production of turbine blades (for jet engines, the shipping industry, and power plants), electronics (laptops, phones, digital cameras), and high precision measurement tools.

The IEA predicts that global nickel production needs to increase by a factor of 19 in the next 18 years to meet its Sustainable Development Scenario (SDS), a staggering multiplication of current production. Nickel sulfate powder is a key component of lithium-ion batteries, forming the main part of the battery’s cathode.

Russia’s role in global nickel production is reflected in the soaring price of nickel following the outbreak of war. Nickel was trading at less than $20,000 per ton in 2021. Now, it is just short of $30,000 per ton. In the first weeks of the war the price briefly increased by 100 percent. Russia has 6.9 million tons of nickel reserves, or seven percent of the world’s total. Russia is the fourth largest holder of reserves.

Virtually all of Russia’s production occurs in the Norilsk arctic circle region under the Nornickel company, Russia’s largest metal company (excluding iron and steel). Nornickel is frequently ranked as one of the top two nickel producing companies in the world. The Kola Division of Nornickel, its major source of production, is located near the border of Finland in the arctic circle, a boarder that could rapidly become militarized following Finland’s request to join NATO. The region is also the seat of substantial copper and palladium production.

The quality of Russia’s nickel is also of note. While Russia only produces 10 percent of the world’s nickel, it produces 20 percent of its class one nickel—the more valuable refined form used in advanced steel and alloy production—due to the higher quality reserves found in Russia.

Platinum-group metals (PGMs)

Russia is one of the leading producers of platinum-group metals (PGMs). PGMs include six metals that have similar chemical and physical properties and are also frequently found together in mineral deposits. Though distinct from nickel, PMGs are found in the same ore and sometimes extracted in-tandem. The three most important are palladium, platinum and rhodium. The others are osmium, iridium and ruthenium. A remarkable 25 percent of all manufactured goods either contain PMGs or require it in the manufacturing process, according to the commodity consulting firm Agiboo.

Rhodium (Wikimedia)

Russia is roughly tied with South Africa as the leading producer of palladium. A report by Columbia University on critical minerals notes, however, that the South African supply of palladium has been “wracked by strikes for the past decade,” making it less reliable. The world produced roughly 210,000 kilograms of palladium in 2019, according to the US Geologic Survey. Russia produced 40 percent of that.

As in nickel production, Russia’s extraction of this critical mineral is centered on Nornickel, which is the world’s largest private producer of palladium. Production is dominated by two specific mines run by the company, Oktyabrsky and Taimyrsky, both located in the arctic circle, in the far north of Siberia. The two mines are so important that a flood that affected them last year halted one fifth of the world’s palladium supply. Both mines produce rhodium and platinum as part of the same general extraction process.

The price of palladium has surged in recent years. Before 2019, the price hovered around $30,000 per kilogram. Over the last two years it has grown to an average of roughly $75,000 per kilogram. At the beginning of the war, it briefly went over $100,000 per kilo as commodity traders reacted to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Palladium’s central use is as a catalyst. Half of the world’s supply of palladium and platinum is used for catalytic converters. Catalytic converters transform toxic combustion exhaust from cars (carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide) and other vehicles into carbon dioxide and water. They are found in virtually every modern vehicle and are essential for reducing pollution. The two other main PMGs, platinum and rhodium, are also used for the same purpose. More stringent exhaust regulations require larger quantities of these PGMs.

Rhodium has experienced an even greater surge in price the last few years. Rhodium went from $2,500 per ounce at the beginning of 2019 to $23,890 per ounce in 2021 (after the scare of the Oktyabrsky and Taimyrsky floods in Russia). It is now closer to $17,000 an ounce, about seven times its price a few years ago.

The surge in the price of rhodium and palladium is so strong it has led to a massive rise in catalytic converter thefts. According to the US state of Colorado, thefts of catalytic converters in the state increased over 5,000 percent between 2019 and 2021. Russia is the second largest producer of rhodium and platinum in the world. However, unlike with palladium, South Africa is substantially ahead of Russia in their production due to South Africa’s larger reserves.

Beyond catalytic converters, PGMs are used in virtually all electronics and a wide variety of other devices and industries. While they are used in small quantities, their ubiquity in electronics leads to strong demand. Four of the PGMs are used to coat electrodes, making them essential for the electronic industry. Platinum and ruthenium are necessary for the magnetic component of hard disk drives, which still makes up most of global electronic storage.

Platinum is also used in fiber-optic cable and in aircraft turbines (coating the blades to protect against corrosion). The medical industry requires PGMs. For example, palladium is used in dental crowns and PGMs are generally used in chemotherapy drugs and radiation therapy. Other PGM uses include petroleum hydrocracking, sensors, water treatment, pacemakers and defibrillators, jewelry, LCD screens, fuel cells, and high-end industrial crucibles in the metallurgic industry.

Rare Earth Minerals

At present, China dominates global rare earth mineral production and processing. Rare earth elements (REEs) are a collection of 17 different minerals increasingly important to advanced electronics production. They are not rare absolutely speaking, but they are rare to find in sufficient concentration to make them economical to extract.

Usually divided between the heavy and light REEs, these minerals are found in combination with each other. China extracts 60 percent of and processes close to 90 percent of rare earths. Their common application in advanced electronics, including military hardware, has prompted the American ruling class to raise alarm bells at China’s ownership over the rare earth value chain. In 2022, the Biden administration announced a major initiative to stimulate billions of dollars of investment into domestic REE production and processing.

Russia does not yet constitute a substantial portion of the REE processing or production chain. However, it does have major reserves that, if tapped, could contribute to global REE production. Russia has roughly 10 percent of global REE reserves, making it fourth after China, Vietnam, and Brazil in the rankings. REEs are used in the engines for electric cars, portable electronics, magnets (frequently required for electronics), generators in wind turbines, and military hardware. For example, a Virginia-class nuclear submarine is thought to require 4.2 tons of rare earths, and a F-35 fighter jet requires 427 kg.

Map of rare earth mineral deposits and imports (US Congressional Research Service, 2013)

The extreme climates of Russia’s REE deposits, the technology required to process REEs, and the high capital intensity of REE projects has, so far, prohibited Russia’s REE development. A leading research consultant at Deloitte, Dimitry Kasatkin, told S&P Global Market Intelligence in 2019, “Russia will require time and favorable external conditions, such as low geopolitical and economic risks,” to develop its REE potential. However, the breaking apart of Russia into smaller states with close economic control by US and other imperialist nations could provide that investment and the “low geopolitical and economic risk” needed to develop those REE projects.

Niobium

Niobium, atomic number 41 on the table of elements, is another critical mineral that Russia is endowed with. The chemical’s primary use is as an alloy to strengthen important structures. A small amount—0.1 percent of the final product—can be added to steel to increase its strength. This special steel can be used in gas piping and other critical infrastructure projects. Niobium is also used to create so-called super-alloys—extremely high-performance alloys that go beyond the best steel—for use in rocket engines. In its form as ferroniobium (used for steel), the market for niobium is set to double between 2015 and 2025.

Production of niobium is dominated by Brazil, which makes 66 out of the roughly 75 thousand tons produced yearly. Last year, however, Polymetal, Russia’s largest gold and silver producer, announced that the Tomtor mining project in the far east of Russia would add 700,000 tons of niobium oxide to global reserves. This is about four times the amount of reserves the United States contains, albeit far short of Brazil’s 16 million tons of proven reserves.

Tomtor is already known for its massive phosphate reserves, one of the three major fertilizers used in agriculture. The Tomtor mine is likewise the seat of Russia’s most significant REE reserves. Polymetal claims the mine is the third largest single deposit of rare earth minerals, following Mt. Weld in Western Australia and the untapped Kvanefjeld in Greenland, which is expected to be developed this decade into a major REE extraction site.

Cobalt

Global cobalt production is dominated by the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), which produces 70 percent of it. The DRC’s cobalt production is notorious for its reliance on slave-child labor. A little more than two years ago, the International Rights Advocates group sued Apple, Alphabet, Dell, Microsoft and Tesla alleging that the companies were complicit in the death of 14 Congolese child miners. The incident is just the tip of the iceberg of atrocities that are committed to produce this substance.

Like REEs, cobalt is essential for many electronic devices in small quantities. Cobalt is particularly important for the renewable energy transition. The IEA suggests that cobalt production must increase by 21 percent in its Sustainable Development Scenario (SDS).

Russia is the second largest cobalt-producing country. It produced about 6,100 tons, or four percent of the global share, in 2019. While far behind the DRC’s towering role, Russia has previously stated plans to increase its production by another 2,000 tons per year, raising its share of global output to eight percent this year. Some of these reserves are located on the seabed off Russia’s Pacific coast, north of Japan.

Graphite

Russia is the sixth largest producer of graphite in the world. Graphite, after lithium, is expected to increase the largest amount during the renewable energy transition.

Graphite is used for a variety of industries. Because it is highly conductive, it is frequently used in solar panels, electrodes, and batteries. Graphite is not as rare or expensive as the other minerals and chemicals listed above. Its production is also more geographically spread out, with the substance—a crystal form of carbon, commonly used in pencils— relatively abundant across the globe.

However, it is principally mined from China (650,000 tons), creating a deep source of unease in the American ruling class. The next largest producers are Mozambique (120,000 tons), Brazil (95,000), Madagascar (47,000), India (34,000), Russia (24,000) and Ukraine (19,000).

Russia, however, is trying to dramatically ramp up its production. It has two major companies, Dalgraphite and Uralgraphite, both of which are seeking to increase production as demand booms for EV batteries that use graphite in large quantities.

Lithium

While Russia is not a substantial producer of lithium, Ukraine’s eastern and predominately Russian region has substantial reserves. Lithium is the key ingredient of lithium-ion batteries used for electric cars, cell phones, laptops, and other electronics. A Tesla has an amount of lithium equivalent in weight to a bowling ball.

A 2022 paper from the Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences suggested that Ukraine had some 500,000 tons of lithium that could be profitably mined in just its eastern region. While reserves are estimates that often get reassessed once production begins, this would make Ukraine the fifth largest holder of lithium reserves in the world, following Chile, Australia, Argentina and China.

Lithium (Wikimedia)

In November 2021, an Australian-owned firm called European Lithium announced that it had agreed to purchase a Ukrainian oil company, Petro Consulting, that had begun the permitting process to explore and potentially extract from two of Ukraine’s largest lithium deposits. Because many of these deposits are in the contested east of Ukraine, where the Ukrainian government has been waging a civil war against Russian separatists, the fate of the current war is tied to how these reserves are developed. The company’s announcement, however, noted that these reserves are still considered “conceptual” in nature and that further exploration was required to assess their potential.

Other important critical minerals

Russia is the third largest producer of scandium, a mineral sometimes classified as part of the rare earths. Scandium is used primarily in the production of super-lightweight alloys for high performance metallic items.

Scandium is, according to a Columbia University report, “used extensively in aerospace and defense sectors,” specifically in its form as an aluminum-scandium alloy. High-performance sports gear also makes use of the alloy. These alloys only contain less than a percentage of scandium, but that is enough to strengthen the material significantly. For example, only 15 to 25 tons of it is produced globally each year.

According to the US Geological Survey, Russia has been in the process of figuring out if it can make scandium effectively as a product of alumina refining in the Ural Mountains, this could significantly increase its output.

Russia is the third largest producer of titanium sponge. Titanium is produced in two ways as a sponge for its use in metallurgy or as a pigment. While Russia does not play a leading role in the pigment production of titanium, which is geographically dispersed, it plays a major role in the more valuable sponge production. Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Boeing announced that it would stop buying Russian titanium for its aircraft.

Russia produces about 6 percent of the world’s aluminum. Tesla has been a major customer of this aluminum, primarily produced by the RusAl corporation. Much of RusAl’s operations are based on importing bauxite and alumina from Australia where it is mined. The refining process, like in other minerals, is extremely toxic and requires factories in the hundreds of millions or billions of dollars.

Russia is a leading producer of polysilicon. Polysilicon is the most refined form of silicon, used in photovoltaic cells, or solar panels. Polysilicon is more the result of processing silicon ore and is therefore not particularly rare. China dominates over 80 percent of the supply of polysilicon. However, previously, as recently as 2009, Russia was the leader. Several projects, including one by Russia’s Nitol Solar company, have failed due to price volatility and insufficient capital, but with investment Russia could increase production. The price has tripled since 2019 due to booming solar use.

Conclusions

In the preface to A Quarter Century of War: The US Drive for Global Hegemony 1990–2016, WSWS international editorial board chairman David North, wrote:

The existence of the Soviet Union and an anti-capitalist regime in China deprived the United States of the possibility of unrestricted access to and exploitation of the human labor, raw materials, and potential markets of a large portion of the globe, especially the Eurasian land mass. It compelled the United States to compromise, to a greater degree than it would have preferred, in negotiations over economic and strategic issues with its major allies in Europe and Asia, as well as with smaller countries that exploited the tactical opportunities provided by the US-Soviet Cold War.

The dissolution of the Soviet Union in December 1991, combined with the restoration of capitalism in China following the Tiananmen Square massacre of June 1989, was seen by the American ruling class as an opportunity to repudiate the compromises of the post-World War II era, and to carry out a restructuring of global geopolitics, with the aim of establishing the hegemony of the United States.

The escalating war between NATO and Russia is the devastating result of this process. Today, the military and policy strategists have their eyes set on one outcome: the total dismemberment of Russia.

Anders Östlund a fellow at the US State Department-funded Center for European Policy Analysis, and resident of Kiev, wrote, “Russia’s war against Ukraine will end with the break-up of the Russian Federation. It will be replaced by small, demilitarized and powerless republics with neutrality written into their constitutions.” Östlund’s vision of a broken apart, “powerless” series of states is a window into the general ambitions of the United States and its European allies in Russia.

Amidst the incredible development of advance electronics and renewable energy technologies, critical minerals are expected to boom in the coming decades. Russia is a leading source of these materials. In the future it could play an even larger role given sufficient investment.

The breaking apart of Russia and its domination by American capital would be a strategic steppingstone in the efforts of the American ruling class to impose a “new American century” through the subordination of China and Eurasia more broadly to its aims. Resources play a role in this. Amid the enduring need for oil and natural gas, as well as the rapidly growing need for critical minerals, Russia is seen as a vital landmass with a vast array of riches.

The US baby formula crisis and capitalism’s indifference to the lives of children

Kevin Reed

The baby formula crisis that is threatening the lives of infants across the US deepened this week as the out-of-stock rate for baby formula on store shelves surged to 70 percent for the week ending May 22. The shortage rate during the previous week was 45 percent, according to the retail tracking firm Datasembly.

The supply shortage is so severe that there are now reports in some areas of the country of mothers attempting to purchase breast milk online from anonymous and independent sources such as Facebook and Craigslist. Pediatric nutritionists are warning that such measures are potentially very harmful to children.

The crisis of powdered formula supplies, 90 percent of which are produced by four monopolies that dominate the US pediatric nutrition industry, is not a mistake or a product of unforeseen circumstances. It is the outcome of a society run by a ruling elite that, in its singular preoccupation with increasing its wealth, is totally indifferent to the lives and well-being of children.

There has been a combination of criminal negligence, corporate profiteering, stock market manipulation and government complicity that have resulted in the shortage of the essential food needed by infants and toddlers, especially those from poor and working-class families.

The supply shortage began almost immediately following the onset of the coronavirus pandemic in February 2020 when supply chains and transportation were disrupted internationally. During the initial days of the pandemic, families stockpiled the formula and emptied shelves. This was followed by a sharp fall in sales, and manufacturers cut back on production.

Now, with an uptick in births and a dramatic decline in breastfeeding rates among new mothers, demand has shot up again. The inability of the producers to adapt to fluctuations in demand is itself an expression of the anarchistic and unplanned nature of capitalist economics.

The primary cause of the recent surge in the shortage stems from the shutdown in February of the baby formula factory operated by Abbott Labs in Sturgis, Michigan, the largest in the US. The plant is responsible for 25 percent of the US supply and produces the popular brand names Similac, Alimentum and EleCare.

In February, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) forced Abbott Labs to recall products and shut down the Sturgis facility. This action was taken only after it became clear that the conditions in the plant were so unsanitary that the federal government agency, which has a long history of collaboration with the corporations in the food and drug industries, could no longer look the other way.

During congressional testimony Wednesday, FDA Commissioner Dr. Robert Califf said the agency’s inspection of the Sturgis operations that began on January 31 revealed conditions that were “shocking” and “egregiously unsanitary.”

Dr. Califf told the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the House Energy and Commerce Committee that the “totality of evidence” obtained during the inspection caused the FDA to conclude that infant formulas manufactured at this plant “were produced under insanitary conditions.” He added that the formula “may be contaminated” with bacteria that is known to be fatal in infants.

Among the unsanitary conditions uncovered at the Sturgis factory were that multiple swab samples “later tested positive for the bacteria Cronobacter sakazakii,” cracks in the spray dryers used in the manufacturing process are “an issue related to previous foodborne illness outbreak in powdered infant formula” and water leaks and condensation that are known risk factors for deadly bacteria were found “in areas where dry powdered formula was produced.”

Califf also reported leaks in the roof, standing water in the factory and two instances in the past, based on internal company documents, when finished baby formula was known to have “environmental contamination with Cronobacter sakazakii.” The FDA commissioner claimed that these poisoned batches, which were produced by Abbott Labs in 2019 and 2020, had been destroyed by the company.

The FDA inspection was motivated in part by the fact that four infants, who had been fed nutrition products from the Sturgis factory, had been hospitalized between September and December 2021 with Cronobacter infection. Cronobacter sakazakii is a serious foodborne pathogen that can cause “severe, life-threatening infections,” including sepsis and meningitis as well as bowel damage. Two of the children died from their infections.

The agency was also belatedly responding to a report by a whistleblower who disclosed in October 2021 details about the dilapidated conditions at the Michigan factory. The whistleblower also highlighted the retaliatory policy of company management and its firing of employees who objected to the failure to follow FDA requirements, falsification of records, releasing untested products onto retail shelves and failure of antiquated equipment at the Sturgis facility.

Abbott Laboratories is a $200 billion global corporation that produces medical devices and health care products and was founded in 1888. The multinational has profited enormously over the past two years from its pandemic-related COVID testing products while its less profitable pediatric nutritionals operations have been starved of resources.

Meanwhile, the company—whose Executive Chairman Miles D. White earned $27 million and CEO and President Robert Ford earned $25 million in 2021—has rewarded its investors with billions of dollars in quarterly stock buybacks while the bacterial contamination of its baby formula products were well-known. In December 2021, after the FDA had notified Abbott Labs of a planned inspection of its Sturgis facility, the company announced a $5 billion stock repurchase authorization.

Throughout the bacterial contamination crisis, Abbott Labs has claimed there is no proof that its products have caused infants to become sick and die from life-threatening infections. The company has also maintained that the allegations in the 34-page whistleblower report are untrue.

The belligerence of Abbott Labs in the face of facts that it has acted in a criminally negligent manner has been bolstered by the FDA and the US Justice Department which signed a consent decree with the corporation on May 16. This agreement guarantees that Abbott Labs will not be prosecuted or held responsible for the bacterial contamination of its baby formula products, in exchange for restarting its manufacturing operations at the Sturgis plant.

The fact that millions of families are now desperately searching for baby formula on empty store shelves and forced to make life and death decisions to feed their infants is proof that the corporations and the government do not care about what happens to the lives of millions of children. This fact was confirmed in the recent comment by President Biden’s Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg who washed his hands of the crisis, saying, “The government does not make baby formula, nor should it. Companies make formula.”

“Let’s be very clear,” Buttigieg said, “this is a capitalist country.” Precisely. While Buttigieg made this statement to justify a position that the government should do nothing, the entire crisis condemns the social and economic system that the Biden administration and the entire state apparatus defends.

The formula shortage—coming in the midst of a massive surge in prices throughout the world and an ongoing pandemic that has already killed more than one million people in the United States—is another demonstration of the urgent necessity for the socialist reorganization of society.

New South Korean government plans onslaught on working class

Ben McGrath

South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol took office May 10 amid a growing economic crisis, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic and the outbreak of the US/NATO-instigated proxy war against Russia in Ukraine. The new right-wing administration and the ruling People Power Party intend to exploit this crisis to deepen the attacks on workers and further remove any restrictions on the ability of big business to maximize profits.

South Korea's president-elect Yoon Suk Yeol speaks during a news conference at the National Assembly in Seoul, South Korea on March 10, 2022. (Kim Hong-ji/Pool Photo via AP)

In line with the demands of the ruling class, the new administration’s agenda includes “boldly lifting,” in the words of Prime Minister Han Deok-su, corporate regulations and providing tax cuts for both local conglomerates and foreign firms.

The lobbying group Korea Enterprises Federation (KEF) stated earlier this month, “The incoming government needs to take a lead in drastic regulatory reform in line with global standards and improvement laws and systems to advance labor-management relations to create a 'friendly business environment' that can enhance the dynamism of our economy and create a virtuous cycle of revitalization of corporate investment, job creation, and economic growth.”

Big business has criticized South Korea’s maximum corporate tax rate of 27.5 percent as too high compared to cities like Singapore and Hong Kong where the rates stand at 17 percent and 16.5 percent respectively. Yoon has also pledged to increase the work week from the current 52 hours and create “labor flexibility,” a euphemism for further casualization, a worsening of working conditions and mass layoffs.

This agenda is to be implemented in conditions where the International Monetary Fund predicts that South Korea’s economy will grow by only 2.5 percent this year, down from earlier projections of 3 percent. It will be the working class that will be forced to bear the brunt of the economic downturn.

In particular, the Yoon administration plans to focus on developing businesses in areas such as semiconductors and artificial intelligence, calling them national priorities. As discussed at the recent summit between Yoon and President Joe Biden, Seoul also plans on working with the United States to establish stable supply chains as part of the US war drive against China.

Yoon has made clear he is at the beck and call of big business. During a meeting in March with representatives of six corporate lobbying groups, he told them, “If public officials try to regulate nonsense and abuse their power, call me right away. I will answer the phone immediately.”

Yoon is also preparing for a confrontation with the working class. He has denounced workers who strike for better conditions, in comments that open the door for violent suppression of workers’ struggles. In March, Yoon’s transition committee stated that worker demonstrations were “a source of public distrust of the law enforcement authorities.”

During his inauguration speech, Yoon claimed that “truth is oftentimes bent out of shape and grossly distorted… because of animosity between different groups within society.” He continued: “When the masses”—i.e., the working class taking strike action—“bludgeon and silence those who do not agree with them and do this through brute force—this is how anti-intellectualism gravely weakens our democracy and puts us in peril.”

Han Sang-jin, a spokesman for the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU), criticized Yoon’s speech, saying, “Labor strikes are guaranteed by the Constitution, yet he gave a lopsided description of a powerful union from the perspective of management.”

This does not mean the KCTU will wage a genuine struggle against Yoon’s administration, despite radical-sounding noises to the contrary. The KCTU promotes illusions in the main opposition Democratic Party of Korea (DP) and is looking to prop up a future DP government just as it did under previous President Moon Jae-in, under whom inequality rose sharply.

According to a report released by Shinhan Bank in April, the income gap last year between the wealthiest 20 percent of society and the poorest 20 percent grew by 5.23 times. The top 20 percent saw a 5.9 percent increase from 2020 to an average 9.48 million won ($US7,453) a month while the bottom 20 percent earned 1.81 million ($US1,423), down 1.1 percent, which often includes meager government aid. However, Yoon’s administration already plans to cut 57 trillion won ($US44.8 billion) in welfare spending over the next five years.

In February, Statistics Korea reported that as of 2020, South Korea’s monthly median wage was only 2.42 million won ($US1,902). Workers paid between 1.5 million won ($US1,179) and 2.5 million won ($US1,965) made up the largest percentage of income earners at 27.9 percent. 24.1 percent of workers earned less than 1.5 million won. 17.1 percent made between 2.5 million won and 3.5 million won ($US2,751), all totaling 69.1 percent.

Furthermore, 3.2 million hourly workers last year were paid less than the legal minimum wage, then set at 8,720 won ($US6.90). Big business organizations have seized on this to demand the cutting of the already paltry amount. The KEF declared in April, “The figure is an indication that the rising minimum wage is not being accepted in the labor market.”

Conditions are now being compounded by the impact of the US/NATO proxy war in Ukraine. Inflation has grown sharply, reaching 4.8 percent in April, the highest in 13 years, driven by surges in the cost of petroleum products. Truck drivers, for example, are experiencing a huge increase in costs, which are passed on to them by their companies.

One truck driver told the media, “Before, when I’d fill up, it’d cost me 250 to 260,000 won ($US197-$US204). But now it costs me 350,000 won ($US275).” Drivers belonging to Cargo Truckers Solidarity, affiliated with the KCTU, are threatening to strike next month if they do not receive support measures.

While the official unemployment rate is at a record-low 2.7 percent, it hides the reality facing workers, particularly young workers. According to Statistics Korea, at the end of 2021, the real unemployment rate stood at 11 percent, which includes the underemployed and those who have given up looking for work. The Korea Employment Information Service reported in December that nearly 1.59 million people between the ages of 15 and 29, or one-fifth, were classified as not in employment, education, or training (NEET).

Many young people now find themselves employed in the highly unstable gig economy, lacking job protections or other benefits. The Chosun Ilbo reported that during the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of workers in the gig economy, which includes jobs like food delivery, nearly tripled to approximately 660,000. These conditions will only continue to deteriorate under Yoon.

North Korea: Missiles Over Human Security

Mel Gurtov

Omicron Catches Up with North Korea

After having proclaimed for more than two years that the country was untouched by the coronavirus, North Korea now faces a potential health catastrophe. Its unvaccinated population is succumbing to an Omicron variant, and the leadership is struggling to contain it. Figures on infections and deaths are very unreliable, but what is clear is that the Kim Jong-un regime is caught between unpalatable choices: either a complete national lockdown and acceptance of foreign help or tentative measures that run a high risk of failure.

The central problem for the North Koreans is that they failed to take preventive steps when they had the time to do so. They could have accepted help from China, the UN, and Western sources to begin nationwide vaccinations. They could have begun a nationwide testing program along with hospital preparedness and stockpiling of equipment.

Instead, the regime closed its borders, thinking that being the “hermit kingdom” would ward off the disease. As a Korea-born Harvard doctor with extensive experience in the North has written for CNN, North Korea’s medical establishment was totally unprepared for the Omicron variant. Even now the regime is still calling COVID a fever. But it needs an estimated 60 million doses for its population of around 25 million. Unfortunately, those doses have been distributed elsewhere, and as Omicron variants crop up again, North Korea’s people may have no recourse.

Now Kim seems prepared to follow China’s example with a strict lockdown to achieve zero-COVID. But that idea faces several obstacles.

One is that the lockdown won’t be strict enough; in order to keep the flagging economy running, factory workers will still go to work, though confined in groups within production facilities. That will make social distancing difficult to enforce.

Second, North Korea doesn’t have China’s capacity for ensuring that quarantined people are fed and tested regularly. Informal markets will remain open, as the food system cannot deliver a basic diet for all—another potential source of spreading disease.

Moreover, the North Korean authorities are surely aware that zero-COVID is failing in China despite all China’s advantages in delivery of food and medical supplies. In Shanghai and a number of other large cities, local Chinese officials are unable to get food to people under lockdown in a timely way. Entire apartment buildings and even neighborhoods have been forced to quarantine when only a single person is infected. These harsh measures have led to protests and some violent incidents.

Weapons Over Medicine

Also relevant is that the pharmaceutical distribution system is far from orderly or reliable. Kim called the system “irresponsible,” and ordered the army’s medical corps to “stabilise the supply of medicines in Pyongyang City,” according to the North Korean press. That order suggests it will be a long time before people outside the capital have access to COVID-19 remedies when and if they become available.

This potential human disaster has not kept Kim Jong-un from investing in the country’s missile and nuclear weapons programs. This year alone, the regime has conducted 16 missile tests so far, including an ICBM. US intelligence is reporting that another ICBM test can be expected shortly. An underground nuclear test may also be in the cards, the first since 2017.

Some of these tests may be attributed to the election of a new president in South Korea, Yoon Seok Youl, a conservative who promises to take a harder line on North Korea than his predecessor followed. President Biden has just ended his first meeting with Yoon as part of his initial Asia tour. The North Koreans have a penchant for conducting missile tests to “greet” leaders of adversaries.

Hello, North Korea

In a rational world, North Korea would be putting its military agenda on hold, reaching out for vaccines, medical equipment, and food, and engaging in a crash program in public health prevention and treatment. Likewise, South Korea, the US, China, and the UN would take the lead in responding to Kim’s plea for help.

South Korea’s president has in fact offered unconditional vaccine aid to North Korea; so has Joe Biden. Neither has received a response, but the offer should be repeated with the intent of turning a page in US and South Korea relations with the North. There may be an opportunity here to address North Korea’s nuclear and missile capabilities through the back door of pandemic assistance.

Biden undermined that opportunity when he said, during his Asia tour, that his message to Kim Jong-un is “Hello. Period.” Excuse me, Mr. President, but ignoring North Korea is not a policy, and offering aid, while all to the good, is not strategic diplomacy.

Human security, not weapons, should be the central issue on the Korean peninsula, and advancing human security is the surest path to real security. But North Korean leaders, hypersensitive to foreign interference and no doubt anxious not to expose their prison gulag to the outside world, may be quite prepared to sacrifice thousands of lives.

The U.S.’s Unilateral Sanctions Against Russia Will Produce a Global Food Disaster

John Ross

“There is really no true solution to the problem of global food security without bringing back the agriculture production of Ukraine and the food and fertilizer production of Russia and Belarus into world markets despite the war.” These blunt words by UN Secretary-General António Guterres accurately describe the present global food crisis.

As the U.S. and the G7 (comprising Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States) insist that cutting off food exports from Ukraine poses the biggest threat to world food security, rather than admitting the far more powerful negative effect of Western sanctions against Russia, their propaganda does immense damage to the world’s understanding and capability of avoiding a looming global food disaster.

The G7 and the Approaching Food Disaster

Looking at the world food supply situation, many experts see an imminent threat of “human catastrophe,” as World Bank President David Malpass put it. Andrew Bailey, the governor of the Bank of England, characterized his outlook on global food supply problems as “apocalyptic” when discussing increasing food prices. This rise has led to the unfolding of two issues simultaneously: creating the threat of hunger and famine in parts of the Global South, and hitting living standards in every country across the globe.

Even before rapid price rises surrounding the Ukraine war, more than 800 million people were suffering from chronic food insecurity—around 10 percent of the world’s population. U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen cited this fact while speaking to the participants of an April 2022 event, “Tackling Food Insecurity: The Challenge and Call to Action,” whose participants included the heads of international financial institutions such as the World Bank’s Malpass. Yellen also noted, “Early estimates suggest that at least 10 million more people could be pushed into poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa due to higher food prices alone.” The World Food Program (WFP) plans “to feed a record 140 million people this year,” and it reports that “at least 44 million people in 38 countries are teetering on the edge of famine,” an increase from 27 million in 2019.

In countries facing other problems, like climate change, food price increases have been catastrophic. For example, in Lebanon, “the cost of a basic food basket—the minimum food needs per family per month—[rose]… by 351 percent” in 2021 compared to 2020, according to the WFP.

In the Global North, famine is not a threat, but the populations of these countries face a sharp squeeze on their living standards as the global food crisis also raises the prices people in wealthy countries have to pay and budget for. In the United States, for example, the combination of high inflation and economic slowdown led to a 3.4 percent reduction in real average weekly earnings in the last year, as per data provided by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Fake Analysis by the G7 About the Reasons for the Food Crisis

Faced with this rapidly rising threat of the deepening food crisis, the G7 foreign ministers met from May 12 to May 14 to finally focus their attention on this pressing matter. They issued a statement on May 13 expressing “deep concern” about the growing food insecurity, while pointing out the next day that “the world is now facing a worsening state of food insecurity and malnutrition… at a time when 43 million people were already one step away from famine.”

But the G7 falsely claimed that the reason for this food crisis was primarily due to “Russia blocking the exit routes for Ukraine’s grain.” According to Canada’s foreign minister, Mélanie Joly: “We need to make sure that these cereals are sent to the world. If not, millions of people will be facing famine.”

Sanctions and the Global Food Crisis

This G7 statement deliberately misrepresented the present global food crisis. Instead of attempting to solve this crisis, the U.S. and the rest of the G7 used this opportunity to further their propaganda on the Ukraine war.

Certainly, Ukraine’s export restrictions make the global food problem worse. But it is not the main cause of the deteriorating situation. A much more powerful cause is Western sanctions imposed on Russia’s exports.

The first reason for this is that Russia is a far bigger exporter of essential food items and other products in comparison to Ukraine. Russia is the world’s largest wheat exporter, accounting for almost three times as much of world exports as Ukraine, 18 percent compared to 7 percent.

Second, and even more important, is the situation with fertilizers. Russia is the world’s largest fertilizer exporter, and Belarus, which is also facing Western sanctions, is also a major supplier—together they account for more than 20 percent of the global supply. Fertilizer prices were already rising before the Ukraine war due to high fuel prices—fertilizer production relies heavily on natural gas—but sanctions by the West, which prevent Russia from exporting fertilizers, have made the situation worse.

David Laborde, a senior research fellow at the International Food Policy Research Institute, pointed out that “the biggest threat the food system is facing is the disruption of the fertilizer trade.” This is because, he said: “Wheat will impact a few countries. The fertilizer issue can impact every farmer everywhere in the world, and cause declines in the production of all food, not just wheat.”

The threat to global fertilizer supply illustrates how energy products are an essential input into virtually all economic sectors. As Russia is one of the world’s largest exporters not only of food but also of energy, sanctions against the country have a knock-on inflationary effect across the entire world economy.

Response in the Global South

This world food supply situation worsened further after the G7 meeting when on May 14, India, the world’s second-largest wheat producer, announced that it was halting wheat exports due to crop losses caused by an intense heat wave. Already in April Indonesia had announced that it was ending palm oil exports—Indonesia accounts for 60 percent of the world supply.

India’s halt of wheat exports will be a further severe blow to countries in the Global South, where its exports are mostly focused. In 2021-2022, India exported 7 million metric tons of wheat, primarily to Asian Global South countries such as Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Yemen, Nepal, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Bangladesh. But India had earlier set a target of expanding wheat exports to 10 million tons in 2022-2023, including supplying 3 million tons of wheat to Egypt for the first time.

Ending Sanctions to Prevent Worsening of the Food Crisis

The unfolding situation makes clear that António Guterres’ words were indeed accurate—the world food crisis cannot be solved without both Ukraine’s exports and Russia’s exports of food and fertilizer. Without the latter, humanity does indeed face a “catastrophe”—billions of people will have to lower their living standards, and hundreds of millions of people in the Global South will face great hardship like hunger or worse. Almost every Global South country rightly refused to support the unilateral U.S. sanctions against Russia. This refusal needs to be extended to the whole world to prevent further devastation.

African Union at 20: Challenges ahead

Bulbul Prakash

African Union

The African Union was founded in 2002 as a successor to the Organization of African Unity (OAU), an intergovernmental organisation that functions as a link between the African countries. With the union commemorating its 20th anniversary this year, the continent has faced several challenges in recent years, including civil wars, stalling transitions, Islamic militancy, food insecurity, and climate change-related threats. The twentieth anniversary as well as the upcoming Africa Day to reflect on the progress made by the African Union provides an opportunity for member states to evaluate the organization’s accomplishments so far and to consider the AU’s involvement in Africa’s emerging peace and security concerns.

With 115 million Africans still under the control of forces that have illegally ceased power, peace and security continue to be the major challenge for the union. A poor and dictatorial government fosters extremism and transnational crime, resulting in bloodshed and impeding democratic initiatives. The continued undemocratic political developments in West Africa and Sudan are particularly disturbing. In the last two years, at least five such coups have occurred in Burkina Faso, Chad, Guinea, Mali, and Sudan. The AU’s response to many of these crises has been mixed. The African Union’s Peace and Security Council has declined to ban Chad, stating it was not a coup when the son of the country’s late dictator seized control. It has had trouble making decisions during the wars in Ethiopia and Mozambique, with the countries insisting on those as domestic crises. Democracy is failing the people, and the military is stepping in to fill the void. Many countries have also failed to have an effective plan to cope with jihadist situations. The regional coordination in managing the jihadist flow from Libya to Mali, from Mali to the borders with Burkina Faso and Niger has been very poor. The jihadist groups continued to occupy ungoverned spaces within these countries. This has directly affected the economic situation of these countries.

The rising coups has made the countries in the West African region lose faith in democratic processes. The success of the coups instigate their continuation. Hence this is a huge challenge for the union in the coming years. The inflow of international connections and links between these coups has become a serious concern indeed. The Mali government has claimed that French government is responsible for aiding and abetting the jihadist groups in the region. The union plays a key role here in forming a united front against these coup d’états.

At the latest summit concluded in Addis Ababa, the rising COVID-19 cases sparked widespread discussions on the grave consequences for the African continent. Having only 11 per cent of the population fully vaccinated, increasing COVID-19 vaccination rates is a top priority for the union. Several food security challenges are already affecting the continent, ranging from one of the worst droughts in 40 years in the Horn of Africa to war-related food insecurity in Ethiopia, where droughts have already affected over 4 million people. Malnutrition rates continued to increase all throughout the conflict-torn regions. In addition, around 400 million people do not have regular access to nutritious and adequate food. Climate change has also struck the region the hardest, with temperatures rising faster than the worldwide average (1.2 degrees).

The Union is still relatively young and working to improve its institutional and human capacities, but is falling behind in staffing, financing, and other areas, and thus failing to meet its ambitious goals. The legitimacy of the organisation remains debatable, with the purpose and key stakeholders remaining unclear, particularly with civil society. The organisation itself is caught between the national government and their interests, and as a result, fails in its larger roles. The union is highly fragmented with too many focus areas and less coordination with its regional economic communities. The union’s attempt to function similar to the European Union’s executive body has failed as the former lacks the authority to enforce treaties or adopt norms.

Let us now look into how far the organisation has come forward despite the rising challenges and its plans for future. Recent political changes in countries such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Gambia offer hope for the continent’s progressing peace. The African Continental Free Trade Area, which entered into effect last year to improve intra-African trade and the continent’s prominence in the global market, is in fact a true accomplishment. The African Union’s Green Recovery Plan is noteworthy for identifying the need for green and resilient recovery as a method of responding to concerns connected to climate change, public health, and the economy. The African Union’s Strategy on Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment (GEWE), which emphasises the importance of economic empowerment for women in order for Africa to accomplish its inclusive and sustainable development goals, is likewise laudable.

Despite its success stories, many citizens feel the organization is functioning to cater the needs of the commissioners and ministers rather than a functional agency working for the people. The local approaches that incorporate tactic to prevent violent extremism shall be promoted and the union shall try to become a people centered and Pan Africanist institution. Re-approaching nations who has an interest in sustaining stability in the region, such as the Gulf monarchies, will fill the budget shortfall. The union shall also ensure that development and security shall be made according to each country’s individual situation. The African Union’s legitimacy, and hence its future, will be defined by how proactive, consistent, and principled it is in avoiding or criticizing instances of heinous misrule by current leaders. Women and youth must also be included in discussion processes to boost their chances of success and the longevity of their successes. The Union shall also be able to effectively utilize the increasing international community’s efforts to manage, stabilize and resolve ongoing wars and armed conflicts, though with varying degrees of success.

Long COVID affects nearly 2 million in the UK

Stephen Alexander

The massive growth of Long COVID in the UK, now rapidly approaching 2 million cases, has exposed the devastating scale of the public health disaster produced by the government’s profit-driven “living with COVID” strategy.

At the beginning of April, the number of people suffering Long COVID reached 1.8 million, 2.8 percent of the UK population, according to data published by the Office for National Statistics. Of these self-reported cases, 1.3 million have suffered one or more COVID symptoms for more than 12 weeks, 791,000 for more than one year, and 235,000 for more than two years.

A rendering of the SARS-CoV-2 virus (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases)

The World Health Organisation has described the condition as a “pandemic within the pandemic”. The number of cases worldwide has grown to an estimated 100 million as the wealthiest capitalist governments have allowed the virus to spread and mutate without restriction in the name of saving “the economy”—i.e., the profit interests of big business.

The most common symptoms reported are fatigue (51 percent), shortness of breath (33 percent), loss of smell (26 percent), and problems concentrating or brain fog (23 percent). Two-thirds of all cases, 1.2 million people, report being unable to perform some or all their regular daily actives. There are currently 1 million missing from the workforce compared to pre-pandemic employment in the UK, including 400,000 no longer working because of poor health, including Long COVID.

Long COVID is defined as suffering symptoms for 12 weeks or more after a COVID-19 diagnosis, in conditions where no other cause is identified. Half of all people hospitalised with COVID still exhibit at least one symptom two years after infection, according to a study published in the Lancet medical journal.

As with risk of serious illness and death from infection with COVID-19—which kills working-age people in the most deprived areas at nearly four times the rate than among people in the wealthiest areas—Long COVID is primarily a disease of the poor and socially vulnerable. The Imperial College London’s REACT study of 500,000 UK adults found a higher risk of persistent COVID symptoms among women, people who smoke or who are overweight, people who live in deprived areas, and those who have been admitted to hospital with COVID-19.

While some COVID survivors experience persistent symptoms for only a few weeks or months, there is a growing body of scientific research linking Long COVID to a plethora of life-changing and deadly chronic diseases, including brain damage, kidney disease, diabetes, chronic fatigue, nerve damage and heart disease. While these illnesses are more common in those who developed severe illness upon initial infection, Long COVID can also devastate the health of those who experienced only mild symptoms.

Research published earlier this month by scientists at the University of Cambridge and Imperial College London found that “cognitive impairment from severe COVID-19 is similar to that sustained between 50 and 70 years of age and is the equivalent to losing 10 IQ points”. It described the recovery process after six months as “at best gradual”. The study found that survivors of severe infection suffered heightened risk of cognitive disfunction affecting memory, attention and reasoning, alongside mental health disorders including depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress, low motivation, fatigue, low mood, and disturbed sleep. The risk is particularly pronounced among survivors who required mechanical ventilation.

Professor Adam Hampshire from the Department of Brain Sciences at Imperial College London, the study’s lead author, said: “Around 40,000 people have been through intensive care with COVID-19 in England alone and many more will have been very sick, but not admitted to hospital. This means there is a large number of people out there still experiencing problems with cognition many months later. We urgently need to look at what can be done to help these people.”

Researchers at the University of Oxford have also found considerable brain damage in people who suffered only mildly symptomatic infections, based on an analysis of 800 brain scans taken before and after infection. As well as a reduction of grey matter in the orbitofrontal cortex (including the smell and taste centres of the brain) and the parahippocampal gyrus (part of the limbic system involved in memory), the study observed a reduction in overall brain size and higher levels of cognitive decline than in the general population.

Findings from the King’s College London’s ZOE COVID survey showed an increasing number of people infected with COVID are reporting tinnitus—a prolonged noise or ringing in the ears without an outside source. A survey of 14,500 people found about 5,000 reported ear-ringing after a positive test for COVID. Over half of these cases reported tinnitus lasting weeks or months following infection.

Professor Tim Spector, the co-founder of the study, said the findings show for “the first time that ear ringing, as with long term loss of smell… is something to take seriously because it does suggest that a different part of the body is being affected, more internal and close to the brain”.

Responding to a growing body of scientific evidence for prolonged and potentially permanent neurological damage, Alzheimer’s Disease International has warned that COVID-19 may cause a “pandemic of dementia” like the higher risk observed in people infected with HIV (human immunodeficiency virus).

New research conducted by University College London has also linked Long COVID to increased risk of blood clotting. The study found a widespread imbalance in two blood proteins, the von Willebrand Factor (VWF) and ADAMTS13, which allow the blood to clot and seal off broken blood vessels. Overall, 28 percent of 330 study participants with Long COVID had heightened markers for blood clotting. The risk was even higher in those who showed reduced capacity for exercise, with 55 percent testing positive for blood clotting abnormalities.

The UK is already witnessing a surge in demand for Long COVID treatment and support. Demand for occupational health treatment has soared by 80 percent in the past six months, according to a survey by the Royal College of Occupational Therapists (RCOT). The charity Asthma and Lung UK reports the number of people seeking help for Long COVID doubled between September 2021 and March 2022, including enquiries from those suffering breathing difficulties about how to secure long-term oxygen treatment at home.

In the face of this avalanche of chronic illness and the prospect of long-term sickness and disability for hundreds of thousands more people in repeated waves of coronavirus, neither the Conservative government nor any of the major parties have deviated in the slightest from their profits-before-lives policy of allowing mass infection to rip through the population.

Just £220 million has been made available to support 90 specialist clinics in England. And this is under conditions where the NHS, GP practices and social care services are already facing historic staffing shortages and treatment backlogs from the pandemic, on the back of decades of austerity and privatisation. The average waiting time to be seen by a Long COVID clinic stood at more than 15 weeks in March-April, according to Nationa Health Servive (NHS) data. Many patients waited a year or more for an initial referral.

Those who can afford it are turning to private healthcare in desperation. In one widely reported case, Dr. Binita Kane, a respiratory consultant, sought private medical care for her 11-year-old daughter in Germany, at the cost of £6,000. Severe fatigue, body pain, tinnitus, sore throat, and acute abdominal pain had reduced her to using a wheelchair, and the NHS was only able to offer fatigue management therapy. The additional tests available in Germany flagged dangerous blood abnormalities including hyperactivated sticky platelets, micro clots, and mild endothelial damage (a type of non-obstructive coronary artery disease). Her case has since improved dramatically following a detailed diagnosis and specific medical treatment.

The Johnson government, which is committed to strangling the NHS and widening the market for private health corporations, has no intention of providing the public health resources necessary to humanely address the public health disaster it has inflicted on the population.

The Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC)—a nominally independent regulator with a board handpicked by the Tory government—has stated, “EHRC does not recommend that ‘Long COVID’ be treated as a disability” citing a supposed lack of “scientific consensus” and “case law”.

Dr. Jenny Ceolta-Smith, an employment advocate for Long COVID Support and co-founder of Occupational Therapy for Long COVID, said: “There is already disbelief of workers’ Long COVID symptoms within the workplace, and this harmful announcement by the EHRC may make it much harder for workers to gain the support that they need from colleagues and line managers. It may even mean more jobs are lost.”