The United States, Japan, India, and Australia have pledged to bolster cooperation on securing critical minerals, as the global race to reduce dependency on China intensifies. The commitment, made on Tuesday in Washington, comes amid rising unease over China’s overwhelming control of key resources essential for advanced technologies such as electric vehicles and semiconductors.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio hosted his Quad counterparts in Washington, marking a strategic pivot to Asia following months of focus on Ukraine, the Middle East, and domestic issues under President Donald Trump.
In a joint statement, the four nations announced the launch of the Quad Critical Minerals Initiative, a new partnership aimed at collaborating to secure and diversify supply chains. While few specifics were revealed, the initiative is clearly geared towards reducing overreliance on China, whose export restrictions have previously been used as geopolitical leverage.
“Depending on a single nation for the processing and refining of critical minerals, as well as the production of derivative goods, puts our industries at risk of economic coercion, price manipulation and supply disruptions,” the statement warned.
Although China was not explicitly named, the Quad foreign ministers expressed “serious concerns” over “dangerous and provocative actions” in both the South China Sea and East China Sea, which they said undermine regional peace and stability.
China dominates global reserves of several essential minerals, notably graphite – a key component in electric vehicle production.
Standing alongside his fellow ministers, Rubio highlighted his personal commitment to reducing dependency on China, stating his desire to see “real progress” in diversifying global supply chains.
The Quad – originally conceived by the late Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe – was designed as an alliance of democratic nations in the Indo-Pacific, positioned as a counterweight to China’s growing influence. China has repeatedly claimed the bloc is a strategy to contain its power.
Rubio’s hosting of the Quad foreign ministers on 21 January was his first major diplomatic engagement since Trump’s inauguration, seen as a symbolic move signalling renewed US interest in Indo-Pacific affairs.
Yet Trump’s administration has, so far, not prioritised China in its foreign policy agenda, opting instead for a more conciliatory tone. Trump has spoken respectfully of Chinese President Xi Jinping and reached an informal truce to ease tensions over a potential trade war.
Trump is expected to visit India later in the year for a formal Quad summit.
Indian and Japanese ministers reiterated the group’s commitment to a “free and open Indo-Pacific” – language often used to indirectly challenge Chinese regional dominance.
“It is vital that countries in the Indo-Pacific retain the freedom to make sovereign choices regarding development and security,” said India’s Foreign Minister, Subrahmanyam Jaishankar.
Responding to a deadly attack in May that killed mostly Hindu civilians in Indian-administered Kashmir, the Quad condemned the incident and, at India’s request, urged for those responsible to be swiftly held accountable. India blamed the assault on militants based in Pakistan and launched retaliatory airstrikes. Pakistan denied any involvement and carried out counterattacks targeting Indian forces.
Japan’s key concerns were also reflected in the final communiqué, as the group condemned North Korea for its missile launches and reaffirmed their support for its complete denuclearisation.
Trump’s first-term diplomatic engagement with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un had eased tensions but failed to yield a concrete agreement.
While the Quad countries found consensus on China and regional stability, notable differences remain in their approach to other international conflicts. The joint statement omitted references to the wars in Ukraine and Iran, reflecting divisions within the group. India, in particular, has maintained longstanding ties with both Russia and Iran, choosing a more neutral stance on contentious issues.
