Connect with us
https://tickernews.co/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/AmEx-Thought-Leaders.jpg

Ticker Views

Is China’s reported ban on BHP a bluff, or a glimpse of the future?

Published

on

Marina Yue Zhang, University of Technology Sydney

Though they still haven’t been officially confirmed, reports China’s state-owned buyer told steelmakers to stop purchasing iron ore from Australian mining giant BHP have rattled both markets and Canberra.

At first glance, this looks like a simple dispute over price. But step back, and a picture begins to emerge of something possibly far more deliberate.

If true, this ban represents a pressure test from China – one that goes beyond trade and speaks directly to the future of Australia’s economy and the shape of global resource politics.

A dispute over price

The flashpoint appears to be a breakdown in iron ore supply contract talks between BHP and the China Mineral Resources Group (CMRG), a government-run company created in 2022 to consolidate purchases for China’s steel industry. The disagreement centres on stalled negotiations over pricing.

According to reporting by Bloomberg, China applied pressure earlier in September by instructing its mills to stop buying one specific BHP product. Then, at the end of the month, China reportedly expanded the order to suspend all shipments from BHP priced in US dollars.

Neither side has yet confirmed or denied the report, and one Chinese commodity analysis firm, Mysteel, disputed the claim of a ban. But markets were quick to react anyway. BHP’s share price fell on Wednesday.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese voiced concern over the report, and Treasurer Jim Chalmers spoke with BHP chief executive Mike Henry.

For Canberra, it may have carried an unsettling sense of déjà vu: harking back to the 2020–21 trade dispute, when Beijing targeted Australian exports including wine, barley, and coal.

The difference now is that iron ore matters more than any of those products combined. Nearly 60% of Australia’s exports to China in the year to May 2024 were iron ore. Losing access to that trade would strike at the heart of Australia’s economy.

China’s long game

To understand where China sits in these negotiations, it is necessary to rewind two decades.

Despite being the world’s biggest buyer of iron ore, China has long had little influence over the price. Hundreds of steel mills cut deals separately with BHP, Rio Tinto, and Brazil’s Vale. The miners spoke with one voice. The mills did not.

The result was higher costs for China, captured in a phrase often used in its media: the “pain of pricing power”. Whatever China bought, the price went up.

Attempts to push back failed. The China Iron and Steel Association urged boycotts of the miners, but mills broke ranks to secure supply.

In 2009, one Rio Tinto executive was jailed in China for alleged commercial espionage during fraught negotiations.

Then came 2010. BHP’s then chief executive Marius Kloppers led a push to replace annual price benchmarks with shorter-term market-based pricing.

This change supercharged profits for Western Australian producers, who could capitalise instantly as China’s demand surged. For China, it was a nightmare – less control, more volatility, bigger bills.

The creation of the CMRG in 2022 was Beijing’s strategic response.

This is not old-fashioned central planning. It is state capitalism with sharper tools: centralised buying, stockpiling, and big data to support national goals. Its purpose is clear – to turn China from price-taker into price-maker.

The standoff: who holds the cards?

Australia and China rely on each other, but not in equal amounts.

Australia is critically dependent on China for revenue. China, in the short term, still depends heavily on Australian ore. BHP alone supplies around 13% of China’s imports – impossible for either side to replace overnight.

BHP is seeking alternative markets, and Beijing is investing billions in Guinea’s Simandou mine, but both things will take years or decades before reaching scale.

That creates a tense balance: fighting without breaking (斗而不破). Both sides can inflict pain, but neither can afford a full rupture.

If the reports are true, the “ban” is less a final break than a negotiation tactic. It is Beijing’s way of showing BHP – and by extension Rio Tinto and Vale – that the old rules no longer apply.

The future: from iron ore to green steel

Beneath this contest lies a bigger question: who will shape the future of steel?

Traditional steelmaking is one of the world’s dirtiest industries. It relies on coal, which pumps out carbon emissions. The next frontier is “green steel”, made with renewable energy and green hydrogen instead of coal.

During his visit to Beijing earlier this year, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese pitched a vision for Australia to move beyond exporting raw ore and instead sell processed “green iron” – an intermediate product on the path to green steel. With its vast renewable resources, Australia could climb the value chain rather than remain just “the world’s quarry”.

This aligns with China’s own carbon-neutral goals. By flexing now, Beijing may be signalling that future cooperation on green steel will come with conditions. China will not simply be a buyer; it intends to set the rules.The Conversation

Marina Yue Zhang, Associate Professor, Technology and Innovation, University of Technology Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Ticker Views

Lunar Gateway faces delays and funding debate amid Artemis ambitions

Published

on

What’s the point of a space station around the Moon?

Berna Akcali Gur, Queen Mary University of London

The Lunar Gateway is planned space station that will orbit the Moon. It is part of the Nasa‑led Artemis programme. Artemis aims to return humans to the Moon, establishing a sustainable presence there for scientific and commercial purposes, and eventually reach Mars.

However, the modular space station now faces delays, cost concerns and potential US funding cuts. This raises a fundamental question: is an orbiting space station necessary to achieve lunar objectives, including scientific ones?

The president’s proposed 2026 budget for Nasa sought to cancel Gateway. Ultimately, push back from within the Senate led to continued funding for the lunar outpost. But debate continues among policymakers as to its value and necessity within the Artemis programme.

Cancelling Gateway would also raise deeper questions about the future of US commitment to international cooperation within Artemis. It would therefore risk eroding US influence over global partnerships that will define the future of deep space exploration.

Gateway was designed to support these ambitions by acting as a staging point for crewed and robotic missions (such as lunar rovers), as a platform for scientific research and as a testbed for technologies crucial to landing humans on Mars.

It is a multinational endeavour. Nasa is joined by four international partners, the Canadian Space Agency, the European Space Agency (Esa), the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency and the United Arab Emirates’ Mohammed Bin Rashid Space Centre.

Schematic of the Lunar Gateway.
The Lunar Gateway.
Nasa

Most components contributed by these partners have already been produced and delivered to the US for integration and testing. But the project has been beset by rising costs and persistent debates over its value.

If cancelled, the US abandonment of the most multinational component of the Artemis programme, at a time when trust in such alliances is under unprecedented strain, could be far reaching.

It will be assembled module by module, with each partner contributing components and with the possibility of additional partners joining over time.

Strategic aims

Gateway reflects a broader strategic aim of Artemis, to pursue lunar exploration through partnerships with industry and other nations, helping spread the financial cost – rather than as a sole US venture. This is particularly important amid intensifying competition – primarily with China.

China and Russia are pursuing their own multinational lunar project, a surface base called the International Lunar Research Station. Gateway could act as an important counterweight, helping reinforce US leadership at the Moon.

In its quarter-century of operation, the ISS has hosted more than 290 people from 26 countries, alongside its five international partners, including Russia. More than 4,000 experiments have been conducted in this unique laboratory.

In 2030, the ISS is due to be succeeded by separate private and national space stations in low Earth orbit. As such, Lunar Gateway could repeat the strategic, stabilising role among different nations that the ISS has played for decades.

However, it is essential to examine carefully whether Gateway’s strategic value is truly matched by its operational and financial feasibility.

It could be argued that the rest of the Artemis programme is not dependant on the lunar space station, making its rationales increasingly difficult to defend.

Some critics focus on technical issues, others say the Gateway’s original purpose has faded, while others argue that lunar missions can proceed without an orbital outpost.

Sustainable exploration

Supporters counter that the Lunar Gateway offers a critical platform for testing technology in deep space, enabling sustainable lunar exploration, fostering international cooperation and laying the groundwork for a long term human presence and economy at the Moon. The debate now centres on whether there are more effective ways to achieve these goals.

Despite uncertainties, commercial and national partners remain dedicated to delivering their commitments. Esa is supplying the International Habitation Module (IHAB) alongside refuelling and communications systems. Canada is building Gateway’s robotic arm, Canadarm3, the UAE is producing an airlock module and Japan is contributing life support systems and habitation components.

Gateway’s Halo module at a facility in Arizona operated by aerospace company Northrop Grumman.
Nasa / Josh Valcarcel

US company Northrop Grumman is responsible for developing the Habitat and Logistics Outpost (Halo), and American firm Maxar is to build the power and propulsion element (PPE). A substantial portion of this hardware has already been delivered and is undergoing integration and testing.

If the Gateway project ends, the most responsible path forward to avoid discouraging future contributors to Artemis projects would be to establish a clear plan to repurpose the hardware for other missions.

Cancellation without such a strategy risks creating a vacuum that rival coalitions, could exploit. But it could also open the door to new alternatives, potentially including one led by Esa.

Esa has reaffirmed its commitment to Gateway even if the US ultimately reconsiders its own role. For emerging space nations, access to such an outpost would help develop their capabilities in exploration. That access translates directly into geopolitical influence.

Space endeavours are expensive, risky and often difficult to justify to the public. Yet sustainable exploration beyond Earth’s orbit will require a long-term, collaborative approach rather than a series of isolated missions.

If the Gateway no longer makes technical or operational sense for the US, its benefits could still be achieved through another project.

This could be located on the lunar surface, integrated into a Mars mission or could take an entirely new form. But if the US dismisses Gateway’s value as a long term outpost without ensuring that its broader benefits are preserved, it risks missing an opportunity that will shape its long term influence in international trust, leadership and the future shape of space cooperation.The Conversation

Berna Akcali Gur, Lecturer in Outer Space Law, Queen Mary University of London

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading

Ticker Views

South Korea introduces AI job protection legislation

South Korea is proposing laws to protect jobs from AI, balancing innovation with workers’ rights amid rising automation.

Published

on

South Korea is proposing laws to protect jobs from AI, balancing innovation with workers’ rights amid rising automation.


South Korean lawmakers are taking bold steps to protect workers from the growing impact of AI on employment. The proposed legislation aims to safeguard jobs and support workers transitioning into new roles as machines increasingly enter the workforce.

Professor Karen Sutherland of Uni SC joins Ticker to break down what these changes mean for employees and industries alike. She explains how the laws are designed to balance technological innovation with workers’ rights, and why proactive measures are crucial as AI adoption accelerates.

With major companies like Hyundai Motor introducing advanced robots, labour unions have raised concerns about fair treatment and the future of human labour. Experts say South Korea’s approach is faster and more comprehensive than similar initiatives in the United States and European Union, aiming to secure livelihoods while improving the quality of life for displaced workers.

Subscribe to never miss an episode of Ticker – https://www.youtube.com/@weareticker

#AIJobs #SouthKorea #FutureOfWork #Automation #TechPolicy #LaborRights #WorkforceInnovation #Ticker


Download the Ticker app

Continue Reading

Ticker Views

U.S. ambassador responds to NATO criticism at Munich Security Conference

At Munich Security Conference, U.S. NATO ambassador discussed defense autonomy, hybrid warfare, and transatlantic cooperation amid rising tensions.

Published

on

At Munich Security Conference, U.S. NATO ambassador discussed defense autonomy, hybrid warfare, and transatlantic cooperation amid rising tensions.


At the Munich Security Conference, the U.S. ambassador to NATO faced tough questions on global order as European allies explored greater defense autonomy amid rising geopolitical tensions. The discussion highlighted the challenges NATO faces in maintaining unity while responding to evolving threats.

The ambassador addressed criticisms directly, emphasizing the importance of transatlantic cooperation and NATO’s role in ensuring international security. European nations voiced concerns about independent defense capabilities and the impact of hybrid warfare from Russia on regional stability.

Oz Sultan from Sultan Interactive Group provides analysis.

Subscribe to never miss an episode of Ticker – https://www.youtube.com/@weareticker

#MunichSecurityConference #NATO #GlobalSecurity #DefenseAutonomy #Geopolitics #TransatlanticAlliance #HybridWarfare #USForeignPolicy


Download the Ticker app

Continue Reading

Trending Now