The New Cold War against China, in The Financial Times of February 16, 2021. Political Reporter comments.

Headline: China targets rare earth export curbs to hobble US defence industry

Sub-headline: Beijing asks industry executives if proposed restrictions will harm western contractors

China is exploring limiting the export of rare earth minerals that are crucial for the manufacture of American F-35 fighter jets and other sophisticated weaponry, according to people involved in a government consultation.

Su Yu and Demetri Sevastopulo confect a ‘news story’ out of ‘leaks’ ?or should it more properly labeled ‘gossip’? ‘

After the first paragraph its ‘as if ‘ these ‘reporters’ had direct access to information, yet the reader is confronted with more anonymous sources, and surprisingly some actual sources:

‘Industry executives said…’

‘said a Chinese government adviser who asked not to be identified….’ 

Industry executives added 

 A Congressional Research Service report said

In a November report, Zhang Rui, an analyst at Antaike, 

Some executives and officials are, however, 

They argue that

Ellen Lord, the top defence official for acquisitions until last year, told Congress in October 

 said an executive, who asked not to be identified, at Guangdong Rare Earth Group, one of the nation’s largest rare earth groups.

“China’s economic planners have failed to predict the surge in rare earth consumption,” said an executive at Gold Dragon Rare Earth Co in south-eastern Fujian Province.

Industry executives, however, said China’s strength

This is not Journalism, but New Cold War propaganda! The reader need only look to Janan Ganesh’s essay of Tuesday February 16, 2021:

Headline: America’s best hope of hanging together is China

Sub-headline: Without an external foe to rail against, the nation turns on itself

I called this essay ‘a maladroit pastiche of Machiavelli’s Prince.’

Political Reporter

About stephenkmacksd

Rootless cosmopolitan,down at heels intellectual;would be writer. 'Polemic is a discourse of conflict, whose effect depends on a delicate balance between the requirements of truth and the enticements of anger, the duty to argue and the zest to inflame. Its rhetoric allows, even enforces, a certain figurative licence. Like epitaphs in Johnson’s adage, it is not under oath.'
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.