Rare Earth Metals: From America's dominance to Chinese hegemony

The recent discovery of rare earth metals in Japanese deep sea proves that rare earth metals are not that rare as their name signifies.

Today’s modern life is impossible without rare earth metals. Rare earth metals are 17 elements including 15 separately presented lanthanides as well as scandium, and yttrium.

These metals are used in manufacturing batteries, vehicles, LCDs, plasma screens, fiber optics, medical imaging, hybrid vehicles, wind turbines, microphones, speakers and other green technology devices. This group of metals is indispensable for high performance optics and lasers and key to the most powerful magnets and superconductors in the world.

Their various applications have given rise to western powers’ fear of Chinese dominance in high technology. China currently has near monopoly in Rare earth metals supply.

  "The Middle East has oil; we have rare earths ... it is of extremely important strategic significance; we must be sure to handle the rare earth issue properly and make the fullest use of our country's advantage in rare earth resources." Deng Xiaoping, a Chinese politician from the late 1970s to the late 1980s.

China is rapidly reducing export quota of rare earth in order to strategically move Chinese manufacturers up the supply chain so that they may sell valuable finished goods to the world rather than lowly raw material.

This presented America with a challenge in keeping its dominant position in high tech but also its hegemony over developed nation, who are in dying need of the elements.

The significance of the metals can be gauged from the fact that many geopolitical experts consider these metals to be the sole reason of U.S. stay in Afghanistan. United States, according to them, wants to make European powers their ally, against China, by controlling the supply of Afghanistan’s rare earth metals.

In 2010, Pentagon estimated Afghanistan’s mineral deposits to be worth 1 trillion $, once mined. The New York Times reported that White House officials are looking at Afghanistan’s mineral resources as compelling reason to extend their stay in the country.

“We live in a different world than the past, where commodity prices mattered because a monopoly allowed sometimes a single nation or a group of nations to charge an extremely high price for that material, and people are still thinking along those lines,” Michael Silver said. “That’s not the world we live in today, particularly with rare-earth metals, which is kind of what got me involved in the Afghanistan situation.” Michael Silver head White House Initiative and CEO of American Element

Critics on the other hand points to the fact that Afghanistan is a war zone moreover; mining and refining these metals from the mountain is costly. Another factor which goes against America is Afghanistan has no coast of its own and the only cost effective route for the metals is through Pakistan’s pushtun belt.

Problem of public debt and its solution

Nawaz Sharif’s Govt. over his four year tenure added 35 billion $ to Pakistan’s debt pile. The maximum number of loans – amounting to $10.1 billion, the highest taken out in any single year during the country’s history – was obtained during the last year of Nawaz’s government.

Starting from July 2013, with every passing year, the external debt pile kept growing due to the government’s inability to implement policies that could have ensured sufficient non-debt creating inflows.

PML(N) Government earlier diluted Fiscal Responsibility And Debt Limitation Act 2005. PPP Govt. was not different either. The external debt, from 2007 to 2012, grew by 20billion $. The lack of necessary oversight led successive Governments to be irresponsible regarding receiving loans and the loan terms. It seems that Governments have no incentive to be concerned about the repayments of these loans. According to World Bank, average grace period, since 2007, of new external debt commitment is 6.6 years. Pakistan has political cycle of 5 years; less than average grace period, therefore elected Governments don’t have sufficient incentive to worry about the repayment of these debts.  

Moreover, another unnoticed fact is that democracy is inherently consumption oriented. Political parties have to face pressure from masses to meet their basic needs. This pressure is severe in countries having huge poverty. Political parties in order to woo these poor masses try to spend as much public money as possible. Resultantly Benazir income support programme, sasti roti scheme and other such schemes are initiated.

Such schemes are funded by using tax money or borrowed money but don’t generate any returns. Successive Governments have to borrow in order to pay these loans. Hence, the country is struck in debt trap.

Moreover, Democratic Governments are elected to rule for a limited time period before next elections. Their short term tenure forces them to borrow long-term funds, which are costly as compared to short-term loans. On the investment side these Government spend on projects which have short gestation periods. These short-run projects generate low returns. Resultantly the debt burden began to accumulate and multiply. The precarious position on exchange rate front further aggravate the matter as the weakening of domestic currency increases the external debt stock in domestic currency. 

To pay back Govt. is left with two option either tax masses, which are its voters, or borrow more to return the previous loans. The elected Government go for the second option.

The solution to the above issue is having strong checks and balances on elected Government. Some of the checks and balances are mentioned below.

1.    Central bank’s freedom should be ensured.

2.    Civil Servants should be given constitutional guarantee (regarding job security, tenure security).

3.    Chancellor for public works should be appointed who would check Govt. from initiating useless public works.

4.    The most important step which may need constitutional amendment is election of deputy prime minister, who would be responsible for economics and finance, from senate.

The above mentioned steps though difficult but can be implemented.  A step by step approach can be adopted. Furthermore the date from which such legislation would be implementable should have necessary time lag so, that Government doesn’t become adversary of its own decision.

Top 10 richest presidents of U.S.A.

With the election of Donald Trump as next U.S. president, America is going to see the richest President all time.  Earlier the richest one was founding President George Washington with worth of 580 million U.S. dollars. Below is the list of richest presidents along with their wealth, in 2016 dollars. The figures represent peak wealth.

1.       John. F. Kennedy ( more than 1 billion $)

He along with his family owned more than 1 billion us dollars. His family fortune was created by his father John Kennedy, who made money from commodity trading and real estate investing.

2.       George Washington (580 million dollars)

He was an industrialist and entrepreneur. He sat up his own distillatory for making alcohol. Moreover he owned more than 8000 acres of land. President Washington estimated worth in today’s dollars is 580 million $.

3.       Thomas Jefferson (234 million dollars)

He was third president of United States. His net worth was 234 million $.  He inherited vast fortune but ended up in debts, in later part of his life.

4.       Theodore Roosevelt(138 million dollars)

He owned 138 million dollars. He was born to prominent and wealthy New York family and became 26^th U.S. president.

5.       Andrew Jackson(131 million dollars)

Andrew Jackson was 7^th president of United States. He owned 640-acare plantation called hermitage situated near Nashville. He was among first three investors who founded Memphis.

6.       James Madison (112 million dollars) 

112 million dollars president Madison after inheriting some land from his father, he eventually owned 5000-acres.  He became the largest land owner of Orange County, Virginia.

7.       Lyndon b. Johnson. (108 million dollars)

After inheriting small piece of land, in Texas, he eventually built it up into expensive 1500-acre ranch. His wife also owned radio and TV station in Austin, Texas.

8.       Herbert Hoover (82 million dollars)

A mining engineer by profession amassed huge stakes in different mining companies.

9.       Bill Clinton ( 75 million dollars)

He unlike other presidents, Clinton didn’t inherited family fortune. He made his fortune during his tenure as Arkansas Governor and later as President. He also received 15 million$ advance for his autobiography in 2005. President Clinton is one of the highest paid keynote speakers.

10.   Franklin D. Roosevelt (66 million dollars)

32^nd President of United States owned 66 million dollars. Like other wealthy U.S. presidents much of his fortune was inherited.

5 Most powerful economic nations of history

For the most part of the history, the most powerful economic powers were simply the countries that housed the most people and controlled the most land. Up until 300 years ago, economies across the world were mainly agricultural. Economic historian Ian Morris says that for the most part of the human history, civilization’s economic strength depended largely on when it experienced an agricultural revolution.   Until the industrial revolution upended everything, it would take a nation thousands of years to turn itself into an economic powerhouse.

Here is the list of 5 historically dominant economic civilizations, in chronological order.

Roman Empire

Rome, the distant descendant of first agricultural revolution, became dominant global empire in matters of centuries. It at its peak controlled 25 to 30% global production. As trade is vital for economic growth, the Romans were better at it during their height than anybody else. Historical evidence also suggest that they had very well developed financial system that made extensive use of credit and bank notes, hence enabling traders to forgo hauling precious metals across distances.

China under Song Dynasty

China under song dynasty controlled 25 to 30% of global output. Although agriculture reached china later than it did in modern day Middle East but Chinese made good use of the benefits of agricultural society.

Mughal Empire

One of the most magnificent and economically most powerful civilization, the world has ever seen is India’s Mughal empire. The English word Mogul is derived from the word ‘Mughal’. Even today the signs of their splendor can be seen in form Taj Mahal Agra, Badshahi Mosque,etc. According to late economic historian Angus Maddison, the per capita income of the mughal era india was likely about the same as in England or Britain at the time, but India’s aristocracy’s life style surpassed that of European elites.  Mughal era at it its peak produced one-fourth of global output.  

British civilization

Its aptitude of profiteering from its colonies made it the first global economic powerhouse which dominated the world without strictly controlling equally large percentage of population. Another advantage, Britain enjoyed came from huge technological boost of the industrial revolution. It, at its height, produced 21% of total global output out of which 6% came from its colonies.

American civilization

United States, for about past 140 years, is the largest economy, but its relative power is in decline. It is expected that China’s economy would overtake the United States, by 2018.

After the World War II, there was a brief period when United States, owing to destruction of other industrial economies, produced half of world total economic output.

The enormous wealth of presidential contestants

Hillary Clinton and her husband have earned 30 million dollars during previous 16 months, according to ‘financial disclosure forms’ filed with federal elections officials on Friday.

Bill Clinton, husband of Hillary Clinton

In the 2016 presidential elections many of the possible contenders are much wealthier than average American citizen.

Jeb bush, for example, is a member of wealthy families that own Oceanside compound in Kennebunkport, Maine. Democrat’s possible contender Hillary Clinton, wife of former President Bill Clinton, has earned 200,000 dollars as speaking fees over the past year. The one hour speech can earn Mrs. Clinton what average American make in four years.

 In addition to speaking fees she was known to have received a $14 million advance for the book she released last year.

Other contestants include Ted Cruz having worth of $3.2 million, Rand Paul having $1.3 million.

Businesswoman Carly Fiorina is one of the wealthiest potential White house contenders. She is worth an estimated $ 71 million.

But these contestants are nowhere near to the former contestant, private equity mogul, Mitt Romney. At the time of contest he had had somewhere between $190 million to $250 million.

The tendency of power to concentrate in the hands of rich and those having strong family connection is seen in the World’s sole super power.

Past presidents did include millionaires. The richest president till now is J. F. Kennedy who is estimated to be a billionaire in 2010 dollar terms. Other rich presidents in 2010 dollars terms were George Washington 525 million dollars, Thomas Jefferson 212 million dollars, Theodore Roosevelt 125 million dollars, Andrew Jackson 119 million dollars, James Madison 101 million dollars, Lyndon Johnson 98 million dollars, Herbert Hoover 75 million dollars, Franklin Roosevelt 60 million dollars, bill Clinton 55 million dollars, George H W Bush 23 million dollars, George W Bush 20 million dollars.

Although J. F. Kennedy is considered to be billionaire but conservative estimates suggest much less figure hence George Washington can be considered to be the richest president of all. President Washington owned nearly 60,000 acres and more than 300 slaves.

George Washington was in the business of flour milling, fishing, horse breeding, spinning, weaving and (in the 1790s) whiskey production.

Wealth of congressman, senators and presidential contestants has brought severe criticism from general public. The criticism is not entirely unwarranted.

 The general trend of American society from meritocracy to aristocracy has been noticed.  

Kingmakers of the Indian sub-continent during dynastic rule

Kingmaker is the one who either lack resources or due to other restraints such as legal one cannot be contender to the throne, but can influence the successful candidate in the game of throne. The person or group can be termed as king makers. Kingmaker can use political, monetary, religious or military means to influence the succession.

The word kingmaker has negative connotation. The very idea of someone ruling from the shadows might go some way toward explaining why there is a negative connotation to the term "kingmaker”.

Two interesting groups and individuals who were termed as power broker or king maker During Indian dynastic rule are discussed below.

Chihalgain, Chalisa or Turkan-i-chihalgani was a group of nobles.

Shams-ud-din Iltutmish or Altamash (1167-1236) after ascending to the throne realized that Turkish nobles were not trustworthy and could conspire against him to overthrow his rule. Therefore, he had a group of faithful slaves to protect him. This group was known as Amir-i-Chahalgani.

The group which is also called ‘The Forty’ had become a power on their own. After the death of Iltutmish, the successor kings were not able to take control of the state affairs. This group took the role of king-maker and king remover.

Historian Ziauddin Barani writes that since ‘The Forty’ were slaves of Iltutmish and were posted on high ranks at the same time, they considered themselves important and were not ready to recognize any of their colleagues as superior. The members also competed with other members of the group in control of the army, possessing property and wealth. As a result, there was strong rivalry and conflict among them too.

The number of nobles known as chihalgani has never been more than twenty five.

Later when Ghiyas ud din balban, one of former member of chihalgani, became king, he broke the power of these nobles. Ghiyas ud din balban recognized the fact that he could not become a real ruler in the presence of Chihalgani members; therefore he removed them one by one. Being the former member of the group he knew their modus operandi. Even he poisoned his cousin, who was a member of the group of Forty. The network of spies, established by him, helped him to remain aware of Chihalgani moves.

Sayyid brothers in era of Mughal

These were two powerful Generals in Mughal army. The brothers were from the community known as Sadaat-e-Barha. Names of two brothers were Syed Hassan Ali Khan Barha and Syed Hussain Ali Khan Barha.

Two brothers became influential after the death of Aurangzeb which was followed by anarchy. During the anarchy the brothers became king-makers. During the decade of 1710 the brothers were virtual ruler over the state and the king was reduced to the figurehead. When Muhammad shah ascended the throne, Sayyid brothers became his regents. Later on the King Muhammad Shah took back control of the state by arranging the killing of the two brothers. Hussain Ali khan was murdered while Hassan Ali khan was poisoned to death. In this way the rule of Sayyid Brothers came to an end. Hence Muhammad shah proved to be Balban for the Sayyid brothers.

Tribes in the Arab world and politics

Tribe is social group based on kinship. Members are related to one another through blood relationship.

Tribal ‘asabiyya’

According to Ibn Khaldun ‘Asabiyya’ is the reason of royal authority. ‘Asabiyya’ is Ibn Khaldun’s terminology for ‘Group feeling’ or ‘Group cohesion’. According to his theory the more ‘assabiyya’ a group or tribe possesses the more they will be able to overpower others and thus acquire royal authority.

According to this theory tribes/ groups living in rural areas are more likely to acquire ‘assabiyya’ over the course of time while the city dwellers will lose ‘asabiyya’.

Tribal Rivalry

If inter-tribal tension is generated, it is very difficult to subdue it. This tribal rivalry can run for centuries. This inter-tribe rivalry helps promote ‘assabiyya’ within the tribe. The most important societies in today’s world that are tribal based are located in Arab countries.

The most important tribe in the Muslim world is the tribe of Quraish. Qusayy bin Kilab, member of Quraish tribe and ancestor of the Holy Prophet (upon whom be Allah's peace), founded a city state in Makah and made excellent arrangements for the welfare of the pilgrims coming from all over Arabia, with the result that the Quraish were able to gain great influence among the Arabian tribes and lands. Later on tribal rivalry between two branches, Banu Hashim and Banu Umayyad, of Quraish emerged.

The fierce sectarian schism among Muslims can be attributed to the tribal rivalry, between these two branches of Quraish. This rivalry has outlived many centuries. Later on this rivalry translated itself into sectarian tension.

Use of tribal kinship in acquiring and maintaining political power

The growth of tribe is independent of state. When tribal chief of one tribe marries lady from another tribe; it creates an alliance with that other tribe. In ancient tribal society when polygamy was common this was a perfect way to acquire political power.

The present Arab royals became kings through cementing ties with other tribes through marriages. King Abdul Aziz of Saudi Arabia, for instance, married many women in order to secure alliances with other tribes. As tribal chief these royals have political authority over whole tribe.

If the tribe is scattered in different countries then the chief can have tribal influence beyond his territory. Qatari emir, for example, has tried to grab the leadership of Banu Tamim tribe, as he is member of Al Thani family which is sub-tribe of Banu Tamim tribe. People of Banu Tamim tribe are scattered in many countries including Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Qatar etc. In this way the emir tried to acquire influence beyond his territorial borders.

Another way of consolidating political power is to appoint tribal members and members of ally tribes to politically important posts. In the times of weak state authority tribal rivalry and tribal alliances, which are centuries old starts rising. As tribal institution is older than state in Arabian Peninsula, the state needs support from tribes for its structure. ‘Saudi Arabian National Guards’ is one example of dependence of state on tribal affiliations.

The ‘Saudi Arabian National guards’ are structured on tribal lines. Members from different tribes loyal to House of Saud have been recruited in ‘Saudi Arabian National Guards’. This institution helped ‘house of Saud’ to maintain its political power through uniting their tribal allies.

Some instances of tribal influence

Anazah tribe is the largest and most ancient tribe in the Arab world. The `Anazah’ have from an early date adamantly claimed the Al Saud family to be one of their own, probably because ‘Al Saud’ claimed ancestry from Wa'il, and many members of Al Saud claim descent from a branch of `Anazah’.

The ruling dynasties of Kuwait and Bahrain belong to Anazah tribe of central Arabia. Hence royal families of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain are distant cousins of each other. When Al Rashid ousted Al Saud family they took refuge in Kuwait. This was reciprocated by Saudi monarch a century later. When Saddam Hussain conquered Kuwait the ruling Al Sabah family was offered sanctuary in Saudi Arabia.

Although religion takes central place in life of many Arab people, as a result, shia-sunni divide is fierce in the region but tribal connections can often outweigh the importance of this divide. Common ancestry, geography and strict social code that demands allegiance between members, are the factors that binds the tribe.

Elections, when they take place, people cast votes for the candidates from their tribe. These people take pride in casting votes to their tribal chief, member from ally tribe or candidate supported by their clan chief rather than casting their votes on the basis of ideology.

Conclusion

Tribes are the most important social unit in the Arab world as tribes possesses ‘asabiyya’ more than any other social group. The sectarian and religious groups haven’t developed ‘asabiyya’ to the level at which they can counter the influence of tribes. Democracy is only successful in those areas where individuality is emphasized rather than collectivism. Unlike western society, the societies in the Arab countries are collectivistic as against individualistic, and this is the reason of failure of election, in many Arab countries, to bring meaningful democracy. The society needs to evolve in order to enjoy sustainable democracy. The urban life will help tribal ‘asabiyya’ to evaporate and only then election will be meaningful.