The critical mineral dilemma : why South Korea cannot escape the power politics of supply chains — and why it must de-risk

Critical minerals and their supply chains play an increasingly pivotal role in shaping the security, economic resilience, and sustainable development trajectories of states. For the Republic of Korea (South Korea), critical minerals are not only a geopolitical concern but also a key element of its middle-power statecraft, strategic autonomy, diplomacy, and industrial competitiveness. However, amid intensifying great-power rivalry between the People’s Republic of China (China) and the United States (US), South Korea finds itself caught in a dilemma: how to secure resilient critical mineral supply chains for industrial and energy transitions, while maintaining flexibility between economic ties with China and its security alliance with the United States. This position has left South Korea with limited strategic autonomy. Its supply chains are acutely vulnerable to China’s dominance in upstream mining and midstream processing, while alliance dynamics — such as the Minerals Security Partnership — and US’ security policies further constrain South Korea’s downstream manufacturing and the export of mineral-based technologies. This leads to the central puzzle: Why has South Korea struggled to reduce its reliance on critical mineral imports from China, despite mounting security risks, geopolitical tensions, and environmental concerns? What explains South Korea’s political inability to implement a coherent de-risking strategy and diversify its supply chains while maintaining strategic flexibility between the great powers? I argue that South Korea’s critical mineral vulnerability is shaped not only by asymmetric interdependence and the structural constraints of middle-power politics, but also by domestic political fragmentation — manifested in volatile party dynamics, deepening partisan divides, and coordination failures between the executive and legislative branches — which undermines the state’s capacity to coordinate and sustain a long-term supply chain strategy. While existing literature primarily focuses on geopolitical dynamics, I advance the discourse by conducting a two-tiered analysis of international diplomacy and domestic politics, drawing on primary and secondary sources including government documents, media coverage, and academic literature in Korean and English. This argument is illustrated through a case study of South Korea’s cobalt supply chain, which reveals how geopolitical pressures, compounded by domestic political volatility, create constraints on industrial strategy and alliance management for de-risking efforts.