AI-generated from sources
The weaponization of trade: Export controls, national security, and the new rivalry between the United States and China
In Brief
- International trade controls have shifted from niche administrative tools to primary instruments of geopolitical conflict, blurring the lines between economic policy and defense strategy.
- The US justifies its stringent export controls as a defense of national security, intellectual property, and industrial sovereignty against China's state-sponsored technological ambitions.
- China frames its own controls within a 'holistic national security' doctrine, advocating for non-discriminatory rules that preserve the smooth operation of global supply chains.
- The current strategic protectionism marks a decisive paradigm shift, repudiating the decades-long policy of 'blind engagement' that sought to integrate China politically through trade.
Main authors
In an era defined by global interdependence, international trade is increasingly being repurposed from a mechanism of mutual prosperity into an instrument of statecraft and geopolitical conflict [1, 2]. Export controls, once a niche area of administrative law, have emerged as a primary front in the rivalry between major world powers, transforming commercial regulations into tools of national security and strategic competition [3, 4]. This shift challenges the foundational tenets of the post-war economic order, which largely viewed open markets as a pathway to cooperation and peace . Today, the lines between economic policy and defense strategy are blurring, creating a new landscape where access to markets and technology is contingent on geopolitical alignment [5].
This evolving dynamic is most acutely visible in the strategic competition between the United States and China. From the American perspective, stringent trade controls are a necessary defensive measure to protect national security, reclaim economic sovereignty, and counter what is described as a state-sponsored campaign of technological theft and unfair competition [6, 7]. This view posits that a previous era of open engagement failed to moderate China's ambitions and instead enabled its rise as a strategic adversary [8, 9]. Conversely, China frames its own export control regime as a component of a 'holistic approach to national security' that aligns with international norms, advocating for fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory rules that do not disrupt global supply chains or hinder shared development [10, 11]. This fundamental disagreement poses a central question: are enhanced export controls a legitimate exercise of national sovereignty in a competitive world, or do they represent a dangerous escalation that threatens to fragment the global economy and turn trade into an extension of warfare [12]?
National security and the digital arsenal
The primary justification for the modern expansion of export controls is the imperative of national security, particularly in the domain of high technology [13]. The American position articulates a clear and present danger posed by the integration of technology from adversarial nations into critical domestic infrastructure . Chinese telecommunications firms, for example, are presented as extensions of an authoritarian state, compelled to surrender sensitive information to their government, thereby compromising the data privacy and security of American citizens and institutions . This threat perception elevates trade policy from an economic matter to a crucial element in defending a nation's 'way of life' against a 'new tyranny' . The argument follows that in such a contest, unrestricted market access for foreign technology companies is a critical vulnerability that must be managed through robust controls [14].
In response, China proposes an alternative framework of 'holistic national security,' which seeks to balance its own security interests with those of the global community . This doctrine posits that in an interconnected world, no country's security can be considered in isolation . Accordingly, China's export control system is designed to be commensurate with its international standing while contributing to global peace and development . Beijing advocates for control measures that are non-discriminatory and do not undermine the legitimate rights of other countries to the peaceful use of controlled items or obstruct normal scientific and economic cooperation . This stance implicitly criticizes unilateral American actions as disruptive to global industrial and supply chains, framing them as protectionist measures rather than legitimate security precautions .
The concept of national security has also been broadened to encompass economic and intellectual frontiers, with intellectual property (IP) theft being a central battleground [15, 16]. U.S. policy documents characterize Chinese activities as theft on a massive scale, representing one of the largest transfers of wealth in history . This narrative of a 'broad, diverse campaign of theft and malign influence' justifies retaliatory measures, such as tariffs and export restrictions, as a necessary response to protect American innovation and intellectual capital . The fight against counterfeiting and digital piracy is depicted not just as a defense of corporate profits but as a matter of public safety and a bulwark against transnational organized crime [17, 18]. This redefinition of security turns trade enforcement into a key theater for asserting technological leadership and countering a perceived generational threat .
The battlefield of production: tariffs, jobs, and supply chains
Beyond national security, a powerful economic nationalism drives the use of trade controls as a tool to reclaim industrial sovereignty [19, 20]. The narrative advanced by the Trump administration contends that decades of liberal trade policies, particularly since China's entry into the World Trade Organization, resulted in devastating losses for American manufacturing, including tens of thousands of factories and millions of jobs [21]. In this context, tariffs and other restrictive measures are portrayed as essential instruments for rectifying historical imbalances, revitalizing key domestic industries such as steel, and incentivizing the reshoring of production . This policy is rooted in the belief that a strong manufacturing base is inextricably linked to both a thriving economy and national defense [22].
This strategic protectionism is also a direct response to targeted industrial policies from rival nations. China's 'Made in China 2025' initiative, for example, is interpreted not as fair competition but as a state-subsidized effort to dominate global high-tech industries by replacing, rather than joining, other advanced economies [23]. The use of domestic market share targets and pressure on foreign firms to build factories in China is seen as evidence of a strategy that violates international trade norms and puts American intellectual property at risk [24]. Consequently, U.S. export controls and tariffs are positioned as a defensive reaction aimed at leveling the playing field and protecting domestic producers from what are deemed unfair and predatory practices .
This national-interest-first approach stands in stark tension with the principles of free and non-discriminatory international trade [25]. Proponents of a more open system argue that trade fosters peace and civilization by breaking down national prejudices and aligning interests, and that arresting this process risks a return to factionalism and conflict . From this viewpoint, retaliatory tariffs are a self-defeating measure that harms all parties and threatens to unravel the complex web of global supply chains that underpin modern economies . China's official position echoes this concern, emphasizing that any export controls must not obstruct the 'secure and smooth operation of global industrial and supply chains' . This ideological clash highlights a fundamental debate: whether national economic health is best secured through protective barriers or through deeper integration into a rules-based global system .
A new era of rivalry: from engagement to confrontation
The current use of trade controls as a geopolitical weapon marks a decisive break from a preceding era of strategic engagement. For decades, U.S. policy toward China was guided by the assumption, originating with President Nixon's diplomatic opening, that economic integration would 'induce change' [26]. The core belief was that bringing China into the 'family of nations' through trade and investment would inevitably lead to greater political freedom and alignment with the international rules-based order . This paradigm saw economic interdependence as a moderating force that would ultimately reshape China's internal and external behavior.
That long-standing consensus has now been formally repudiated as a failure. The contemporary American strategic assessment is that the policy of 'blind engagement' did not produce the hoped-for political liberalization . Instead, it is argued that China exploited the open global trading system to fuel its rapid economic and military rise, becoming the world's 'arsenal of dictatorship' without reciprocating the West's commitment to openness . This reassessment concludes that China has repeatedly violated its promises on issues ranging from trade practices to the autonomy of Hong Kong, making the old paradigm untenable [27].
This paradigm shift reframes the trade dispute in starkly ideological terms, portraying it as a global struggle between the 'free world' and a 'new tyranny' . The rivalry is defined as a 'generational fight' for economic, technological, and moral leadership, in which China is accused of seeking global supremacy 'by any means necessary' . This elevates export controls and tariffs from mere policy tools to essential weapons in a broader campaign to defend democratic freedoms and the existing international order from subversion . This framing echoes historical precedents where economic competition was seen as an inexorable Darwinian struggle between nations for dominance [28] or a form of internecine warfare projected onto the global stage [29].
The elevation of export controls from technical regulations to instruments of geopolitical warfare signifies a profound shift in the logic of international relations. The escalating trade conflict, particularly between the United States and China, is a symptom of a deeper divergence over the rules that should govern the global economy and the balance between national sovereignty and collective security . One side casts its actions as a vital defense of its economic base, national security, and core values against an authoritarian challenger that has exploited the system . The other warns against unilateral, discriminatory measures that threaten global cooperation and undermine the stability of international trade . The result is a contested landscape where the mechanisms originally designed to facilitate global commerce are now being actively used to restrict it for strategic ends.
This weaponization of trade creates a deeply unstable and unpredictable international environment. While intended to insulate nations from perceived threats and unfair competition, an aggressive reliance on tariffs and export controls risks triggering retaliatory cycles, fragmenting supply chains, and stifling the very innovation it purports to protect . The central challenge confronting the international community is whether a new consensus can be forged to manage this era of intense technological and economic rivalry. Without such a framework, the view that trade is merely an extension of war by other means may become a self-fulfilling prophecy , potentially reversing decades of progress toward a more integrated and cooperative global order .
