China’s Export Controls Reflect Geopolitical Tensions and Global Arms Trade Fragmentation

Indigenous communities in the Pacific and East Asia, such as the Tao people of Orchid Island (Taiwan) and the Rukai of Tainan, have long resisted militarisation of their lands due to the environmental and cultural devastation caused by arms testing and deployment. Their resistance is framed not as political but as a struggle for survival, rooted in ancestral ties to land and sea. Mainstream coverage ignores these voices, reducing the conflict to state-level actors and economic metrics. The weaponisation of trade flows directly threatens Indigenous food sovereignty and sacred sites, such as the militarised zones in the South China Sea that disrupt traditional fishing routes.

The current export controls echo Cold War-era trade wars, such as the US embargo on China in the 1950s and the Soviet grain embargo of the 1980s, where economic tools were used to punish ideological adversaries. The 1979 Taiwan Relations Act, which commits the US to arming Taiwan, established a structural precedent for arms sales as a tool of deterrence, normalising the militarisation of trade. The EU’s dual-use export regime, meanwhile, has roots in post-WWII reconstruction efforts but has since been repurposed to serve geopolitical containment strategies. Historical parallels reveal that export controls rarely achieve their stated goals and often escalate into prolonged standoffs.

In African traditions, such as Ubuntu philosophy, trade and conflict resolution are intertwined with communal harmony and restorative justice, contrasting sharply with the adversarial framing of export controls. Many Pacific Island nations, including those in the Pacific Islands Forum, have explicitly rejected militarisation of trade routes, advocating instead for collective security frameworks like the Boe Declaration. Chinese strategic culture, influenced by the concept of ‘strategic patience’ (韬光养晦), often employs economic measures as a form of deterrence rather than outright confrontation, a subtlety often missed in Western media. These perspectives highlight the cultural specificity of ‘security’ and ‘trade’ as constructs.

Economic studies on export controls, such as those by the Peterson Institute for International Economics, show that such measures often fail to achieve their intended security goals while imposing significant economic costs on civilian industries. The semiconductor industry, a critical component of both EU and Chinese tech sectors, is particularly vulnerable to fragmentation, with supply chain disruptions leading to increased costs and reduced innovation. Research also indicates that export controls can trigger retaliatory measures, creating a downward spiral of decoupling that undermines global stability. The scientific consensus suggests that trade fragmentation is a net negative for economic growth and technological progress.

Artistic and spiritual traditions often depict trade and conflict through metaphors of balance and imbalance. In Chinese ink painting, the concept of ‘qi’ (气) represents the flow of energy, which can be disrupted by rigid boundaries—much like export controls fragmenting economic flows. Similarly, many Indigenous creation stories, such as those of the Māori or Native American tribes, frame conflict as a disruption of natural harmony, requiring rituals of restoration. The current geopolitical tensions can be seen as a failure to maintain this balance, where economic tools are used to assert dominance rather than foster interdependence.

Scenario modelling by the RAND Corporation suggests that continued export controls could lead to a bifurcated global economy, with separate supply chains for critical technologies like semiconductors and aerospace components. This fragmentation would increase costs, reduce innovation, and heighten the risk of accidental escalation, particularly in regions like the South China Sea. Alternative futures include the formation of regional trade blocs that prioritise resilience over efficiency, or the emergence of new multilateral frameworks to manage dual-use technologies. The long-term implications include a shift from globalisation to regionalisation, with profound geopolitical consequences.

Taiwanese civil society groups, such as the Taiwan Association for Human Rights, have long warned that arms sales escalate tensions without addressing the root causes of conflict, such as democratic backsliding in Hong Kong or the erosion of cross-strait dialogue. Meanwhile, European workers in the arms industry face job insecurity as export controls disrupt supply chains, yet their voices are absent from mainstream narratives. Indigenous communities in both Taiwan and mainland China, such as the Amis and Atayal peoples, bear the brunt of militarisation through land seizures and environmental degradation. The framing also excludes the perspectives of small and medium-sized enterprises in the EU, which are often collateral damage in geopolitical disputes.