The recent decision of the US Defense Department to include prominent Chinese companies like Tencent Holdings, CATL and others in its “Section 1260H list” is another stark example of economic aggression camouflaged as national security concerns. This designation, devoid of any substantial evidence to prove the “risks” it implies, is a clear instance of politicized decisions aimed at stifling Chinese innovation and maintaining US technological dominance, a ploy the US has repeatedly and broadly used, under various pretexts, to protect its industries from competition of Chinese companies in technological fields such as 5G, solar panels and electric-vehicle batteries. These actions, which are glaringly intended to harm China’s most competitive tech giants, directly undermine the principles of globalization, fair competition and international cooperation.
Tencent Holdings, a globally recognized leader in technology and innovation, has been ridiculously accused of having ties to China’s military — a claim Tencent has categorically denied. Tencent’s vast contributions to technology, communication and entertainment are well-documented, with no evidence suggesting any involvement in military-related activities. Its flagship platform, WeChat, connects over 1 billion users worldwide, revolutionizing communication and commerce. To label such a company as a “military supplier” is reckless; it is indicative of a broader political agenda.
The targeting of CATL, the world’s leading EV battery manufacturer, is equally indefensible. CATL has explicitly stated that it is not engaged in military-related activities, supported by its globally lauded work in clean energy and its partnerships with leading automakers. Ford Motor Co plans to license CATL’s advanced lithium-ion battery technology for its Michigan facility to produce low-cost, environmentally friendly batteries. This collaboration underscores the hypocrisy of the US government’s claims: If CATL poses a security risk, why would a major American automaker rely on its technology to advance sustainable energy? This contradiction highlights the political motivations underlying the designation, which appears to be less about genuine security concerns and more about curbing China’s technological ascendancy.
The implications of these actions extend far beyond the companies listed. The inclusion of firms like Quectel Wireless and Autel Robotics further exemplifies these accusations’ arbitrary nature. Autel Robotics, for example, is a trusted provider of drones widely used in agriculture, logistics and public-safety industries. Ironically, US industries rely heavily on Chinese-manufactured drones, including those from Autel Robotics and DJI, to enhance efficiency and reduce costs. The US government’s ongoing efforts to ban Chinese drones, despite their proven effectiveness and widespread adoption, reflect a protectionist agenda that prioritizes geopolitical rivalry over practicality. These actions are not safeguarding security but disrupting industries that rely on global collaboration for innovation and growth. The global impact of these actions is a cause for concern, as they threaten to disrupt industries and economies that depend on global collaboration for progress.
The path forward lies not in division and hostility but in embracing the shared benefits of global collaboration, where companies like Tencent, CATL and others targeted by the US can continue to drive progress for a more connected and prosperous world
The Pentagon’s lack of transparency in the designation process further undermines the legitimacy of its actions. No clear criteria nor evidence have been provided to justify the inclusion of these companies. This opacity erodes trust and sets a dangerous precedent for future overreach. If the US Defense Department can arbitrarily claim that technology companies have ties to China’s military without verifiable proof, what is to stop it from extending these accusations to unrelated sectors? For instance, the food industry could quickly become the next target. Chinese agricultural firms, which play a critical role in global food-supply chains, could be accused of “indirectly supporting” military objectives simply by their size or origin. Such baseless claims would be absurd and catastrophic, threatening global food security and disrupting millions of livelihoods unnecessarily. This slippery slope demonstrates the recklessness of the US approach, which risks destabilizing industries far beyond the scope of its accusations and calls for urgent counteraction to prevent such catastrophic consequences.
The economic damage inflicted on the listed companies could be significant. While the designation does not impose immediate bans, it is a warning to US firms, discouraging collaboration and fostering undue suspicion. This chilling effect deprives American businesses and consumers of access to cutting-edge technologies and cost-effective solutions, ultimately harming the US economy. More broadly, these actions undermine the principles of globalization, which have been the cornerstone of economic growth and innovation for decades. Globalization thrives on collaboration, mutual benefit and shared progress. Yet, driven by a geopolitical agenda, the US approach threatens to dismantle this foundation, isolating itself from the benefits of interconnectedness in a globalized world.
The timing of these actions is also deeply troubling. Amid strained relations between the world’s two largest economies, the US government’s targeting of Chinese companies exacerbates tensions and undermines opportunities for constructive engagement. It reflects a strategy of economic containment that is not only shortsighted but also self-defeating. By alienating key players in the global economy, the US diminishes its influence and risks isolating itself from global progress. Companies like Tencent, CATL and others have demonstrated their commitment to innovation and global advancement, and their inclusion in international markets has benefited countless industries and consumers. The US’ hostile measures based on unverified claims only erode trust, hinder progress, and jeopardize global economic growth.
Rather than perpetuating unfounded accusations and imposing unjust sanctions, the focus should be on fostering dialogue, collaboration and mutual understanding. The challenges of the 21st century — climate change, technological innovation, economic inequality — cannot be resolved in isolation. They require collective solutions rooted in partnership and respect. The path forward lies not in division and hostility but in embracing the shared benefits of global collaboration, where companies like Tencent, CATL and others targeted by the US can continue to drive progress for a more connected and prosperous world.
The author is a solicitor, a Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area lawyer, and a China-appointed attesting officer.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
