Why in news?
From November 18, China will license tunnel-boring and high-altitude machinery exports to countries in dispute with it, likely hitting India.
UPSC Relevance
Mains: GS2 – India and its neighbourhood (India-China relations), Effect of policies and politics of developed and developing countries on India’s interests.
GS3 – Indian economy.
What has China announced?
- Two-tier system: Exports to ‘sensitive countries and regions in dispute with China’ will need a licence. Exports to other countries will need prior registration and certificates.
- Justification: China says these items have clear dual-use (civilian and military) characteristics and the move will safeguard national security and help meet non-proliferation obligations.
- Wider pattern: It comes days after Beijing announced sweeping controls on 40 cutting-edge technologies, including advanced solar manufacturing and some AI platforms.
- Why it matters for India: India has already faced customs delays for Chinese-made Tunnel-boring machines (TBMs) in 2024-25, affecting Metro projects and strategic tunnels in border areas.
- Restricting high-altitude machinery directly touches India’s border infrastructure push in Ladakh, Arunachal Pradesh and Sikkim, where all-weather tunnels (like Zojila and Sela) are key to troop mobility.
What is Weaponisation of Technology?
Weaponisation of technology means using control over technology, technological goods, data or supply chains as a tool of coercion to achieve political, strategic or economic goals. Here technology is not just a product of trade but a lever of power.
- Weaponised interdependence: The countries sitting at the ‘hubs’ of global networks (finance, chips, internet, minerals) can exploit others’ dependence on them.
- Chokepoint effect: Cutting off access to a critical input, e.g. advanced chips or rare earths.
- Panopticon effect: Using control of networks to gather information and monitor rivals, e.g. surveillance through telecom equipment or financial messaging data.
- Dual-use dilemma: Most modern technologies (drones, AI, semiconductors, satellites, even TBMs) serve both civilian and military uses. This blurs the line between legitimate security control and economic coercion.
- Shift in thinking: Earlier, globalisation assumed that economic interdependence reduces conflict. Today interdependence itself is seen as a vulnerability, a trend called ‘securitisation of trade’.
Tools used to weaponise technology
| Tool | How it works |
|---|---|
| Export controls | Licensing or banning exports of sensitive goods and know-how (e.g. China’s rare earth curbs, US chip controls) |
| Entity lists / blacklists | Barring specific firms from buying inputs (e.g. Huawei on US Entity List, 2019) |
| Financial network exclusion | Cutting access to payment systems like SWIFT or freezing reserves |
| Cyber operations | Malware and attacks on critical infrastructure |
| Platform and data control | Banning apps, controlling data flows, switching off services |
| Standards and IPR | Shaping global tech standards (e.g. 5G, AI) to lock in dependence |
Major Examples
| Case | Year | What happened |
|---|---|---|
| China’s rare earth embargo on Japan | 2010 | Supply halted after the Senkaku boat collision; showed how mineral dominance can be used as pressure |
| US curbs on Huawei | 2019 | Cut off from US chips and Google software; Huawei’s global smartphone share fell sharply |
| US semiconductor controls on China | 2022 onwards | Bans on advanced AI chips and chip-making tools; Netherlands (ASML) and Japan joined |
| Sanctions on Russia | 2022 | Key Russian banks removed from SWIFT; around USD 300 billion of central bank reserves frozen |
| China’s critical mineral controls | 2023-25 | Licensing for gallium, germanium and graphite; controls on heavy rare earths and magnets in 2025 hit global auto makers |
| Starlink in Ukraine | 2022 | A private company’s decision on coverage influenced military operations, showing the power of private tech firms |
India’s own experience of technology denial
- GPS denial (1999): The US refused GPS data during the Kargil war. This led to India’s own regional navigation system, NavIC.
- Cryogenic engine denial (1990s): Russia backed out of transferring cryogenic technology under US pressure citing MTCR. ISRO later built the indigenous CE-7.5 and CE-20 engines.
- Supercomputer denial (1980s): Denial of Cray supercomputers led to C-DAC’s PARAM series.
- Post-Pokhran sanctions (1998): Sanctions on Indian nuclear and space institutions pushed indigenisation.
- India’s defensive steps: Ban on Chinese apps under Section 69A of the IT Act (2020) and Press Note 3 (2020) requiring government approval for FDI from land-border countries.
Note: Technology denial has often acted as a trigger for Indian self-reliance, but it comes with delays and higher costs.
Impact on the Global Economy
- Fragmentation of trade: The IMF has estimated that severe geoeconomic fragmentation could cost up to 7% of global GDP in the long run.
- Supply chain shocks and inflation: Sudden curbs raise input costs, as seen when rare earth magnet shortages in 2025 slowed auto production in several countries.
- Duplication and higher costs: Countries rebuild parallel capacities (e.g. US CHIPS Act, EU Chips Act), which is costly and slows global innovation.
- Developing countries squeezed: Nations without domestic tech capacity face higher prices and pressure to pick sides.
Impact on Global Polity
- Techno-nationalism: Technology is now treated as a part of national power, like military strength.
- Bloc formation: Emergence of tech alliances such as the Quad’s critical and emerging technology working group, the Minerals Security Partnership (India joined in 2023) and the India-US TRUST initiative on critical technologies.
- Erosion of multilateralism: Unilateral controls are replacing rules-based trade. National security exceptions (Article XXI of GATT) are being used widely, and the WTO Appellate Body has been non-functional since December 2019.
- Sovereignty concerns: Data localisation, digital public infrastructure and ‘tech sovereignty’ have become foreign policy goals. Big tech companies and their owners can shape outcomes in conflicts and diplomacy.
- Global South dilemma: Countries like India must balance strategic autonomy while engaging with both the US and China.
Way Forward
For India
- Map dependencies: Identify critical imports with high single-country dependence (TBMs, APIs, rare earths, solar wafers, electronic components) and plan for each.
- Indigenise heavy machinery: Extend PLI-type support to capital goods like TBMs and specialised construction equipment, with public procurement backing.
- Critical minerals: Speed up the National Critical Mineral Mission (2025), KABIL’s overseas acquisitions and the scheme for rare earth permanent magnet manufacturing.
- Diversify sources: Use partnerships with Japan, EU, US, Australia and others for alternate supply, and stockpile essential items.
- R&D and talent: Raise R&D spending (currently around 0.6-0.7% of GDP) using the Anusandhan National Research Foundation and the Rs 1 lakh crore RDI fund.
- Calibrated China policy: Keep diplomatic channels open while protecting strategic sectors, since total decoupling is neither possible nor desirable.
At the global level
- Rules for dual-use controls: Clear and narrow definitions so that security exceptions are not misused.
- Restore WTO dispute settlement: A working Appellate Body is needed to check unilateral coercion.
- Resilient supply chain pacts: Wider use of frameworks like IPEF’s supply chain agreement with early warning and crisis response mechanisms.
- Global governance of emerging tech: Common norms for AI, cyber and space through UN and G20 forums, with Global South voices included.
Practice MCQ
Q1. Consider the following statements:
Statement-I: Countries are able to restrict exports of dual-use goods without violating WTO rules by citing national security.
Statement-II: Article XXI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) provides security exceptions to WTO members.
Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?
(a) Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct and Statement-II explains Statement-I
(b) Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct, but Statement-II does not explain Statement-I
(c) Statement-I is correct, but Statement-II is incorrect
(d) Statement-I is incorrect, but Statement-II is correct
Answer: (a)
Explanation: Article XXI allows a member to take action it considers necessary for its essential security interests. This clause is widely used to justify export controls.
Mains Practice Question
Q. “The weaponisation of technology and supply chains has turned economic interdependence from a source of stability into a source of vulnerability.” Discuss this statement with suitable examples and suggest measures India should take to reduce its strategic dependencies. (15 marks, 250 words)
Tell Google you want more of this.
Add Anantam IAS as a preferred sourceOne tap, and this site shows up more often in your own Top Stories, AI Overviews and AI Mode. Remove it any time.
