China is Armed for an Age of Protracted Economic Warfare

Takshashila Institution | Amit Kumar

China has constructed an extensive legal and regulatory toolkit of economic coercion over the past decade to counter Western financial dominance and secure its own strategic interests. Beijing's framework, anchored by the 2015 National Security Law, systematically weaponizes market access, export controls, data security, and retaliatory countermeasures against foreign entities.

This comprehensive strategy targets both foreign and domestic enterprises to achieve capability denial and political compellence, drawing legal authority from Article 59 of the National Security Law. This represents a structural shift. While the United States historically dominated economic statecraft through mechanisms like the Entity List and SWIFT sanctions, the Chinese state now actively restricts outbound investments, goods, and critical technology exports to protect its national interests. Ultimately, the future of global supply chains depends on whether targeted states can maintain horizontal alignment and vertical business coordination to build viable alternatives.

Comment

Beijing’s codification of economic statecraft through the National Security Law of 2015 marks a fundamental shift in Chinese strategic doctrine, elevating economic security to a co-equal status with territorial defence. By integrating market restrictions and export controls into a unified legal framework, the Chinese Communist Party has institutionalised a doctrine of comprehensive national security that treats commercial dependencies as active operational fronts. This legal architecture formalises the transition from reactive economic defence to proactive capability denial, mirroring the defensive depth historically sought in conventional military planning.

The operationalisation of this doctrine relies on specific administrative mechanisms, notably Article 59 of the National Security Law, which authorises sweeping security reviews of foreign investments and network technologies. Through these reviews, agencies like the Ministry of Commerce and the Cyberspace Administration of China can selectively restrict market access under the guise of national security. This administrative structure allows the State Council to execute targeted economic interventions through MOFCOM without relying on overt legislative changes, maintaining tactical flexibility in protracted geoeconomic confrontations.

Strategic Question for Discussion

If the State Council continues to expand the application of Article 59 of the National Security Law of 2015, does the administrative burden on MOFCOM eventually degrade Beijing's ability to execute rapid, targeted economic countermeasures, or does the centralized structure prevent such operational friction?

The trajectory indicates that the centralized oversight of the National Security Law of 2015 mitigates administrative friction by aligning MOFCOM and the Cyberspace Administration of China under direct State Council supervision. However, as the volume of security reviews under Article 59 increases, the bureaucratic capacity of these agencies will likely face bottlenecks, potentially slowing down tactical enforcement during fast-moving trade disputes. My assessment is that Beijing will prioritize institutional expansion of these regulatory bodies to maintain the speed of its retaliatory countermeasures.

Share your assessment in the comments below.

To read in details click here