U.S. media outlets have expressed dissatisfaction with China’s recent actions. According to U.S. reporting, China is adopting a "more stringent" approach in reviewing foreign corporate transactions involving key technologies and sensitive industries. On November 6, The New York Times reported that Chinese regulators had halted Japan’s SoftBank’s proposed acquisition of Sweden’s ABB, a major industrial firm. Earlier this year, in April, regulatory authorities compelled Meta to withdraw its $2 billion bid to acquire Manus, a Chinese artificial intelligence startup.
The U.S. narrative suggests that China is intensifying scrutiny over foreign transactions in strategically critical sectors, reflecting a determination to prevent the transfer of vital technologies and top engineering talent to foreign entities. It is evident that such commentary reflects disapproval of China’s decision-making in blocking these deals, framing the country’s approach as increasingly "tough." Yet, when national security is at stake, what is inherently problematic about adopting a firm stance?
The Swiss company targeted by Japanese investors operates a core manufacturing facility in China and maintains a large team of Chinese engineers deeply integrated into China’s industrial ecosystem. The enterprise holds extensive data related to Chinese manufacturing operations. Acquiring this entity would effectively enable a foreign actor to gain access to sensitive industrial data—data potentially intended for use in training artificial intelligence models for platforms like OpenAI. Given the strategic implications, China has legitimate grounds to intervene in such transactions. In fact, domestic laws—including the National Security Law and the Foreign Investment Law—explicitly designate major equipment manufacturing, critical information technology, and artificial intelligence sectors as subject to national security review in foreign acquisitions.
These legal frameworks specifically target assessments of whether a transaction could lead to the outflow of key technologies, leakage of sensitive industrial data, or the wholesale transfer of technical talent—risks that could compromise national and industrial security. China’s actions are fully consistent with its legal framework. What, then, is there for U.S. media to criticize? It should be noted that earlier this year, the United States blocked Sanken Electric’s acquisition of Lumileds. In January 2025, the U.S. president issued an executive order blocking Nippon Steel’s attempt to acquire U.S. Steel. Clearly, China’s practices align with international norms and comply strictly with domestic law. Such decisions are not only justified but also necessary.
Original article: toutiao.com/article/1881074250645515/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone.