US tech containment a wake-up call

Late last month, the United States rolled out two rounds of sweeping tech restrictions targeting China, further advancing its so-called "small yard, high fence" strategy to reshape global technology supply chains and competition. These measures reveal Washington's unilateral and protectionist mindset, causing ripple effects not only in bilateral ties but also across African nations and the broader Global South.

On July 28, the Federal Communications Commission added advanced humanoid and quadruped robots, as well as grid-connected power inverters, to its list of restricted items. Products under these categories will be denied US market certification, effectively banning them from domestic sales. Though the policy text does not name specific countries, industry observers see the new rules as a targeted crackdown on Chinese manufacturers.

Five days earlier, the US Department of Defense updated its Section 1286 blacklist, adding 130 research and academic institutions from China, Russia and Iran, 88 of them being Chinese entities. Fudan University and Shanghai Jiao Tong University were on the list for the first time.

These policies have restricted Chinese tech developers' and researchers' access to the US commercial market and cross-border academic cooperation, stifling innovation across the entire industrial chain.

Washington's restrictive tech agenda comes with steep economic and innovation costs for the US itself, contradicting its stated goal of global technological leadership. Data from Counterpoint Research on humanoid robotics highlights this self-defeating approach. In 2025, Chinese companies accounted for more than 80 percent of the world's 16,000 operational humanoid robots, with four of the world's top five robot manufacturers based in China. By shutting the door to the industry's most complete and cost-effective supply chain, US enterprises lose vital channels for benchmarking, joint research and development, and iterative product upgrading.

The renewable energy sector faces the same headwinds. The US relies heavily on imported solar inverters, a large share of which come from China. Import restrictions will push up costs for the country's energy transition, with the additional financial burden ultimately falling on ordinary US households.

Washington's regulation of artificial intelligence is also marked by double standards. US regulators threaten sanctions against Chinese AI firms over alleged model distillation, yet ignore the same practices adopted by domestic companies using Chinese open-source AI models. Hundreds of US startups have urged policymakers to maintain access to Chinese open-source AI tools, warning that technological isolation will severely hamper the country's innovation edge.

US authorities justify these restrictions under the banner of "national security", yet their reasoning is fraught with contradictions. If civilian robotics and university research posed severe security risks, restrictions should apply equally to all supply sources instead of targeting finished consumer goods from specific economies. Such selective enforcement makes it clear that "national security" is only a pretext for industrial protectionism.

Years of successive bans have failed to expand US technological advantages in semiconductors, 5G, electric vehicles and drones, proving that "decoupling" and exclusion cannot sustain technological supremacy. Academic exchange has also been heavily politicized. Adding comprehensive civilian universities to blacklists starkly contrasts with Washington's long-time advocacy of borderless scientific collaboration and academic freedom.

Washington's extraterritorial tech sanctions have forced African countries and other economies of the Global South into a difficult position. Today's global digital infrastructure ecosystem, ranging from semiconductors and cloud platforms to core internet protocols, is dominated by some major companies including those from the US and China. Most developing economies export raw data and import high-value digital hardware and software, leaving their critical national infrastructure dependent on foreign suppliers.

Developing nations are in a lose-lose situation. Continuing technical cooperation with Chinese entities blacklisted by the US risks punitive pressure from Washington. But cutting these ties means giving up access to affordable digital infrastructure, industrial partnerships and research support from China.

The bigger hazard is the replicability of Washington's containment playbook. The same "security-focused" rhetoric deployed against Chinese technology could easily be turned against any other Southern nation striving to develop its own digital governance frameworks, exploit critical mineral resources or foster homegrown tech capacity. Tech suppression is by no means a China-specific issue — it poses a systemic threat to every developing country pursuing modernization.

Passive reliance on foreign technology leaves developing nations vulnerable to geopolitical coercion. The Global South must take collective action to safeguard its digital sovereignty. The following measures can shield it from unilateral pressure.

First, deepen regional digital integration. Frameworks such as the African Union Data Policy Framework and the ASEAN Digital Masterplan can harmonize cross-border regulations, integrate fragmented regional markets and boost the collective bargaining power of developing countries against global tech giants.

Second, diversify technology partnerships through BRICS and wider South-South cooperation. China's technological collaboration with Africa and other Southern economies adheres to the principle of equality and is free of political strings. It delivers stable hardware, infrastructure construction and research backing, helping developing nations reduce overreliance on Western suppliers.

Third, build independent regional digital public infrastructure. Joint investment in cross-border data hubs, internet exchange points, shared open-source technology and autonomous cross-border payment systems can break the lock-in by closed foreign digital ecosystems. Africa's abundant rare earths, critical minerals and local data resources should be leveraged as strategic negotiating assets, rather than merely exported as raw materials.

Fourth, cultivate local innovation ecosystems from the ground up. Genuine digital sovereignty cannot be imported from overseas; it requires sustained investment in local education, domestic research labs and indigenous tech start-ups. Regional coordination plans will remain symbolic if there is no homegrown technical capacity to back them up.

All sovereign nations have the right to carry out transparent, nondiscriminatory reviews for technology security. However, the sweeping bans on civilian products and basic academic research, paired with overreaching extraterritorial jurisdiction exercised by the US, are clearly aimed at maintaining unipolar technological hegemony and slowing the development of the Global South.

Innovation flourishes amid open markets, fair competition and cross-border collaboration. The tech containment by the US delivers a clear lesson for Africa and the Global South: sustainable development rests on building self-reliant, indigenous technological capacity to blaze an independent path of modernization.

The author is a Harare-based consultant who regularly contributes to various media platforms.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.