Why China's enhanced dual-use export controls on Japan are necessary

Editor's note: Xu Ying, a special commentator on current affairs for CGTN, is a Beijing-based international affairs commentator. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

China's recent decision to strengthen export controls on certain dual-use items destined for Japan has drawn international attention. Some external commentators have hastily framed the move as a "trade restriction" or an escalation of economic friction. Such readings miss the essence of the policy. In reality, this is a precise, forceful and legally grounded countermeasure, taken in response to clear political provocations that implicate China's core interests and national security.

The decision reflects a principle China has consistently emphasized: National security is non-negotiable and sovereignty is not a bargaining chip. When these red lines are crossed, China has both the right and the responsibility to respond calmly, proportionately and within the framework of law.

First, it is essential to understand what the measures actually entail. The enhanced controls impose a comprehensive ban on the export of all dual-use items for military users or military purposes in Japan. The scope is deliberately defined to include not only direct military end-users, but also any use that could contribute to the enhancement of Japan's military capabilities. This precision matters. It ensures that the policy targets security risks directly, rather than indiscriminately disrupting normal economic exchanges.

Equally significant is that under this provision, entities in any country or region that transfer relevant Chinese-origin dual-use items to Japan will be held legally accountable. This is not an arbitrary extension of authority, but a necessary mechanism to block indirect or third-party diversion, a loophole that has long undermined the effectiveness of export controls worldwide. The strong deterrent effect of this clause sends a clear message: Security commitments cannot be circumvented through transshipment or legal grey zones.

Contrary to claims of ad hoc policymaking, China's actions rest on a solid and transparent legal foundation. The measures are implemented in accordance with the Export Control Law of the People's Republic of China and the Regulations on the Export Control of Dual-Use Items. In recent years, China has systematically upgraded its export control regime, aligning it with international practices while tailoring it to national conditions.

This legal framework has been further operationalized through the 2026 Catalogue for the Administration of Import and Export Licenses for Dual-Use Items, which came into effect on January 1, 2026. The catalogue provides detailed technical lists and licensing requirements, ensuring that enforcement is rules-based, predictable and professional. In other words, this is governance by law, not by impulse.

The direct trigger for the current measures cannot be ignored. Japanese leaders have recently made erroneous and highly irresponsible remarks on China's Taiwan question, openly implying military involvement in the Taiwan Strait. Such statements constitute a gross interference in China's internal affairs and a serious violation of the one-China principle – a political foundation of China-Japan relations established in their bilateral documents.

No sovereign state would remain passive in the face of such provocations. By strengthening export controls, China is responding not with rhetoric, but with a measured policy tool that directly addresses the security implications of these statements. The objective is not punishment for its own sake, but prevention: to ensure that Chinese-origin items are not used, directly or indirectly, to undermine China's national interest and territorial integrity.

Beyond the immediate context, the move serves two deeper strategic purposes. The first is the protection of national security and development interests. Dual-use items, by definition, straddle civilian and military domains. Allowing them to flow unchecked to actors that signal hostile intent would be a dereliction of responsibility.

The second purpose is the fulfillment of China's international non-proliferation obligations, particularly with regard to items that could be applied to weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems. In this sense, the policy strengthens, rather than weakens, the global non-proliferation regime.

It is also important to situate the measure within China's broader strategic toolkit. Export controls have become a standard, normalized countermeasure when a country's core interests are seriously infringed. Similar actions were previously taken in response to foreign interference on Taiwan-related issues involving the United States. The message is consistent: China does not seek confrontation; but it will respond decisively when necessary.

Crucially, the measures are not aimed at normal civilian or non-military trade. Japan remains an important economic partner, and China has no interest in disrupting legitimate commercial exchanges that contribute to regional prosperity. The boundaries of the policy are clear and controlled. What is being restricted is security-relevant risk, not economic cooperation as such.

For the international community, the signal is equally unambiguous. China's export control policy is defensive, lawful and proportionate. It demonstrates growing institutional maturity: the ability to apply pressure precisely, escalate when required and restrain when appropriate. This is not economic coercion; it is responsible statecraft in an era of increasing security interdependence.

Ultimately, the path forward is clear. If certain countries truly seek to maintain stable relations with China, they must honor their political commitments, respect the one-China principle and refrain from actions or rhetoric that embolden separatism or military adventurism. Dialogue and cooperation remain open – but only on the basis of mutual respect.

China's enhanced dual-use export controls toward Japan should therefore be understood for what they are: a measured, law-based response to a serious political and military challenge, executed within the rule of law, and aimed at safeguarding peace and stability by drawing firm boundaries where they matter most. In matters of sovereignty and national security, clarity is not escalation – it is responsibility.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on X, formerly Twitter, to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)