While leading countries in the Indo‑Pacific do fret about a hypertransactional Trump administration, they worry about another superpower when it comes to foreign ownership, control and influence (FOCI) of technology.
As China has risen to dominate global manufacturing supply chains, it has flexed its growing national power to assert its interests at the expense of its neighbours, deploying force to press its territorial claims on India, Japan, Taiwan and the South China Sea, and backed up those efforts with economic coercion. But regulating Chinese technology is a tricky balance. As regional countries have become more concerned about China's strategic ambitions, they've also become more reliant for critical technologies on Chinese vendors that are subject to state direction. Reducing dependence on Chinese technology can't be achieved overnight without significant economic disruption. Therefore, managing the security and economic risks— whether by accepting or prohibiting Chinese technologies and identifying alternative options—requires special care. While China is uniquely positioned for reasons outlined in this report, and so is the focus here, China is not the only source of such risks.
This report provides a comparative analysis of how five Indo‑Pacific countries—Australia, India, Japan, Singapore and South Korea—have sought to balance FOCI risks when assessing vendors. The report focuses on those five countries because they provide among the clearest and most mature policies, decisions and outcomes across sectors, which enables robust comparisons. Taken together, the five countries have developed well‑documented guidance and enforcement mechanisms, making strong reference points from which the broader region can draw insights.
Many of the most consequential steps have been quiet changes to procurement rules, licensing conditions, screening processes and technical standards. The pattern is consistent but not uniform. Where economic ties to China are deeper or political space is narrower, action has tended to be more circumspect. What's striking is not only that all five countries have taken action, but that the cumulative effect is stronger than is commonly recognised, precisely because much of it's happened out of the spotlight. That discretion has reduced political friction, but it's also meant that countries have often acted independently, and so there is an absence of shared best practice across the region.
The aim of this report is to explore which approaches represent best practice and might usefully inform other regional countries outside the scope of this report as they balance the benefits against FOCI risks.
