From China's perspective, producing more than it needs and exporting at cutthroat prices is a strategic tool, not an economic problem. This form of industrial warfare is designed to weaken other nations' manufacturing bases, prioritizing geopolitical goals over profit.

The concept of 'weaponized interdependence,' highlighted by China's use of export controls, is driving Asian nations like Japan, India, and South Korea to implement economic security acts. This shifts investment toward domestic supply chains in critical minerals, semiconductors, and defense, creating state-backed opportunities.

For 30 years, China identified rare earths as a strategic industry. By massively subsidizing its own companies and dumping product to crash prices, it methodically drove US and global competitors out of business, successfully creating a coercive dependency for the rest of the world.

China demonstrated its significant leverage over the U.S. by quickly pressuring the Trump administration through a partial embargo on rare earth metals. This showcased a powerful non-tariff weapon rooted in its control of critical mineral supply chains, which are also vital for defense applications.

While headlines focus on advanced chips, China’s real leverage comes from its strategic control over less glamorous but essential upstream inputs like rare earths and magnets. It has even banned the export of magnet-making technology, creating critical, hard-to-solve bottlenecks for Western manufacturing.

The Nexperia dispute reveals China's strategic leverage. By controlling the supply of mid-tech chips for basic car functions like airbags and windows, Beijing can cripple major European automakers, demonstrating its influence over global supply chains beyond just high-end tech.

To combat China's ability to dump products and destabilize markets, the US government should act as a buyer of last resort for critical materials like rare earths. This would create a strategic reserve, similar to the petroleum reserve, ensuring price stability for domestic investment and manufacturing.

The next decade in biotech will prioritize speed and cost, areas where Chinese companies excel. They rapidly and cheaply advance molecules to early clinical trials, attracting major pharma companies to acquire assets that they historically would have sourced from US biotechs. This is reshaping the global competitive landscape.

Despite US-China tensions threatening innovation, the likely outcome is 'coopetition'—a blend of competition and collaboration—as global pharmaceutical firms navigate the dual imperatives of advancing innovation and ensuring supply chain resilience.