China’s Weaponization of Gallium and Germanium: The Pitfalls of Leveraging Chokepoints
China’s recent announcement of raw material export controls highlights important pitfalls of weaponized interdependence and demonstrates that not all chokepoints are created equal.
On July 3, China’s Ministry of Commerce announced that from August it would restrict exports of raw gallium and germanium as well as products derived from these two metals. China dominates global supply of both elements, which are important notably in the production of semiconductors for electric vehicles, 5G telecommunications infrastructure, renewable energy technologies, as well as in other important uses such as LED lighting, fiberoptic cables or various space and military applications. They are, as of today, critical raw materials for enabling the twin transitions toward a digital, carbon-neutral future.
The measures will come nine months after the United States (US), in a major shift of strategy to stymie China’s technological development in dual-use fields, unveiled stinging export controls on the most advanced range of semiconductors, as well as the tools and knowhow needed to produce them. China’s direct response to this scaling up of American pressure in high-tech domains has been slow to emerge, and its decision to signal a willingness to leverage its raw material advantage is a significant step with potentially far-reaching implications.
But Beijing’s yet-to-be-defined measures highlight two important features of leveraging dependencies in a context of complex economic interdependence. First, from the moment an economy declares its willingness to weaponize its advantage, the strength of its position begins to erode as others seek to reduce their vulnerabilities over time. Second, mutual vulnerability is a central feature of today’s global, networked economy. Indeed, a broad weaponization of gallium and germanium won’t only harm those it sets out to target and press them to develop alternative supplies, but would significantly, and perhaps even disproportionately, undermine China’s own industrial interests as well.
This page contains only a summary of our work. If you would like to have access to all the information from our research on the subject, you can download the full version in PDF format.
China’s Weaponization of Gallium and Germanium: The Pitfalls of Leveraging Chokepoints
Pakistan and the Israel-Palestine Conflict: Transformation in Pakistan’s Approach After the War in Gaza
Pakistan has long combined vocal support for the Palestinian cause with covert engagement with Israel. Since the war in Gaza, this balance has become untenable: public opinion is united against Israel, joining Trump’s Board of Peace has drawn rare cross-party criticism, and new regional alignments put normalization out of reach.
The Oceania Factor in France’s Evolving Indo-Pacific Strategy
This paper examines the two-way relationship between France’s Indo-Pacific strategy and developments in Oceania. Oceania was not a priority in the initial years of France’s Indo-Pacific strategy, as the region was largely treated as secondary to major strategic hotspots and key partnerships, while overseas territories were primarily handled as domestic issues and recipients of a top-down strategy.
France’s View: From Diplomacy to Public-Private Action
France has emerged as the EU’s IMEC forerunner, combining port infrastructure, diplomatic alliances and public-private cooperation. With Marseille Fos at its core, the country brings a strategic hub for logistics, energy and digital connectivity to the corridor.
Trump II, the Crisis of the Rules-Based Order and Europe’s Indo-Pacific Strategy
This article examines the implications of Trump II for Europe’s engagement in the Indo-Pacific. The piece contends that Trump II is accelerating the erosion of the rules-based order and undermining the relevance of the Free and Open Indo-Pacific (FOIP) concept, while forcing Europe to refocus on its own continental security amid US retrenchment. Paradoxically, these very constraints create conditions for a more autonomous, pragmatic, and explicitly interest-driven European engagement in the Indo-Pacific, rather than outright withdrawal.