Innovation needs open doors, not high walls

Humanoid robots are tested at the Beijing Innovation Center of Humanoid Robotics in the Beijing Economic-Technological Development Area on June 12, 2026. HE GUANXIN/FOR CHINA DAILY

The global innovation system is undergoing its most profound transformation since the end of the Cold War. Once driven by openness, cross-border collaboration and optimal efficiency, global innovation chains are now being reshaped by "national security" strategies and "de-risking" policies, raising unprecedented concerns about fragmentation and division.

Yet, amid growing security anxieties, one fundamental reality remains unchanged: no country can sustain technological leadership behind closed doors.

Pitting security against openness and innovation is conceptually flawed. Innovation flourishes through openness, not isolation. Progress in frontier fields such as artificial intelligence, biomedicine and clean energy relies heavily on the flow of talent, sharing of knowledge and collaboration across industrial chains.

Recent data from the World Intellectual Property Organization show that global international patent applications filed through the Patent Cooperation Treaty system reached 275,900 in 2025, marking the second consecutive year of growth.

The increase is a clear indicator that modern technological development transcends national borders.

The trend is driven not only by the dynamism of sectors such as digital communications and semiconductors but also by the deep integration of global innovation networks.

Generative AI offers a vivid example. Foundational open-source communities such as Hugging Face bring together hundreds of thousands of developers from around the globe. Without cross-border code sharing, open datasets, and distributed collaboration, the pace of AI technological iteration would slow down considerably.

The lesson is clear: innovation advances fastest when knowledge circulates rather than when it is confined.

The same logic applies to supply chains. Excessive localization and efforts at "decoupling" do not eliminate risks but create new vulnerabilities.

A diversified supply system and an integrated global division of labor are, by themselves, the best ways to mitigate risk.

If nations erect barriers and engage in redundant development, global supply chains will shift from a state of "efficient interconnection" to one of "fragmented islands". This would not only push up inflation and drag down global growth but also expose every economy to the systemic risks associated with reliance on single markets or single technological pathways.

The challenge is compounded by what economists Henry Farrell and Abraham L. Newman have described as "weaponized interdependence". In their view, the global economy is not a flat landscape but a network of nodes and hubs.

Nations that control key nodes and set the rules can leverage financial systems, technical standards, data flows, energy transport and supply chain hubs to restrict or even sanction other countries.

This has turned global interdependence from a source of mutual benefit into a potential instrument of strategic competition. Weaponized interdependence has created a global collective security dilemma.

The first challenge is collective action. While a "security-first" approach can enhance a nation's resilience, it undermines the foundation of international cooperation.

Countries seek the benefits of openness yet fear being subjected to "chokepoints" where access can be cut off. At the same time, major countries find it increasingly difficult to mobilize coordinated responses to transnational challenges such as climate change, financial stability, digital governance and the provision of global public goods.

The second challenge is coordination. Divergent national approaches to technical standards, data governance, digital currencies and supply-chain security make it harder to harmonize international rules.

In emerging fields such as AI governance, cross-border data flows and critical infrastructure security, countries often prefer to establish their own regulatory frameworks rather than seek unified international mechanisms.

Such regulatory fragmentation reduces efficiency and complicates global governance.

Finally, there is the issue of assigning responsibility. Too often, countries tend to shift the blame and responsibility for conflicts onto other nations. This tendency reinforces a system in which power is concentrated but responsibility is diffused.

Such imbalances in the international system undermine the institutional foundations of shared global security.

The rise of economic security should not be seen as the end of open innovation. Rather, it is a stress test for the international community's ability to preserve openness while addressing legitimate security concerns.

Amid geopolitical realities, preserving the necessary space for global innovation requires more than just unilateral actions; it demands the collaborative participation of national governments, multilateral mechanisms, market entities, and the scientific community.

The world urgently needs to reach a consensus. Unnecessary barriers must be dismantled to ensure the flame of global innovation continues to burn.

Efforts should be made within multilateral frameworks — such as the World Trade Organization and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development — to establish common standards that clearly define the scope of national security reviews, export controls and investment restrictions.

Such measures should remain narrowly focused on genuinely sensitive areas related to national defense and critical infrastructure.

Equally important are institutional safeguards that prevent security concerns from becoming a broad justification for economic and technological restrictions. Major countries must provide policy leadership and demonstrate a sense of responsibility.

As key economies, they should provide global public goods and act as stabilizing forces in innovation governance. By shunning unilateralism, they can prevent policy confrontations among major countries from causing a systemic fragmentation of the global innovation system.

In emerging fields such as AI and cyberspace governance, dialogue and consultation are especially important.

If major countries take the lead in establishing channels for dialogue on innovation policy, and reach a basic consensus on security boundaries and fundamental rules, they can preserve the strategic space necessary for global innovation cooperation.

The author is the deputy director of the Institute of American and European Studies at the China Center for International Economic Exchanges.

The views don't necessarily reflect those of China Daily.

If you have a specific expertise, or would like to share your thought about our stories, then send us your writings at opinion@chinadaily.com.cn, and comment@chinadaily.com.cn.