In its attempt to ensure that the United States wins the technological competition with China, the Joe Biden administration has continued to intensify its efforts to transform the “high fence” of its “small project” strategy into a de facto wall.

This is why it has worked to effectively sever significant ties between the two countries’ technology sectors in cutting-edge areas.

As part of its efforts to prevent U.S. products, capital and know-how from helping China supplant the United States in these cutting-edge technologies, the U.S. Treasury Department on Monday issued a final rule for implementing President Joe Biden’s August 2023 executive order. restrict U.S. investment in specific Chinese technologies.

This is not a question of “risk reduction”, but of decoupling, and the antagonistic manner adopted by the United States in this sense will further poison the whole of bilateral relations, which are already in the thick shadow of fears of a new cold war. Despite its rather broad title, Biden’s executive order on U.S. investments in certain national security technologies and products in countries of concern was tailor-made for China.

Announced on August 9, 2023, the order targets advancements in sensitive technologies and products that accelerate the development of advanced computing capabilities. It focuses specifically on semiconductors and microelectronics, quantum information technologies and certain AI systems, “sensitive technologies and products” identified as essential for the next generation of military, cybersecurity, surveillance applications and intelligence.

The Treasury Department’s final rule to implement Executive Order 14105, which takes effect January 2, provides the operational regulations and a detailed explanatory discussion of their intent and application, which, for all intents and purposes, is intended to restrict the investments by American individuals and businesses. in advanced technologies and products in the Chinese mainland and the Hong Kong and Macao special administrative regions. It includes an additional measure against overseas investment in China.

Since the administration of Donald Trump, Washington has continued to attempt to erect an ever higher barrier to slow the momentum of Chinese technological advances. After export controls, financial sanctions, high tariffs and controls on inbound investments, the White House has now taken another decisive step to bring outbound investments under government oversight and control. Although the final rule allows for some exceptions, these are largely nominal, as observers have pointed out. After all, no matter who is elected in the impending presidential election, no matter which party controls the House and/or the Senate, this “small garden, crenellated wall” approach is unlikely to change. soon. After all, containing Chinese scientific and technological progress has become a bipartisan consensus in American domestic politics and a key pillar of American geopolitical strategy. Through the continued efforts of the current and previous U.S. presidency, Beijing has become the primary threat to U.S. national security. And national security has been a handy rallying cry for American politicians to focus support both domestically and abroad.

It remains to be seen how and to what extent the new rule will affect U.S. allies and partners. Given Washington’s historical obsession with long-arm jurisdiction, it is very likely that such restrictions will at some point be applied to critical third parties in one way or another. Indeed, as Paul Rosen, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Investment Security, stated in a press release, American investments include intangible benefits such as management assistance and access to financial networks. investment and talent that often accompany these capital flows.

In issuing the rule, the U.S. Treasury said the United States was committed to an “open investment environment.” And in a speech at the Brookings Institution on October 23, US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan debunked the popular perception that the United States is abandoning the “positive sum” global perspective. Instead of supporting these claims, the new rule proves the opposite.