The new regulations on industry and supply chain security unveiled by the State Council, China’s Cabinet, on Tuesday came at a time when the global system is under visible strain — nowhere more so than in the Middle East, where conflict has rattled global energy markets and reminded everyone how quickly supply chains can fray.

Across the world, advanced economies are reassessing dependencies, redrawing supply lines and, in some cases, trying to pull production closer to home. Beijing’s effort to strengthen its supply chain security is thus part of a broader global adjustment.

The new rules stress risk prevention, continuity in key sectors and the ability to respond when supply chains are disrupted. They also introduce the possibility of launching investigations and countermeasures against external parties seen as undermining China’s industry and supply chain security.

Rather than being a sign of the “door closing” as some China-bashing pundits in the West have claimed, the document sits alongside a repeated emphasis on openness and international cooperation. Putting the regulations into place is conducive to helping the country better cope with external uncertainties and risks. In this process, policymakers attach strategic importance to responding to external changes by aligning development with security, balancing openness with self-reliance, and coordinating the interaction between domestic and overseas markets.

It is natural for a major economy that is as deeply embedded in global trade as China to look for ways to reduce vulnerability. Ensuring stable access to raw materials, technologies and equipment is, after all, what every major economy is trying to do. The difference lies in how it is done — and whether the pursuit of security ends up undermining the openness that made those supply chains efficient in the first place.

The idea that security can be achieved by “decoupling” is appealing in theory but impossible in practice. Modern supply chains are not easily disentangled. Isolation creates new risks. A system built on fragmentation and suspicion is unlikely to be more stable; it is simply brittle in different ways.

As both a superlarge market and the world’s largest manufacturing base, China sits at a key position in many global supply networks. Stability in China’s production and logistics is not just a domestic concern; it is a boon to the whole world. That functions both ways. China depends on external inputs just as others depend on its output. The relationship is reciprocal, and the rational way to settle differences should be through consultations with mutual respect.

Recent exchanges between Beijing and Canberra offer a useful reminder of how this reciprocity expands common interests. China remains Australia’s largest market, while Australia is a major supplier of raw materials to China. In their phone conversation on Tuesday, Premier Li Qiang and Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese spoke of expanding trade, upgrading cooperation and finding new areas — such as clean energy — where the two economies complement each other. This is the pragmatic language of managed interdependence.

That, in many ways, is where the global economy should find itself. The old model of frictionless globalization has been dented. But a wholesale retreat into economic blocs would carry costs that few are willing to bear. What is emerging instead is something practical: an attempt to balance openness with caution, efficiency with resilience.

China’s new regulations fit into that pattern. Their stated aim is to strengthen supply chains while keeping them connected to the world. If applied effectively, they could help reduce the risk of sudden disruptions without closing doors.

Global trade works smoothly when countries believe that rules will be followed and differences managed through dialogue. Once that confidence erodes, every link in the chain becomes more fragile.