In less than five years, wars, great power rivalries, and shifting alliance structures have redefined global affairs. As the conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East and the trade competition between the United States, the European Union, and China intensified, arguments made for national interests and national security also filtered into the business world, entering the language of corporate competition too. Public debates in the Philippines over foreign investment in the country’s power infrastructure, port facilities, and other physical assets have broadened in recent years.

Alongside questions of price, efficiency and sustainability, policymakers in Manila, as in capitals around the world, are increasingly considering how such investments relate to supply-chain resilience and the stewardship of strategic assets. The case of the National Grid Corporation of the Philippines (NGCP) was initially discussed like many other infrastructure investments.

As tensions between Manila and Beijing rose, however, the 40% stake that the State Grid Corporation of China acquired in the NGCP in 2007 attracted greater public and government attention. In 2023, the Philippines’ Department of Energy investigated questions surrounding the minority partnership and whether additional safeguards were needed to address potential operational concerns. This example reflects a broader trend in which foreign investment in projects related to ports, airports, railways, and energy grids receives closer review than in the past.

Manila has also incorporated planning around these sectors, alongside civilian logistical capabilities, into its broader strategic preparations and joint defense programs with allies in the Asia-Pacific region. Debates revolving around national security considerations also took place in the context of Nippon Steel’s acquisition of U.S. steel, which the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States eventually reviewed. Similar considerations motivated the government of Indonesia when it banned the export of raw nickel to instead attract investment in domestically based smelting projects. The Republic of Korea is experiencing a similar phenomenon, albeit with the additional factor that corporate competitors also started to adopt the language of national security usually associated with governments.

In the strategically important sector of critical minerals, Korea Zinc has found itself in the crossfire of attacks targeting its joint venture project with the US government for the development of a non-ferrous metal smelter in the U.S. YoungPoong, a partial owner holding up to 41% of Korea Zinc’s shares, partnered with private equity firm MBK Partners attempted to seize management control of the firm away from incumbent Executive Chairman Choi. The duo initially argued that Korea Zinc’s joint venture in Tennessee with the US government, called Crucible Metals, and the issuance of a 10% stake to the project to be acquired by the US government would unnecessarily dilute shareholders, disadvantaging existing owners of the company. YoungPoong and MBK Partners endeavored to torpedo the joint venture, claiming that the transfer of technology, especially in the globally consequential zinc processing industry, raises several national security considerations for the Republic of Korea in the context of supply chain dependencies. The two firms’ campaign strategy has taken a nuanced form, flipflopping between supporting the project itself as well as American involvement in it by partaking in an associated reception in Tennessee and even trying to claim ownership over the joint venture also known as Project Crucible, while deeming it a national security risk back home in Korea.

Nevertheless, a significant inconsistency lies in MBK Partners’ own track record of engagement with China-linked capital, including a 400-500 billion won injection made by the China Investment Corporation, China’s sovereign wealth fund, now making up approximately 5% of MBK’s sixth fund. MBK’s additional acquisitions and partnerships with Beijing Automotive Group, CAR Inc and Boyu Capital reveal a broader pattern of foreign influence in its business operations in sectors affected by intensifying interstate competition. Corporate competition, acquisitions, ownership battles, and investments are increasingly often infused with arguments made for national security.

This is especially the case in high-priority industries such as critical minerals, energy, electric vehicles, batteries, semiconductors, and defense. As the line between government and business considerations is blurred, however, new tensions may arise due to the selective application of the principle of national interest, especially when they are used to promote competing agendas. A central challenge, for businesses and governments alike, is to determine where legitimate security concerns arise in the context of a foreign investment project and where corporate competition is the primary motivating factor.

Such questions will be directly relevant to the Philippines as it seeks to move beyond its role as an exporter of nickel ore and develop greater domestic processing capacity. The ownership of strategically important facilities, the participation and extent of foreign capital in a project, and the potential transfer of sensitive technologies will increasingly shape economic partnerships. A more strategic lens on these partnerships is therefore likely to become a lasting feature of corporate and public policy discussions.