How National Champion Corporations Shape Geopolitics—and Why They’re Prime Targets in Global Conflict

Power is a multifaceted phenomenon. Every aspect of a country can be deployed in the global power dynamics to increase one's strength and to bring down your adversary.

A simple incorporation of a company on December 31st, 1600 in England eventually brought down one of the richest countries in the world - India.

Who could have thought?

Similarly, when your adversaries and the global power behemoths start attacking just one corporation - and not others - then you should sit back and think.

Is this just a normal attack on a company by an NGO?

National Champion Corporations have been central to the security apparatus of every powerful nation. It is the sine qua non of a power's power tool kit.

How has India looked at it and how are things changing?

A Pandemic of Adani and Modi Haters

There is a pandemic of people who hate an India led by Narendra Modi - differentiate from the person Narendra Modi himself. for, an India led by Narendra Modi is not an India led by anyone else until now.

And those folks have initiated a movement. Against what they call "crony capitalists". Specifically two - Mukesh Ambani and Gautam Adani. Specifically the latter.

From Hindenburg to Rahul Gandhi, every anti-India entity or person has been pursuing an agenda against Adani.

We analyzed the utter amateur quality of Hindenburg report.

Hindenburg’s Adani Stunt: Embarrassing and Amateurish #373

Hindenburg Report on Adani Group has created a splash and stocks have lost value. Is it credible? What can one make out of it? A detailed look!

Drishtikone - Online Magazine on Geopolitics and Culture from Indian PerspectiveDesh Kapoor

This report was used by media and their cronies in Indian politics and geopolitical opponents around the world to wipe out billions from the Indian stock market.

When that happened, the foreign media - hating an India led by Modi - was quite delighted.

Hardly disguising its glee at how the fall of the Adani group, which it described as being in lockstep with India's growth, will translate into a painful future for Modi's India, New York Times also brought in the Gujarat 2002 riots while discussing Adani and Hindenburg.

The question that every Indian needs to ask is:

It can't be a coincidence.

National Champion Corporations: A Nation's Geostrategic Arms

Because Adani Group is what is called in geo-economic world as a "National Champion Corporation".

What is it?

A national champion corporation is a privately-owned business selected by a country's government to spearhead efforts in international competition. These companies receive preferential treatment, including subsidies and supportive policies, to foster their growth. In return, they are expected to promote the national interest and contribute to the country's advancement on the global stage.

These National Champions are critical to the geostrategic interests of any major country.

National champion corporations can play a significant role in foreign policy and international relations in several ways:

1. Economic Diplomacy: These corporations often engage in large-scale international projects or trade, which can serve as tools for economic diplomacy. Their operations overseas can help strengthen bilateral ties and open new markets for their home country.
2. Soft Power: By promoting national brands abroad, they enhance the cultural and economic influence of their home country, contributing to its soft power. This can improve the country's image and foster goodwill internationally.
3. Strategic Partnerships: National champions often form strategic alliances with foreign companies and governments, facilitating technology exchange and collaboration on global challenges such as climate change or public health.
4. Influence on Trade Agreements: As major players in international markets, these corporations can influence trade agreements and policies, ensuring favorable terms that benefit their home country.
5. Crisis Response: In times of international crisis, national champions may assist in relief efforts, showcasing their country's commitment to global stability and humanitarian aid.
6. Lobbying and Advocacy: They can lobby for their country's interests in international forums, helping shape global economic policies and regulations in ways that align with national priorities.

Every major country and power has used them.

South Korea's chaebols, such as Samsung and LG, have risen to prominence as global leaders in electronics and technology, showcasing the country's industrial prowess on the world stage. These conglomerates have played a pivotal role in South Korea's economic transformation, leveraging government support and strategic investments to compete internationally. Japan's keiretsu system, which emerged as a successor to the pre-war zaibatsus, has fostered the growth of industrial giants like Toyota and Sony. These companies have become synonymous with Japanese innovation and quality, contributing significantly to the country's economic miracle in the post-war era.

The question that would arise in our minds is - How are these National Champions created?

After all, what are the most critical factors that allow them to dominate their industry domestically and potentially play a major role globally.

Well, here are some that we can come up with.

• Scale and Market Share: Scale is fundamental. A national champion typically has significant market share within its industry, allowing it to exert influence over pricing, innovation, and competition. This often comes from mergers, acquisitions, or organic growth.
• Government Support: In many cases, governments play a key role in nurturing national champions through favorable regulations, subsidies, tax breaks, or direct investments. National champions may also benefit from preferential treatment in government contracts or trade agreements.
• Access to Capital: Becoming a national champion often requires large investments in infrastructure, technology, or talent. Access to capital—whether through private investors, public markets, or government-backed funding—is critical for sustained growth.
• Innovation and R&D: Continuous investment in innovation and research & development (R&D) helps a company stay competitive globally. National champions typically lead their industries in technological advancements or unique business models.
• Strategic Alliances and Partnerships: Building alliances with other domestic or international firms can help a company expand its reach, gain access to new markets, and build necessary capabilities.
• Regulatory and Industry Influence: National champions often have significant influence over industry standards and regulations. They might work closely with regulatory bodies to shape favorable policies, which can give them a competitive edge.
• Brand Recognition and Trust: A strong brand, with widespread national recognition and consumer trust, is essential for a company to solidify its position as a national champion. This can be built over time through consistent product quality, customer service, and marketing.
• Global Competitiveness: National champions are often groomed to not only dominate their domestic markets but to compete internationally. The ability to scale operations globally and enter international markets is key to being seen as a true champion.
• Operational Efficiency and Supply Chain Strength: Efficient operations, along with a strong and resilient supply chain, are crucial for maintaining a competitive advantage and being able to scale production and services to meet demand both domestically and globally.

So, let us look in different countries.

In Russia, the energy sector is dominated by state-backed behemoths such as Gazprom and Rosneft. These companies not only control vast natural resources but also serve as instruments of Russian foreign policy, particularly in Europe and Asia. Their influence extends beyond mere commercial interests, often aligning with the Kremlin's geopolitical objectives.

The United States, while traditionally adhering to a more market-oriented approach, has witnessed the rise of tech giants like Google, Apple, and Amazon. These companies, though not officially designated as national champions, have emerged as de facto standard-bearers for American technological supremacy in the digital age. Their global reach and influence have raised questions about data sovereignty and digital governance across the world, adding a new dimension to the concept of national champions in the 21st century.

Are Social Media Companies the National Champion Corporations

When Twitter Files came out, it became very clear that there was a strong bond between:

1. What the Democratic Party wanted
2. What the FBI took as its marching orders
3. What the Social Media firms were forcibly told by the Intelligence and the Government in order to:
   1. Manipulate narrative
   2. Silence Democratic critics
   3. Cancel People
   4. Create Fake stories

The New York Post described this "revolving door" between the Democrat Deep State and the Big Tech. Of course facilitated by the revolving intelligence operatives.

If you missed out on the Twitter Files, then here is a complete list.

And that revolving door is not just a careless term. You will see that departments of "Trust and Safety" and areas of "misinformation" within Google and Meta (Facebook parent) are staffed by ex-CIA agents.

If it was one or two, one could dismiss. The scenario is almost as if - being an ex-CIA is a pre-requisite for such a job role!

Why does this matter? Because these people are running the information policing within these major social media applications.

So, ask yourself - aren't these America's National Champion Corporations?

Now, let us go to another era - the 1600s.

The Greatest National Champion Corporation: The East India Company

India was shackled under over two centuries of colonization thanks to one of the greatest National Champion Corporation there ever was.

The East India Company was founded in 1600 as a joint-stock company granted a royal charter by Queen Elizabeth I to trade with the East Indies. It started as a commercial venture but gradually took on political and military powers.

Basically, on December 31st, Grant of arms to the East India Company Merchants was done.

Do you see that in this grant of arms, religion is central to everything? Here is the emblem and the words along with their meanings. Colonial enterprise was as much a religious invasion of another country as it was an economic and cultural slavery.

So, what does the Grant of Arms really mean in this case?

The Grant of Arms to the East India Company by Queen Elizabeth I in 1600 was a significant event that established the company as a legal and corporate entity. It meant that the East India Company (EIC), that was essentially a group of merchants, was formally incorporated and authorized to conduct trade in the East Indies.

So , you see, the grant of arms refers to the official sanction and symbols given to the company, signifying its status and rights under English law. It was the right given by the British Crown and government to a group of merchants to act on its behalf.

As part of this process, the company received a Royal Charter. The text of the Charter can be read here.

Charter Granted by Queen Elizabeth to the East India Company - Wikisource, the free online library

Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.Contributors to Wikimedia projects

The charter granted these men, who would go on to establish the British East India Company, exclusive rights to trade with the East Indies. This privilege encompassed a vast expanse of land, reaching from the Cape of Good Hope in South Africa to Cape Horn in South America. Essentially, this allowed the British East India Company to wield significant influence over trade in the Asian and Pacific regions.

And what constituted "East Indies"?

The region now comprising India, Southeast Asia, and parts of China.

What did the charter really allow the East India Company to do?

This charter allowed the company to:

1. Conduct Trade in the East Indies: The company had exclusive rights to trade in spices, silk, cotton, tea, and other valuable goods from the East, without competition from other English merchants.
2. Form Alliances: The East India Company was authorized to negotiate treaties, establish colonies, and build forts. It allowed the company to act as a sovereign power in many respects, engaging in diplomacy and military actions if needed.
3. Govern and Administer: The company had its own governing body, called the Court of Directors, which managed the day-to-day operations. It could also coin money, raise armies, and administer justice in areas where it operated.
4. Create a Corporate Identity: The grant of arms gave the company a coat of arms, which became a symbol of its authority and legitimacy. This helped in establishing its identity in the highly competitive trade environment of the time.

In 1698, Parliament established a new entity known as the English Company Trading to the East Indies, backed by a state indemnity of £2 million.

The major shareholders from the original East India Company quickly took control of the English Trading Company by invested £315,000 in the new venture.

Both companies then competed fiercely for supremacy in England and India, though the original company maintained a distinct advantage. Finally, in 1708, the two companies merged to form the United Company of Merchants of England Trading to the East Indies, commonly known as the Honourable East India Company (HEIC). In England, it was often called John Company, while in India, it was referred to as Company Bahadur.

So, initially the company focused on trade, the company evolved into a de facto colonial administrator:

• It began as a monopolistic trading body in the 17th century.
• By the mid-18th century, it had its own armed forces and ruled large parts of India.
• At its peak, it accounted for half of the world's trade and ruled over 200 million people.

Bottomline is that the British government played a vital role in both supporting and regulating the East India Company. This relationship granted the company imperial backing and exclusive trading rights, which were essential to its success. Over the years, Parliament frequently renewed and adjusted the company's charter, ensuring that its operations aligned with national interests.

Government oversight grew particularly pronounced after 1773, when measures were introduced to more closely supervise the company's political and commercial engagements. This increased regulation was a response to the company's growing influence and its crucial role in establishing British dominance in India.

The company was instrumental in expanding British colonial rule by subjugating local rulers and extending its territorial reach. A significant turning point was the Battle of Plassey in 1757, which marked the beginning of its dominance in the region.

The company's primary motive was economic extraction:

• It monopolized trade in key commodities like cotton, silk, tea, and opium.
• Company rule led to the transfer of Indian resources to Britain and the destruction of indigenous manufacturing.

Here Brooks Adams shares how the money from India was moved to England and that impoverished

Even though there was an attempt to create a separation between the corporation (EIC) and the Crown, in the end those who ruled England were the main shareholders of the EIC.

And that is why East India Company's interest was always integral to the foreign policy and national interest of Britain.

In summary, the East India Company exemplified how a state-supported corporation could be used as a tool for colonial expansion and economic exploitation, blending commercial interests with political and military power to advance British imperial ambitions in India.

This same model is being used today.

American intelligence works closely with its corporations. In fact, there is evidence of how they have worked together.

Doing covert action that undermines Philippine national sovereignty and genuine democracy in order to prop up the tiny pro-US oligarchical minority that has cornered most of the wealth in their poor country is what the CIA is all about and is the real reason for its existence. It is no longer just the collection and analysis of foreign intelligence which is officially its mandate under the US National Security Act of 1947 that created the CIA. The CIA in the Philippines has engaged in countless covert operations for intervention and dirty tricks particularly in Philippine domestic politics. On top of all this is the US diplomatic mission, especially the political section that is a favorite cover for many CIA operatives. CIA front companies also provide an additional but convenient layer of cover for operatives assigned overseas. In general, wherever you find US big business interests (like Coca-Cola, Ford, Citicorp, United Fruit, Nike, etc.), you also find a very active CIA. But the covers often used are diversified. Desmond Fitzgerald, for instance, a former CIA chief of station in Manila was said to have fronted as a legitimate businessman of an American multinational company. Joseph Smith, a top CIA agent assigned to the Philippines in the early 1960s, posed as a "civilian employee" of the Clark Airforce Base's 13th Air Force Southeast Asia Regional Survey Unit .On the other hand, CIA operative Gabriel Kaplan's initial cover was really more "civilian"--with the CIA-created Asia Foundation (formerly the Committee for a Free Asia), then later as resident director of another CIA creation, the COMPADRE both of which we shall be dealing with more extensively later. On the other hand, CIA operative David Sternberg fronted as a foreign correspondent for an American newspaper based in Boston, the Christian Science Monitor, when he assisted Gabriel Kaplan in managing the presidential campaign of Ramon Magsaysay in the '50s. (Source: Covert Operations and the CIA's Hidden History in the Philippines / Derechos Human Rights)

How is that different from the East India Company's protection and infiltration by the elite of England?

Isn't it important that India creates its own National Champion Corporations?

Why Couldn't India Create Its own National Champion Corporations?

While South Korea, Japan, and China were creating their own National Champion Corporations to further their national interests - apart from the Western countries having their own - why wasn't India creating its own National Champion Corporations?

Let us think them through. You will realize that the fetish of the Indian politicians to go for regulated markets and public sectors which were decidedly underperforming created a scenario where a global brand National Champion was not even possible.

Historical Economic Policies:

After independence, India adopted a socialist-inspired economic model, with a focus on state control and planning, leading to the dominance of the License Raj.

This system required businesses to seek numerous licenses and approvals to expand, which stifled private-sector growth. The government prioritized public sector enterprises, making it difficult for private companies to scale and compete globally.

Public Sector Dominance:

The Indian government created numerous state-owned enterprises (SOEs) to drive economic development in key sectors like steel (e.g., Steel Authority of India Ltd.), telecommunications (e.g., BSNL), and oil & gas (e.g., ONGC). These companies became dominant domestically but often lacked the efficiency and innovation needed to become global champions.

These SOEs became the pet bitch of the minister whose ministry an SOE would come under. They could manipulate the way they wanted and very often these SOEs became tools of political favors and money-spinning tools of the scheming politicians!

Burdened by bureaucracy and political influence, these SOEs became economically and technically unsustainable. The ability to scale internationally could not even be dreamed of.

Delayed Liberalization:

India's economic liberalization only began in earnest in 1991, compared to countries like South Korea or China, which had earlier embraced open markets and export-oriented strategies.

South Korea, for example, opened its economy up in the 1960s. China, on the other hand, began opening its economy to the world in 1978 with the implementation of the Open Door Policy and other economic reforms.

By the time India opened up to global competition, companies in many sectors were already behind their international counterparts in scale, technology, and operational efficiency. The race had already been lost!

Lack of Access to Capital:

Indian companies often lacked the capital required to scale globally.

Some issues the Indian companies faced were:

• limitations of collateral - making it difficult to get credit
• loan requirements that were unfriendly to businesses
• small and medium enterprises did not have ready access to capital from the banks

The financial system in India, before liberalization, was heavily controlled. This impacted access to credit and foreign investments in a very significant way. This made it difficult for Indian companies to grow into national champions capable of competing internationally.

Focus on Services, Not Manufacturing:

While countries like South Korea, Japan, and China built global champions in manufacturing sectors (e.g., Samsung, Sony, Huawei), India’s growth was largely driven by the services sector, particularly IT. Service-oriented industries like Infosys, Wipro, and Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) became global leaders, but India did not develop significant champions in heavy industries, consumer electronics, or manufacturing.

In case of the IT companies, the work they were doing was not the cutting edge IT work. Rather it was the result of outsourcing of work that could be done cheaper. They were reaping the profits of Cost Arbitrage. The Indian IT workers were being called "Cyber Coolies".

To consider these IT companies from India as "National Champions" may be fine from the standpoint of how they handle the extensive back-office operations from around the world, but they do not have leadership in the sector. That was reserved for the larger American IT companies like IBM and Accenture.

So, (1) India did not focus on manufacturing - a scenario that resulted from the Indian elite of the yore being pathologically against such a direction, and (2) the inordinate focus on services. In fact, we have had serious "scholars" (their political agendas are suspect which taint their integrity as real scholars) who have called a push for manufacturing as "Manufacturing Fetish".

So, the very mindset of the folks aligned with the previous political ideology that the Congress party and its sympathizers furthered was against creating an Indian corporation capable of global dominance in manufacturing or even infrastructure.

Regulatory Challenges and Infrastructure:

India’s regulatory environment has historically been complex, with barriers to growth including excessive bureaucracy, labor laws, and poor infrastructure.

The complex tax structure do not help much either.

These factors hampered companies from scaling efficiently to compete on a global level.

Family-Owned Businesses:

Many large Indian companies have traditionally been family-owned conglomerates (e.g., Tata, Reliance), which have been successful domestically but may not have always had the same level of institutional growth seen in global champions.

The focus of some of these conglomerates was more on consolidating their domestic position rather than aggressive international expansion until recent decades. They have had very low ambitions globally.

Rise of the National Champion Mindset since 2014

It is only now in recent times, specifically in the current Modi regime that enough thought was given to aligning a large conglomerate - along the lines of chaebols - to further India's national interests.

It was Adani Group.

The Adani Group owns or is developing ports and infrastructure outside of India in several locations, including: 

Haifa, Israel: Adani acquired 70% of the port in July 2022 for US$1.18 billion, with the remaining 30% owned by local partners 

This deal marks a significant milestone in the evolving relationship between India and Israel, demonstrating a shift from primarily defense-oriented cooperation to more comprehensive strategic partnerships, particularly in the area of infrastructure investments. The Haifa deal also underscored India's increasing geopolitical influence in the Middle East region, showcasing its ability to engage in high-stakes economic ventures with key regional players.

Adani's acquisition of the Haifa port serves multiple strategic purposes.

i. Firstly, it acts as a counterbalance to China's growing presence in critical Mediterranean shipping hubs. When considered alongside India's investments in Sri Lanka and other strategic locations, this move grants India a substantial foothold in vital global maritime trade routes and shipping lanes, enhancing its position in international commerce and geopolitics.

ii. The Haifa port has the potential to become an integral part of emerging trade corridors. These new routes, being developed collaboratively by India, Israel, the United Arab Emirates, and other partners, are positioned as a viable alternative to China's ambitious Belt and Road Initiative. This strategic positioning not only enhances India's global trade network but also strengthens its geopolitical alliances.

iii. From an economic perspective, the port of Haifa offers India a direct gateway to European markets. This strategic access point has the potential to significantly boost trade relations between India and the European Union, opening up new avenues for economic cooperation and exchange.

iv. This port deal aligns seamlessly with broader regional initiatives aimed at fostering economic integration between Israel, its Arab neighbors, and India, building upon the foundation laid by the Abraham Accords.

v. Lastly, this deal serves as a prime example of how Indian conglomerates are increasingly playing pivotal roles in advancing India's strategic interests on the global stage. The symbiotic relationship between private-sector investments and national strategic objectives from India showcased the nation's first bonafide "National Champion" strategy at work.

So Adani helped India to get into the Middle East region seamlessly.

West Container Terminal (WCT) at Colombo Port, Sri Lanka: Adani acquired 51% stake in the terminal partnership, while John Keells would hold 34% and the SLPA 15% via a US$700 million agreement to build a new container terminal in Sri Lanka.

On March 15, 2021, Adani Ports and Special Economic Zones Ltd. (APSEZ), India's leading private ports and logistics company and a key subsidiary of the Adani Group, received a Letter of Intent (LOI) from Sri Lanka's Ministry of Ports and Shipping and the Sri Lanka Ports Authority. This LOI, issued by the Sri Lankan government, relates to the development and operation of the West Container Terminal (WCT) at Colombo Port.

APSEZ has partnered with John Keells Holdings PLC and the Sri Lanka Ports Authority (SLPA) to develop the WCT under a 35-year Build, Operate, and Transfer (BOT) model. Colombo Port is a crucial regional hub for the transshipment of Indian containers and serves major shipping lines, with 45% of its transshipment volumes either originating from or destined for APSEZ terminals in India. As the first Indian port operator in Sri Lanka, APSEZ will hold a majority 51% stake in the terminal partnership. Once fully developed, the WCT is expected to have a significant capacity of 3.5 million TEUs. 

Interestingly, the U.S. had backed the deal, with the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) committing $553 million in financing for the terminal development.

India’s answer to China’s ports in Sri Lanka

Adani’s multimillion-dollar investment in Colombo not only makes commercial sense, it’s a strategic game-changer, too.

Lowy InstituteChulanee Attanayake

Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: Adani Ports Takes Over Dar Es Salaam Container Terminal 

Adani International Ports Holdings Pte Ltd (AIPH), a subsidiary of Adani Ports and Special Economic Zone (APSEZ), has signed a 30-year concession agreement with the Tanzania Ports Authority to operate and manage Container Terminal 2 (CT2) at the Dar es Salaam Port in Tanzania. CT2 boasts four berths with an annual cargo handling capacity of 1 million TEUs.

In 2023, it handled 0.82 million TEUs, representing about 83% of Tanzania's total container volumes. Adani is spearheading a consortium called East Africa Gateway Limited (EAGL), which includes AD Ports Group and East Harbour Terminals Limited. EAGL will acquire a 95% stake in Tanzania International Container Terminal Services Limited (TICTS) for $39.5 million.

Why is Dar es Salam important in the geopolitical sense? You see, Dar es Salaam Port is a key gateway port in East Africa with well-connected road and rail networks. Its most important significance is its proximity to shipping routes that connect the Gulf of Aden, the Suez Canal, and the Indian Ocean (which means connection to India and China). Also, one must not forget that Tanzania is rich in natural resources, including natural gas reserves discovered offshore in the Indian Ocean.

Vietnam Port: Adani Group to build a new port in Da Nang.

The project has received "in-principle approval" from the Vietnamese government and it will be a greenfield development where the Adani Group will build the port from scratch.

The project has received "in-principle approval" from the Vietnamese government

This will be Adani's fourth international port after Haifa (Israel), Colombo (Sri Lanka), and Dar es Salaam (Tanzania).

Adani Ports and Special Economic Zone Ltd. has secured an “in-principle approval from the Vietnamese government” for a greenfield development in Da Nang, Karan Adani, managing director of the company, said in an interview. The project, which will have container terminals and multipurpose berths to handle various types of cargo, is at an early stage of planning and the total investment required hasn’t been finalized yet, he said. (Source: Adani Plans to Build Port in Vietnam to Tap Trade Opportunities / Bloomberg)

This project provides significant leverage to Adani Group and India in the South China Sea.

Carey Island, Malaysia: Adani Ports signed an MoU with MMC Ports to build a container port as part of an extension of Port Klang

In April 2017, Adani Ports signed an MoU with MMC Ports to conduct a feasibility study for developing a greenfield multi-purpose port, primarily for handling containers, on Carey Island in Malaysia's Selangor state. This proposed port would be an extension of the existing Port Klang, which is currently the 11th busiest container port in the world.

Also, Adani Group signed a separate MoU with MMC Ports and Sime Darby Property to study the feasibility of developing an integrated maritime city on Carey Island to support the planned new port

This project in Malaysia is very closely linked to the connectivity in the Indo-Pacific region.

So let us summarize the entire set of Adani Group investments. We created this using Mapcustomizer.

Do you see a pattern?

How Adani's investments closely follow India's geostrategic interests?

You see, Adani is targeting countries with high manufacturing or population, focusing on export volumes. Quite simply, the group aims to increase its international operations from 5% to 10% of total trade volume by 2030

India's maritime strategy is quite well aligned with Adani Group's port acquisition strategy.

And why shouldn't it be so?

Every country on the planet uses its companies and resources to get ahead.

China's Extreme Use of Its Corporations and Individuals

China is an extreme example of how its companies are controlled by the Chinese state and the Communist party in a way that they can be used against the world.

One, China has its companies steal secrets from Western companies that cannot compete with their Chinese counterparts once they bring the same technologies that the Western companies sell.

In fact, Huawei has become a lightning rod when it comes to how Chinese companies steal from their American counterparts.

The Federal Communications Commission is moving to prevent Huawei, ZTE (000063.SZ), opens new tab and other foreign companies deemed to pose U.S. national security concerns from certifying wireless equipment, officials told Reuters on Wednesday. The FCC plans to vote this month on a bipartisan proposal to ensure that telecommunications certification bodies and test labs that certify wireless devices for the U.S. market are not influenced by companies posing security concerns. Last week, the FCC denied the ability of the test lab of Huawei to participate in the equipment authorization program. (Source: US moves to bar Huawei, other Chinese telecoms from certifying wireless equipment / Reuters)

But it is not just the Chinese companies that are a threat. Even Chinese employees within Western companies can be a major espionage threat. Check how this GE employee compromised its secrets.

And the Chinese government aims to protect its National Champion corporations. The focus on complete national security is very strong in China.

Xi’s concept of “comprehensive national security” (总体国家安全) was officially introduced in 2014 and now comprises 16 security arenas deemed essential to China’s development and the party state’s survival by keeping China domestically stable and internationally thriving. The concept is closely linked to achieving the “rejuvenation of the Chinese nation” by 2049 and has been encoded in the revised Party Constitution and various party documents and laws. (Source: "Comprehensive National Security" unleashed: How Xi's approach shapes China's policies at home and abroad / MERICS)

So why shouldn't that be so with India?

After all, that is how adversaries target the national security. By attacking its National Champion Corporations.

Attacking a Nation by Targeting its National Champions

An attack on a nation's economic stability can be executed by targeting its national champion corporations—those large, often state-supported entities that play a significant role in the national economy and global competitiveness.

As we have seen these corporations typically dominate key industries such as energy, telecommunications, defense, or finance, and contribute substantially to the country's GDP, employment, and strategic leverage. So the impact to the nation's assets and strengths can be quite significant.

Cyberattacks, economic sanctions, or hostile takeovers are primary methods to undermine these corporations. A cyberattack on a national champion in sectors like energy or telecommunications can cripple vital infrastructure, causing widespread disruptions. For example, hacking an energy giant can halt power supplies, disrupt transportation, and lead to economic chaos.

Economic sanctions aimed at a nation’s key corporations limit their ability to operate globally, restrict access to technology, and cut off essential revenue streams. This strategy weakens both the company and the national economy, limiting the country's ability to fund other critical areas like defense and public services.

Let us see how India's National Champion Adani Group, for example, is being targeted.

How India's National Champion is Being Specifically Targeted by the Western Deep State

In recent times, the Adani Group has found itself at the center of intense scrutiny from a diverse array of entities, including various groups, organizations, and individuals.

This sudden and increased attention and targeted focus on the conglomerate can be traced back to a significant event that set the stage for subsequent investigations and discussions.

Hindenburg and OCCRP Attacks

The catalyst for this widespread examination was the release of a report by Hindenburg "Research" - an organization whose self-proclaimed title of "Research" we enclose in quotation marks to highlight the contentious nature of their methods and findings, which would not pass the basic academic standards upheld by bona fide researchers in academic and professional circles.

Please read our report to find out why it was not even worth the effort of an undergrad business student.

Hindenburg’s Adani Stunt: Embarrassing and Amateurish #373

Hindenburg Report on Adani Group has created a splash and stocks have lost value. Is it credible? What can one make out of it? A detailed look!

Drishtikone - Online Magazine on Geopolitics and Culture from Indian PerspectiveDesh Kapoor

And, it hadn't even ended, when another attack was underway.

Then 18 months after the first Hindenburg Report, came the second one, where SEBI and its official was targeted.

Hindenburg had alleged that SEBI chief Madhabi Puri Buch was involved in siphoning funds. The report also notes that Buch owned two consulting firms, one in Singapore and one in India, while serving as SEBI chief. Also Buch and her husband held investments in offshore funds used by the Adani Group.

These allegations - unsubstantiated obviously - were denied by Buch. She said that all investments had been duly disclosed. Also, her husband runs an Indian firm and works with prominent clients. Further, 360 ONE WAM, the fund manager for the IPE-Plus Fund 1, clarified that the fund was fully compliant and regulated and that Buch and her husband's holdings in the fund were less than 1.5% of the total inflow. (Source: Hindenburg 2.0: What really is the controversy surrounding Sebi chief Madhabi Puri Buch & offshore funds / Business Today)

Now what may seem to be the targeting of one Indian corporation, was actually the targeting of the Indian financial infrastructure along with making an example of India's most prominent "National Champion Corporation."

The aim was to destabilize India and particularly PM Modi.

"There is a clear attempt to discredit Indian public institutions. The attacks are not on Adani per se, but on the integrity of SEBI this time. Similarly, their previous report (in January 2023) had triggered panic in major public institutions such as Life Insurance Corporation (LIC), State Bank of India (SBI) and other public sector banks which have an exposure to Adani scrips," the sources claim. (Source: India Sees Hindenburg Report as Deep State Plot to Destabilise Modi / Sputnik.in)

Do we understand the ramifications of what Sputnik is suggesting and what sounds very plausible given what unfolded.

These were attacks on India. Not just Adani Group.

But the Adani Group has also backed India's national security interests outside - in other countries.

Some groups, organizations and people have specifically targeted Adani Group

So, now, in recent weeks, comes the attack in Kenya.

Based on a Fake Letter!

Recently, certain players came together in Kenya to discredit the Adani Group.

Interestingly, when India's own media reported on it, it led with fake narrative which was aligned to the agenda of certain organizations.

Scroll "journalists" talk about the "whistleblower documents".

Which were these documents really?

What really happened was that a fake letter went viral on social media. This fake letter claimed that bribes were paid by the Adani group to individuals and government shareholders to get the airport deal passed.

This was the letter.

Look at the letter. First, it is the date which has two commas and second, look at the last para and its spacing. It just doesn't make sense.

On September 16, 2024 - Adani Group rejected the entire allegation and threatened to sue the folks behind the fraudulent press releases.

And based on that "press release" which was fraudulent, the deal was blocked in Kenya. Remember the groups who were instrumental in that action against the Adani Group in Kenya - Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC).

Here is the interesting part:

In 2017-18, the NGO Board in Kenya was indicting the KHRC and other "Democracy Promotion" groups for having taken 36 million Kenyan shillings (approximately $350,000) from the George Soros Foundation to help try to oust the incumbent government.

What you will find very interesting is how Carnegie Endowment reports on it and Business Daily Africa (a local newspaper) reports on it. The facts are there but the the American "think-tank" gives the news its own spin.

So when KHRC is involved in the case to discredit and block Adani in Kenya, when Soros funds already taint that "Human Rights" organization, then it should raise some serious red flags.

As for Scroll, well, these two visuals should explain their predisposition to Soros-backed ecosystem's dirty business.

Scroll's parent company has been funded by the Omidyar network and by a company funded by the Soros Economic Development Fund.

Of course, as Scroll CEO and Soros Economic Development Fund sites would have you believe, they are "independent".

Indeed.

Democracy is when these creators of the Deep State decide it is. It is not a process. It is the result that aligns with their policies that now passes off as democracy!

Doesn't one thing strike you? That Adani Group has been consistently targeted by shady organizations like Hindenburg, the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), and George Soros - all based on lies and fake documents!

That it is just one large campaign of disinformation.

But the media does not report it as disinformation and discredit it. It runs it and amplifies it as if it is real. Even when the entire facts scream otherwise.

Why?

Because they have been bought.

Now, here is what needs to be India's stance - Adani Group needs to be protected by the Indian sovereign.

Why?

Because it is a National Champion.

Be Prepared!

As the threat of economic warfare against National Champion Corporations becomes more pronounced, nations and corporations are developing countermeasures and resilience strategies to protect these vital economic assets.

Diversification of supply chains and markets is one key strategy. By reducing dependence on single suppliers or markets, National Champions can mitigate the impact of targeted economic attacks. This approach, however, often comes at the cost of reduced efficiency and increased operational complexity.

Strengthening cybersecurity and financial resilience is another critical focus. This involves not only enhancing technical defenses but also developing robust crisis management and business continuity plans to weather potential attacks.

Diplomatic efforts and international cooperation also play a crucial role. Nations are increasingly working to establish norms and agreements that govern economic conduct and protect against unfair targeting of National Champions. However, the effectiveness of these efforts is often limited by conflicting national interests and the rapid pace of technological change.

Legal and regulatory preparedness is another important aspect of defense against economic warfare. This includes developing robust intellectual property protection strategies and being prepared to contest unfair regulatory actions in international forums.

As we delve deeper into the realm of economic warfare, it becomes increasingly clear that attacks on a nation can indeed be executed by targeting its National Champion Corporations. These corporations, once seen primarily as engines of economic growth, now find themselves on the front lines of a new kind of conflict. The strategies employed in targeting these entities, and the countermeasures developed to protect them, are shaping a new battlefield where economic power and national security are inextricably linked.