The ministry of economic affairs intervened out of a fear that crucial technological skills and capacities will leave the Netherlands and Europe. The ministry stated in a press release[1] that there was a threat of a "knowledge leak" (w/e that means exactly) and a possible threat to the European economy.
After this intervention the Dutch government can now stop or reverse decisions within the company. That's only allowed if those decisions are harmful to the interests of the company, or for the future of the company as a Dutch or European business, or to the retaining of this crucial value chain for europe.
The company can appeal this decision in court.
For context, the law that allows this all to happen was passed in 1952 and has never before been used. As much as I think our government is currently ran by a bunch of nincompoops, I am inclined to believe that something quite significant was about to happen for this law to get invoked. What exactly that was can for now only be speculated about.
I can recommend you run google translate (or equivalent) on the press release. It's as close as you can get to the source of this news for now. I can only imagine the government is going to be having plenty of debates on the topic coming up, seeing as this is a very rare use of a very heavy-handed tool.
Everybody is a fan of free access and capital markets, until a foreign entity purchases something of importance.
It’s a continuation of recent trends and closing markets.
Nobody in their sane mind would allow a company like ASML or the likes to be purchased by competitors.
But the irony is that when a non-European entity were to do something like this, e.g. nationalize their oil or mining etc. industry or a firm, the whole hell would brake loose.
> But the irony is that when a non-European entity were to do something like this, e.g. nationalize their oil or mining etc. industry or a firm, the whole hell would brake loose.
As far as I understand, Samsung, TSMC, and SMIC are all closely guarded by their respective governments. And China doesn't (didn't?) allow foreign companies to operate in China without a local partner at all. So I don't see the irony - everyone practices protectionism, some are just more subtle about it than others. Some China-specific examples:
As with most countries, China has adopted some policies aimed at protecting or promoting its domestic industries, including targeted quotas, subsidies to certain key industries and rejection of patents in critical industries. - https://www.rfa.org/english/news/afcl/fact-check-china-prote...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Made_in_China_2025 - government plan with securing first local, and the global key markets, for indigenous firms, the acquisition of foreign technology companies, and independence from foreign suppliers, as explicit goals.
I said it that way because I don’t like the hypocrisies in general, and I said European because the comment I responded to combined Dutch and European markets into one.
It would be foolish to sell off a great value like ASML or others that adds incredible value. But one should also not get mad when other countries do it, because they see their industries as valuable things as well.
Our markets are just getting more closed and different groups are being formed. Let’s hope other high value companies gather their IP rights as well.
This has the same energy as “chattel slavery? well everyone did slavery”. Ignoring how the west is exceptional in many ways incomparable to everyone else
What about them? The claim, or rather implication, was that Western powers would never allow equivalent protectionist policies, such as preventing the export of key industries and skills, to be enacted by other countries. Yet such protectionism is routine in China (and many other Asian countries), and "whole hell" did not break loose.
A few more than half century old examples don't change what we can all see is the case in the present day.
Sure but can we just all drop the pretense that sovereignty and property rights mean anything. The only thing that really matters is power and how you get it. You can do protectionism if you are powerful, you can take whatever you want if you are powerful, etc etc.
Of course the preferred option is what the Chinese do which is to never let that happen in the first place or if you do allow foreign investment always keep a 50.1% stake in the entity and exfiltrate any tech from the venture you need .
I’m not very familiar with Dutch company structure but after a certain percentage you’re usually privy to trade secrets etc. so it’s dangerous even then.
And my point has nothing to do with Chinese or Dutch or European, even though those are the examples I used.
The main thing is that it was a mistake to sell vital industries, and some people are really hypocritical when other countries do something like this, but in this particular case they’re finding out reasons to side with the Dutch government. I just want consistency, it is seldomly okay to allow any other entity into critical industries.
The Chinese heavily subsidize their companies and have large government bureaus that strategically guide industries over long time frames. For example, the CCP has been on a long, intentional path to destroying all international solar manufacturers via subsidies, dumping, etc.
"Dumping" (selling at an artificially low price) is widely considered an attack on economic activity of the competitors, even though it may spur the economic activity of the consumers of the products being dumped.
In this regard, the Chinese government pouring large subsidies into solar panel production both spurred the economic activity around installing solar panels, and attacked / thwarted in around production of the panels themselves, if the production happens outside China. Only the US was able to somehow develop solar panel production.
Well, Apple and Chinese government are one and the same when it comes to spending billions to further their agenda, that’s why that wasn’t a good example.
Yes, they do favor their own companies and provide subsidies etc. that’s not the problem though, the problem is that they’re undercutting other companies by selling below cost thanks to those subsidies. Otherwise, we would have to call our farming subsidies the same.
I was originally trying to point out that it has always been important to keep your vital industries secure, it was very stupid of Intel and others to transfer so much technology abroad (to anyone) just to increase their margins, I think ASML did the best: You can purchase our machine, but that’s pretty much it.
It's not a "free market" to allow a foreign communist country to own or control your companies or resources, whether strategic or not. The entire arrangement is governed by diplomacy between two states. FWIW, it never has been the case that everyone was a fan of "the world is flat" theory of capital and labor markets.
The argument I have heard about the US taking 20% stake in Intel is that when a company asks for federal money then it’s only fair if the federal government gets some equity in return.
This has always been the case, to some degree, but I think it will be a much bigger factor now that so many have accepted that Neoliberalism is dead and no longer give it lip service.
> For context, the law that allows this all to happen was passed in 1952 and has never before been used.
Interesting parallel here with China recently invoking - for the first time - their own legislation from the 50's to ban rare earth exports for military uses.
That whole REE thing is more of a scare tactic than anything. REEs are really not all that rare, and the current imports of REEs into the US are worth around $200-250M annually. That is millions, not billions. It's actually a laughably small amount.
The main reason that it's mostly China producing them may simply be due to the fact that the volumes are so small that building your own industry is not really worth it.
Strategic REEs, i.e. heavyREE (Dysprosium, Terbium) are infact exceptionally rare, as in GEOLOGICALLY RARE. They are produced in China, because China (and Myanmar deposits controlled by China) are where ionic clays containing strategic HREEs can be economically extracted at scale. It's not just building altenrate HREE (empahsis on H) is not worth it, the technology simply doesn't exist to do so in other geologic deposits, i.e. all the har rock REE US+co has access to. The fact is PRC controls 90% of deposits and 99% percent of processing for elements that enable high temperature magnets, high power sensors, EW aka all the good shit that enables modern military capabilities... which was designed BECAUSE PRC commericialized process on specific geologic deposits that enabled commoditizing those materials. US built their miltary overmatch on material science and dirt that PRC controls and is nearly exclusively geopgraphically bound to PRC, with no short/medium term alternatives. PRC as monopoly supplier has much more complete ability to enforce export controls. This is just MIC specific, there's also stuff like dysprosium for highend capacitators where PRC has functionally 100% control, i.e. less performant alternative materials would effective regress performance by 10-25%, comparable to losing node size.
I really wonder how much rare earth element deposits are not found for want of looking. Not much reason to source them yourselves if the country (China) uses them for products that you're going to buy.
According to this map, China has vastly more. But is there something special about China/Myanmar geologically? I guess being downstream of the Himalayas is something.
The clays are all over the world, the processing to extract the REE's of interest is still intensive regardless.
"According to this map" is essentially meaningless w/out a map specific definition of "reserve".
The terms "reserve", "resource" and their variations are misused outside of technical literature that cites whether they are defined via a JORC or other classification.
The bias toward China in that map likely comes from two notes:
* "proven" reserves - as in tested and estimated to some higher standard, as opposed to "we know there's a lot 'over here' but we haven't spent $X million on a drill assay program yet.
* "controlled or owned" by China - Chinese companies are majority shareholders in joint ventures that source raw materials across the globe (they source concentrates from Australia, from Peru, from elsewhere, in addition to their home soil deposits). This means a number of maps might show all REE deposits owned by Chinese companies as on the books for China (as that is where much of the processing of concentrates occurs).
For interest:
North Stanmore in Western Australia has emerged as one of the world's most extraordinary heavy rare earth element (HREE) deposits, particularly for dysprosium and terbium in North Stanmore. (Sept, 2025)
Dollar value is not the point. For the US MIC this matters a lot. There are not really any ready replacements for some vital weapons components at a time when US weapons stockpiles have been heavily depleted.
The usual solutions - money and violence - are not applicable here. China doesn't need the money and can't be bullied. Sources other than China are not going to cut it in the short and mid term. This is a geopolitical nightmare for the US and deserves more media attention.
> The main reason that it's mostly China producing them may simply be due to the fact that the volumes are so small that building your own industry is not really worth it.
There's also an element of their production generating pollution and us preferring to think of ourselves as cleaner than that. We only use the rare earths.
Compare how desalinization is very cheap, but California prefers constant screaming about drought.
How can you say what the minerals were actually used for though is the question I always have in these types of situations. There are multiple uses of the minerals. Since I've now gotten a literal boat load of the minerals from you, I can use those minerals on other things which now frees up my personal source of minerals on the things you didn't want them used in. In the spirit of the agreement, I'm in full compliance all while achieving the thing you didn't want me to achieve. It's nothing but Pilate washing his hands
Are you tracking that harvesting REM is a nasty business with a lot of “don’t look” environmental impacts? As such, most countries don’t do it, or have an infrastructure for it.
I've seen US numbers along 70-80% is imported. That leaves 20-30% domestic. Some of the REEs are 100% imported, so that's a different issue. But you seem to be implying that the US is 100% importing all REEs with no domestic production at all. That's not true. Yes, some production is slowed due to environmental issues. Some of it is a different nature along the lines of "why mine yours when you can buy someone else's". You keep yours in the ground until you have to get it. You have some small production just to keep the know-how, but you keep the stove down to a simmer from a boil.
> Some of it is a different nature along the lines of "why mine yours when you can buy someone else's". You keep yours in the ground until you have to get it.
My understanding is that a large part of the issue is processing capacity/ability - not mining of the ore. In fact, a significant amount of ore mined in the US is sent to China for processing. I don't think it's a simple case of the US standing up some processing plants in 1-2 years. If that were the case, wouldn't you think it would've happened by now? Is US leadership that bad that they failed to address this risk? Or - more likely - is it because solving the issue will take a lot more than some quick investment?
This is a huge issue for the US MIC. Plans (e.g. with regard to Iran) are going back to the drawing board for sure.
> Is US leadership that bad that they failed to address this risk?
I mean, quite obviously? Borne by the simple fact of... here we are discussing it?
It doesn't matter how easy, quick, or hard it is right now. What matters is leadership is so bad it was allowed to reach this point to begin with, and even a decade ago it was immediately obvious that it was a giant vulnerability that has not even started on beyond corrected in any meaningful way.
I really cannot tell if this is sarcasm (seems not?) or trolling (sounds like it).
How are we reminding China that the US is a big dog? By imposing tariffs? By demonstrating our ability to do work domestically that they believe us unwilling or incapable of doing?
What does this even mean, to be a big dog in the modern world? It seems more like a large ship listing to one side … if it collapses there will be a lot of small ships damaged in the wake.
I always wondered how the large unified world of Roman Empire with running water and sewer fell apart (and backwards) into multitude of small feudal pieces with no technology to speak of for the 1000 years after Roman Empire. I think our modern civilization is probably at the beginning of similar process.
As I understand it, the Roman Empire was fuelled by expansion (stealing other people stuff), enabled by their exceptional military machine. Once they could not profitably expand any further, they were in trouble.
I lived in USSR, and know first hand that it means to be separated from common technological space. USSR wasn't that small, especially if one adds Eastern Block, yet it was falling behind the world becoming fully incapable to produce their own comparable computers, cars, etc.. If world get to split into such islands, the speed of technological progress will fall dramatically while social progress may go fully backwards. If you look at some ideologies rising around the world - they are straight medieval, and in many cases only connectedness to outside world has been preventing them from taking over their "islands".
Adding USSR into the discussion greatly increases complexity of the discussion. From analysis I've read, central planning is supposedly fine when country doesn't have much industry, because to start things up, it can provide essential investments and starts organizing production. But when country is somewhat developed, efficiency starts to matter and top-down approach to decision making of central planning vs bottom-up decision making mechanisms of markets produce different results. Politics and other things are important factors too, but I think that would be too much for this discussion.
As in -- "no technology to speak of" is a gross misrepresentation of the reality of the middle ages. The fact of the matter is, they were strictly more technologically advanced than the classical Romans, with inventions like the heavy plow and three-field rotation improving agricultural productivity significantly beyond what Romans had achieved.
> The fact of the matter is, they were strictly more technologically advanced than the classical Romans
No, they were more advanced in certain ways, but the original contention is correct that they were less advanced in others. Notably they were unable to build domes. They were also less productive, so less advanced in an overall sense.
I think we are fine in term of infra -- I don't work as a civil engineer, but considering companies in my city repair the roads every year /s they probably retain the knowledge.
How easy is the machinery and tools needed to keep all the infrastructure running? Earth movers are pretty maintainable and barely depreciate. Survey tools though? They have gotten famcy right? Water management has gone quite high tech in some ways. I could see them falling apart kind of like when some hospitals had to revert to paper tape logs. It didn't scale anymore.
Exactly. Building roads and aqueducts were empire-level knowledge skills in Ancient Rome, performed by the army legions. Thankfully they're highly localized skills today.
our knowledge (at least my knowledge of it) is much much smaller that that of Roman Empire, and in particular i don't know whether the fall of that civilization demonstrated the effect of splitting into multitude technologically inferior pieces stagnating for such a long time after that.
I assume this is an entirely independent Chinese company without some Dutch sponsor or something. That conforms to local regulations. But now The Dutch government says "we have this new power over you" and that is that. With the consequence presumably being export control on dutch tech, banning from their market, etc? Or were there any more hooks planted that make it easier to force compliance? For example -- and I assume this is not the case in the Netherlands -- in China there is a 51% ownership of the foreign company by a local company (which is more or less state controlled).
> I assume this is an entirely independent Chinese company without some Dutch sponsor or something.
It's not, it's a Dutch company, formed according to Dutch law, with headquarters in the Netherlands, that was bought by another Chinese company a few years ago.
Dutch law sets rules on how any company, but especially public companies (so-called naamloze vennootschappen) must be governed. Even if you own all the shares, by law you don't have unlimited and unchecked power in the company, you have to abide by governance rules.
Seemingly simultaneously with the government order, a suit was brought to the court enforcing these laws (the Ondernemingskamer) alledging that the CEO and owner were not abiding by them. The court documents are a bit weird to me as a non-lawyer, with Nexperia named as both plaintiff and defendant, so I'm not sure who brought it, but it might've been the government, who are named as a party.
The court agreed that the suit could have merit, and as an interim measure while the legal proceedings play out, has suspended the CEO and named a temporary director. It also suspended the authority of the owners over their shares (except for one), and assigned a trustee to manage them temporarily. The court did not actually rule on the contents of the suit yet, it only issued interim conservatory measures. We'll likely hear more about how the suit plays out over the next few months.
An interesting matter of contention in the suit is that the CEO/owner want the CLO to be suspended, while the other side asks the court to prohibit firing of the CLO. I presume there has been a conflict in the board, either leading to or caused by the government order.
Sounds like the OR (ondernemingsraad) apparently wants to get rid of the CEO for incompetence which is very interesting. It is extremely hard to prove (in a court of law) but a valid reason. I assume they were doing all kind of shady things if they go that route. (Havent read the Court Docs, it is a guess)
OR vs CEO also explains the duplicate entries as they are both representatives of the company.
Nexperia was also spun off to placate Chinese regulators back when Qualcomm wanted to acquire NXP, and then after the spin off the Chinese regulators still refused to approve the acquisition.
And that the two collaborate closely on all kinds of projects, and that NXP (the former owner of the business unit that became Nexperia) and Nexperia (the company that is the focus of this action) are both customers of ASML.
Maybe pressure from the US gov? As a negotiatingtactic vs China - remeber the moves against MotorSich in Ukraine some years back , where the deal was win-win for both but Washington put the kibosh on it and ultimately got destroyed by Russian offensive.
Since the speed/urgency and unusual application of the law as you mention , mean extraodinary actions must have quite extraordinary causes.
In any case still too many unknowns in the story , hopefully clarity ensues soonest.
Believe it or not, but the dutch government has agency. It's not impossible for US pressure to be a factor, but I think it's more likely the management of the company was planning to move production to china or something like that. That'd (rightly!) spook the government into some quick action, especially given the political climate around Russia seemingly not being content with having their war confined to Ukraine.
Unfortunately we seem to be living in interesting times.
The US has immense pressure on the dutch government, given their control over ASML . Its US big tech and semi design studios that determines who will need to buy EUV from ASML. Given ASML is not allowed to do business with China, Russia etc.
You could just add easily argue that the Dutch government has immense leverage over the US, since ASML controls the leading edge fab technology that underpins Nvidia etc. It seems more to me like a highly profitable partnership that neither side can credibly threaten to withdraw from.
Ultimately the Dutch, like for instance the Australians, are a rounding error compared to China and a pawn in a bigger game. At least the Dutch can "hide" behind the EU.
So there will noise but this won't stop China' rise and it won't stop Europe's decline, either.
Either way, it cannot be stopped, China will develop independent technology sector because they can and they have no other choice. They don't trust the West and cases like this make such attitude understandable.
As soon as China tries to compete with the rich monopolies, the "free market" goes out of the window and becomes "free to do as we tell you".
>As soon as China tries to compete with the rich monopolies, the "free market" goes out of the window and becomes "free to do as we tell you".
When China cannot compete with incumbents those protections also go up and when they can now people like you appeal to free trade (while ignoring existing protections). You are being overly charitable to one side here. Which is it? Free trade or Protectionism?
Germany implemented something similar like this after China took over Kuka (industry leading robotics) and practically build an entire industry of robotics in China after that.
the jobs didn't disappear (yet). they grew from 13.000 in 2014 before midea took over to 15.000 in 2024. maybe they could have grown more in germany if midea hadn't taken over. who knows.
well, the real question is, are those 15.000 employees in germany? and were they in germany before? i just found the number on wikipedia, but now i looked up the 2024 report that says that 4600 are in germany, and 10600 are outside. in the 2014 report it says 4700 are in germany, 4500 rest of europe, 1700 north america, and 1100 elsewhere. so it doesn't look like any jobs were moved.
So what exactly are you learning in this case from the actions, the data, the private citizens or the scholars, that is so different from "Western" explanations?
I asked OP the question about their comment, and not about whether principles should do this or that.
That being said I do not believe in absolutes. One example why such an absolutist approach fails is the tolerance of intolerant, which in itself makes the whole society intolerant.
I think that's fine. High politics is always very nasty, and any written contracts are supposed to be teared apart. I think the elites of whatever countries are mature enough to eat it.
Regarding us, the human resources, it is irrelevant however we think.
EU and west finally TRYING to protect their market the way China is doing it all the time. They tax, ban, espionage everything beneficial to their society.
Well if I'm from EU and if I know my government doesn't do espionage and all sorts of nasty things, I'd really be very worried. They (the government and its agencies) are supposed to do the nasty jobs, and it is very incompetent if they don't do so.
“Protect their market” - And yet the U.S. and Europe are richer than ever.
It’s hilarious seeing the US oligarchs distracting from the fact that they’ve transferred massive amounts of wealth from the broader society to themselves by blaming every one else.
There is a fair argument to protect strategic industries and actions like these are probably needed, but let’s not pretend the “markets” are at risk because of anything China is doing, which is essentially giving Americans and Europeans actual stuff in return for pieces of paper.
If you think the west will remain the dominant force it has been without access to superior technology in business and metallurgy in military and manufacturing, I’d like some of what you’re smoking
communism is actually exactly the opposite of that. this is rutheless capitalism 101 from china vs religious left/right fights of the west boosted by not in my backyard individualism.
West lived for too long for too good, to start believe that they can do whatever, and live good.
Economic Nationalism is not Communism by any sense. Nor is responding to mercantilism.
But the CCP explicitly considers themselves Marxism-Leninism with and their internal beliefs and government structure is structurally follows that.
We consider them Communists and they consider themselves Communist. They do not consider us Communist and we don't either.
You're trying to create a false conflation here and stir division. I'm interested in whose interests comments like yours really reflect. It's certainly not the truth.
> the CCP explicitly considers themselves Marxism-Leninism with and their internal beliefs and government structure is structurally follows that.
> they consider themselves Communist. They do not consider us Communist.
And you know all this because of your deep study, in the original language of course, of the CPC, their internal factions, and the collected writings in their leading policy journals, I assume, yes?
Or dare I even ask did you get this from some 250 word limit editorial in the "wall street journal"?
> And you know all this because of your deep study, in the original language of course, of the CPC, their internal factions, and the collected writings in their leading policy journals, I assume, yes?
Perhaps not original language, but per Qiushi, the CPCs theoretical journal on their ideology, an official[translation of a speech by Xi Xinping](https://en.qstheory.cn/2025-07/28/c_1110292.htm):
> Marxist ideas and theories are wide-ranging and profound and maintain relevance through constant study. In the new era, we
Chinese Communists still need to study Karl Marx, study and practice Marxism, and continually draw on its powerful
knowledge and theories. In this way, we will uphold and develop Chinese socialism in the new era with more resolve,
confidence and wisdom. It will support the coordinated advance of the Five-sphere Integrated Plan and the Four-pronged
Comprehensive Strategy and ensure that we always stay the course towards national rejuvenation as we break the waves and
sail ahead.
You can call it Economic nationalism all you want, but these are similar principles that were applied in authoritarian states like in Fascist/Nazi times.
I don't care if they are Communists - we call them like that to say "they're authoritarian", however, we're failing to see where we (West) are getting. In order to "defend" our democracy we're becoming increasingly like them.
To think that all that it takes would be to change our lifestyle NOT to buy anymore 5 pairs of low quality shoes per year or so, but 1 or 2 good ones, maybe made by your neighbour. Which is exactly how I grew up with, until someone told us that we need to buy a load of cheap crap, otherwise you're not cool.
> You can call it Economic nationalism all you want, but these are similar principles that were applied in authoritarian states like in Fascist/Nazi times.
Simply because economic nationalism is a characteristic of authoritarian state and has been a characteristic of fascist (Italian fascism, especially) and Nazis does not imply economic nationalism is intrinsically authoritarian fascist.
America for much of its history was protectionist. Europe remains a bloc intended to protect local industries characteristic of national identity, for example the rejection of Mercosur by the French. India seeks to grow its domestic titans and shut out foreign firms while purchasing abroad through activities such as the ArcelorMittal acquisition.
Economic nationalism is very much its own independent theme.
Yeah, the next step is to actually think "they are all potential enemies, we should produce here and be independent, so in case there is a war we can make it". Autarky is how Fascism began.
Oh please take that crackpot stuff to 4chan or something.
I can read about both sides of the Gaza conflict just fine in evil Western media. It is quite plain to see (read) that Israel is doing some really bad shit there after an, in the grand scheme of things, "less bad" attack on itself. About the pandemic... yes, mistakes were made. There was a dangerous situation and no one was really sure what to do. It's like some people realized for the first time that the government has power and that it isn't always acting in the way they'd prefer. Big fucking deal. I guess a lot of people didn't really understand how the world around them is structured before it bit them in the ass. It's not that bad though, compared to other places and times in the world.
That's not some s** that someone made up. They/We created an unstoppable beast. They thought that China would be like India or Vietnam or so. Nope.
You name it, they build it.
We can only "regulate" it - see what Europe has come up with to justify it - with the CO2 nonsense, "human rights" and all that. More regulations are the only way to prevent to get your market over flooded by products that you can't possibly build at that speed and cost (and not necessarily quality, but finally, most of what we use come from there and aren't MacBooks good? or fridges/TVs/phones, etc).
That’s a myth. Yes, we allow them to move faster—much faster—but it’s simply because their government is more efficient.
Western society, in contrast, runs on a kind of religion. People follow a few belief systems: socialism, right-wing conservatism, and perhaps liberalism as a softer sub-flavor.
Here’s the fun part: China learned the hard way that no single dogma—whether communism or anything else—is worth worshiping if it leaves people hungry. They’ve mixed communism, socialism, and raw capitalism, using whatever tools best serve their progress. Ruthless goal achievement.
Meanwhile, Western society has turned the left-versus-right divide into something resembling the conflict between major branches of Islam—where factions despise and fight each other. It’s extremely foolish.
It's soolish, like any blind reglion following. And yeah, with this divide we have, we all become religios == stupid.
It's not a myth - China wouldn't be in this situation without Nike/etc. going there in the 80's to "reduce" costs (to actually increase their profits). That triggered the whole chain. They thought they could just jump ship when the prices would increase, but what they didn't expect was that they had a guy that instead of getting just fatter and fatter (like many leaders in the world who finally become corrupt etc) actually had a vision for his country, and it's working out. It's the best implementation of the boiling frog metaphor.
About the rest of the post - I would say it's a bit more complicated than just black or white.
> About the rest of the post - I would say it's a bit more complicated than just black or white.
Yes, I think that was his point as well. Policy is a set of tools, and depending on the current state of the system there is a right tool for the the job,with, of course, a set of tradeoffs. Discarding tools "of the right" or "of the left" is foolish.
Time to quote one of my favourite lines in the Godfather franchise. Probably totally unrelated.
“We gladly put you at the helm of our little fleet, but our ships must all sail in the same direction. Otherwise, who can say how long your stay with us will last. It's not personal, it's only business. You should know, Godfather”
I couldn’t place this quote, so I googled it and learned it’s from Godfather Part 3. Bold choice to take your favorite quote from that particular movie. :)
Oh lord no. Pacino’s Scream made acting history and is of the finest scenes to come out of the Strasberg acting ecosystem. Critics gonna crit, but there are some remarkably good things about that film.
I'm currently blazing through "Chip War" and can't put it down. This news is fascinating in that context. I highly recommend the book to anyone who hasn't read it.
I read it recently. I thought it was going to be a bit dry and heavy going. But it was a really good read.
TIL Shockley, one of the original pioneers of semi-conductors and Nobel prize winner, was a total shit. His staff hated him so much that the key players left and started a new company (Fairchild). He later became a eugenics crank.
I don't understand why this suddenly happened (except if asked by the USG in response to the recent scare/reality over rare earths).
The 50% ownership by a sanctioned entity was a reality for a while, and was an issue as soon as the purchase. This didn't change recently. So, this action should have been part of the pre-purchase review (CFIUS in the US...I assume there is an equivalent in China). On the face of it, this all could have been avoided by having a non-sanctioned entity (including another random Chinese company) own enough of the company to get sanctioned entity ownership below 50%.
The Arm China CEO went rogue and spun it off as its own company. ARM HQ were unable to fire him, as he had physical possession of the company's seal stamp. Reading between the lines, the Chinese government chose not to intervene for multiple years.
Nexperia was formed because back in 2017 (if I remember correctly) Qualcomm wanted to buy NXP. So NXP wanted to look more attractive to Qualcomm shareholders and sold its more low-tech business unit to Chinese investors. That acquisition didn't go through because of the tensions between US and China during the first Trump admin.
NXP has been trimming fat since its formation from Philips Semiconductors and American or Chinese companies are buying whatever business unit they can grab. They pretty much buy it for the IP and the customers. Once they get the IP they usually fore the whole team and shut dient operations in NL.
Nexperia wasn't doing this though. They had no interesting technology to steal oe transfer to China to begin with.
That will not happen. But yes, you are right that this decision was not taken lightly, I've only heard of one other such move in the last 50 years or so.
The Chinese propaganda machine is already making lots of waves about how NL is no longer a democracy and how this dings NL reputation abroad.
The Dutch have put restrictions on Wingtech to not make certain changes (sale or move of assets, intellectual property, company activities, employees) for a year. That should give you enough to chew on I think (and it is public knowledge). Specifically the IP and assets bits are in focus here, more so because the parent company is on a watchlist. Note that they not only kicked out the CEO - which in itself is an earth shaking move for a company this big - they also took control over the shares.
50 years of sending all the knowledge to China and now sudden realization that „data is the value”. Work was cheap, but we paid in IP and tech as a whole.
It’s great to see how long term is China strategy and how well they execute it.
Good luck for us all being „independent”. We can make processors out of attached plastic bottle caps…
The UK used its National Security & Investment Act (2021) to order divestment of Nexperia’s Newport Wafer Fab in Nov 2022. The UK ordered them to sell 86% of the stake due to National Security concerns
Great. Absolutely outstanding from the Dutch government, to not let China dominate Europe however it wants.
Securing a Chip industry independent from China, Taiwan and the US has to be the top long term security interest. I only hope that the EU can use it's power to make things like this more feasible and to keep Europe independent from US/Chinese interests.
> Great. Absolutely outstanding from the Dutch government, to not let China dominate Europe however it wants.
Arguably the time to do that was in 2018, they could have blocked Nexperia from being aquired by Wingtech in the first place. But I supposed the second best time is now.
The timing is weird, just after Trump's latest escalation with China. Using The Netherlands to fall into the sword would fit with the general tactics of dumping the Ukraine war on the EU and trying to sour their relations with China.
That way, the U.S. is free to control all oil resources in the Middle East and conquer new ones in Venezuela. The EU gets nothing but enemies and higher oil and gas prices.
In principle I'm against outsourcing or technology transfers to China, but please do it on you own schedule.
> In principle I'm against outsourcing or technology transfers to China, but please do it on you own schedule.
In principle, the tit for tat policy with China should have been initiated 15 years ago. China has restricted its own markets in similar ways since at least that far back, and it was clear then, when they banned Google in 2010, that they were not playing by the same playbook as we were.
The U.S. doesn't control oil in the Middle East, that would be Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Iran, etc, all sovereign nations with their own governments. It also produces more domestically than its own demand and is a net exporter of oil.
Also, not sure why the Ukraine war is the United States responsibility over the EU's responsibility given that its your next-door neighbor and its your eastern flank that would suffer if Ukraine were to fall to Russian control. EU, of course, partly responsible for enriching Russia to the point where it can afford such a war with its own purchases of gas while shuttering nuclear power plants for indescribable reasons.
Let's be real here, a European company wouldn't even have been allowed to buy a Chinese company in China and have the level of control as in this case in the first place.
I never understood this, I believe very strongly in the free market, but only where there is a free market. Of course you can let the free market run free up to the border of e.g. the US but surely it won't solve international trade since many countries do not have a free market. Unless we agree some international rules such that the boundary of the free market "sandbox" becomes the earths borders.
It's why I also think it is possible to hold a pro-free-market pro-tariff position simultaneously without contradiction. Tariffs could be used to "level set" manipulation from foreign governments and make the incoming goods behave as if they were not manipulated (thus also reducing the incentive to manipulate in the first place).
Not sure this is how tariffs are being used in reality.
You are 100% correct. Free Trade hasn't been disproven, only the inane notion that one should pursue unreciproval free trade with a countries that perform mercantalism against them.
The consumer isn't everything, the worker does matter just as much.
Greed. When China was becoming manufacturing powerhouse, it was incredibly cheap, and Chinese government seemed extremely willing to play ball by making sure there was no government caused slowdowns. This obviously worked until it didn't but even now, it's so expensive to change, corporations are screaming about their quarterly stock price and US being so financialized, US in a real gordian knot.
Greed sure, but also optics. In the US at least, we love to condemn China for being "communist" and not a real democracy. Remember, for the US, communist has been the number one enemy for a long time. Obviously, we can't do what they do.
But we do what they do, and China isn't even communist.
European companies have had massive investments in China for decades now.
Many people in the West have no idea what's going on in China. Western brands and investments are all over the place. Half the cars on the streets used to be European or American (and that has only recently changed, due to the rise of EVs).
Yet Europeans and Americans often complain, "Why can't Western companies operate in China?" Excuse me?
The question was, emphasis mine: "which firms in China are controlled by European entities?"
Western brands have investments, but are required by law to have a local partner, that learns the trade and eventually copies the product:
China bars foreign companies from participating on their own in many industries, but in some of those industries foreign companies can participate only by forming a joint venture with a Chinese partner. [..] Partnering with a Chinese business can be tricky for various reasons, so understanding to what you are agreeing is absolutely critical. This is especially true because the Chinese law, the Chinese government, and the Chinese courts will be heavily biased in favor of your joint venture partner in any dispute between your company and your China joint venture partner’s company. - https://harris-sliwoski.com/chinalawblog/china-joint-venture...
> Half the cars on the streets used to be European or American
And more than half the phones in Europe or America are Asian - what's your point?
There are many companies which the Chinese government could target in retaliation. In China foreign companies are usually minority partners in some ventures with some Chinese company.
I think its fine to have national and strategic interests. China isn't someone that you can just trust, they are exporting to Russia on the sly and therefore supporting war in Europe because it suits them.
This is a tired talking point. If the EU stopped those imports abruptly they'd blow up their own economies and there would be chaos on the streets.
It is stupid that they put themselves in that position, but they've also greatly reduced their dependency as the war progressed.
With the current trade war and their own domestic troubles, China cannot afford to alienate other foreign markets, hence why this is the prime time to drive concessions against them.
The Euro stance on buying US weapons for Ukraine is probably the most dumbest strategic move or the century. Europe is losing at an alarming rate in many ways. I would be more concerned about the US if I were Europe.
Well clearly clinging free trade while others pursue protectionism/industrial strategy at massive scales against you isn't sustainable.
Is it hypocrisy of you decide to punch back after getting punched? Not really. And China certainly was the much more protectionist than the EU for the three decades.
This has nothing to do with capitalism. This is pure government intervention in a global market where other competing governments (China) are extremely interventionist already.
It's just capitalist governments doing capitalist things like the bidding of the owner class, as they've always done. There's never been a time that capitalist states didn't appropriate property from one party in order to give it to the wealthy. Calling this "clepto capitalism" is a distinction without meaning.
The ministry of economic affairs intervened out of a fear that crucial technological skills and capacities will leave the Netherlands and Europe. The ministry stated in a press release[1] that there was a threat of a "knowledge leak" (w/e that means exactly) and a possible threat to the European economy.
After this intervention the Dutch government can now stop or reverse decisions within the company. That's only allowed if those decisions are harmful to the interests of the company, or for the future of the company as a Dutch or European business, or to the retaining of this crucial value chain for europe.
The company can appeal this decision in court.
For context, the law that allows this all to happen was passed in 1952 and has never before been used. As much as I think our government is currently ran by a bunch of nincompoops, I am inclined to believe that something quite significant was about to happen for this law to get invoked. What exactly that was can for now only be speculated about.
I can recommend you run google translate (or equivalent) on the press release. It's as close as you can get to the source of this news for now. I can only imagine the government is going to be having plenty of debates on the topic coming up, seeing as this is a very rare use of a very heavy-handed tool.
[0] https://nos.nl/artikel/2586270-kabinet-grijpt-hard-in-bij-ch...
[1] https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/actueel/nieuws/2025/10/12/wet-b...
It’s a continuation of recent trends and closing markets.
Nobody in their sane mind would allow a company like ASML or the likes to be purchased by competitors.
But the irony is that when a non-European entity were to do something like this, e.g. nationalize their oil or mining etc. industry or a firm, the whole hell would brake loose.
As far as I understand, Samsung, TSMC, and SMIC are all closely guarded by their respective governments. And China doesn't (didn't?) allow foreign companies to operate in China without a local partner at all. So I don't see the irony - everyone practices protectionism, some are just more subtle about it than others. Some China-specific examples:
tmnvix points out the perfectly analogous Chinese restriction of rare earth exports: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45572420
China imposes more trade and investment barriers, discriminatory taxes, and information security restrictions than any other country by a vast margin. - https://ecipe.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/DTE_China_TWP_R...
As with most countries, China has adopted some policies aimed at protecting or promoting its domestic industries, including targeted quotas, subsidies to certain key industries and rejection of patents in critical industries. - https://www.rfa.org/english/news/afcl/fact-check-china-prote...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Made_in_China_2025 - government plan with securing first local, and the global key markets, for indigenous firms, the acquisition of foreign technology companies, and independence from foreign suppliers, as explicit goals.
It would be foolish to sell off a great value like ASML or others that adds incredible value. But one should also not get mad when other countries do it, because they see their industries as valuable things as well.
Our markets are just getting more closed and different groups are being formed. Let’s hope other high value companies gather their IP rights as well.
A few more than half century old examples don't change what we can all see is the case in the present day.
They only backed up when the US told the Brits and France they would tank their economies still on US life support.
And, pray, why did the Machado win the hypocrisy prize on Friday? Why are American ships outside the waters of Venezuela?
And my point has nothing to do with Chinese or Dutch or European, even though those are the examples I used.
The main thing is that it was a mistake to sell vital industries, and some people are really hypocritical when other countries do something like this, but in this particular case they’re finding out reasons to side with the Dutch government. I just want consistency, it is seldomly okay to allow any other entity into critical industries.
This is not how free markets function.
It stops being free when government attacks economic activity, not when it promotes it.
In this regard, the Chinese government pouring large subsidies into solar panel production both spurred the economic activity around installing solar panels, and attacked / thwarted in around production of the panels themselves, if the production happens outside China. Only the US was able to somehow develop solar panel production.
Yes, they do favor their own companies and provide subsidies etc. that’s not the problem though, the problem is that they’re undercutting other companies by selling below cost thanks to those subsidies. Otherwise, we would have to call our farming subsidies the same.
I was originally trying to point out that it has always been important to keep your vital industries secure, it was very stupid of Intel and others to transfer so much technology abroad (to anyone) just to increase their margins, I think ASML did the best: You can purchase our machine, but that’s pretty much it.
You can’t socialize losses and privatize gains.
Stay quiet.
Interesting parallel here with China recently invoking - for the first time - their own legislation from the 50's to ban rare earth exports for military uses.
The main reason that it's mostly China producing them may simply be due to the fact that the volumes are so small that building your own industry is not really worth it.
According to this map, China has vastly more. But is there something special about China/Myanmar geologically? I guess being downstream of the Himalayas is something.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/rare-eart...
"According to this map" is essentially meaningless w/out a map specific definition of "reserve".
The terms "reserve", "resource" and their variations are misused outside of technical literature that cites whether they are defined via a JORC or other classification.
The bias toward China in that map likely comes from two notes:
* "proven" reserves - as in tested and estimated to some higher standard, as opposed to "we know there's a lot 'over here' but we haven't spent $X million on a drill assay program yet.
* "controlled or owned" by China - Chinese companies are majority shareholders in joint ventures that source raw materials across the globe (they source concentrates from Australia, from Peru, from elsewhere, in addition to their home soil deposits). This means a number of maps might show all REE deposits owned by Chinese companies as on the books for China (as that is where much of the processing of concentrates occurs).
For interest:
North Stanmore in Western Australia has emerged as one of the world's most extraordinary heavy rare earth element (HREE) deposits, particularly for dysprosium and terbium in North Stanmore. (Sept, 2025)
https://discoveryalert.com.au/news/north-stanmore-heavy-rare...
https://www.australianmining.com.au/victory-unearths-world-c...
Who’s got the money?
There's also an element of their production generating pollution and us preferring to think of ourselves as cleaner than that. We only use the rare earths.
Compare how desalinization is very cheap, but California prefers constant screaming about drought.
Plenty of US companies ready and willing. They've finally gotten an administration that is of like mind on screw the environment and dig dig dig.
“Ready and willing” is quite the turn of phrase.
My understanding is that a large part of the issue is processing capacity/ability - not mining of the ore. In fact, a significant amount of ore mined in the US is sent to China for processing. I don't think it's a simple case of the US standing up some processing plants in 1-2 years. If that were the case, wouldn't you think it would've happened by now? Is US leadership that bad that they failed to address this risk? Or - more likely - is it because solving the issue will take a lot more than some quick investment?
This is a huge issue for the US MIC. Plans (e.g. with regard to Iran) are going back to the drawing board for sure.
I mean, quite obviously? Borne by the simple fact of... here we are discussing it?
It doesn't matter how easy, quick, or hard it is right now. What matters is leadership is so bad it was allowed to reach this point to begin with, and even a decade ago it was immediately obvious that it was a giant vulnerability that has not even started on beyond corrected in any meaningful way.
I’m so fucking glad I’m not on social media.
They’ll fall in line quickly enough.
How are we reminding China that the US is a big dog? By imposing tariffs? By demonstrating our ability to do work domestically that they believe us unwilling or incapable of doing?
What does this even mean, to be a big dog in the modern world? It seems more like a large ship listing to one side … if it collapses there will be a lot of small ships damaged in the wake.
I've heard this one before.
> with no technology to speak of for the 1000 years after Roman Empire
While it's true that some technology declined in the West, it wasn't as dramatic as you've suggested. Popular media also often exaggerates it.
https://www.britannica.com/technology/history-of-technology/...
Adding USSR into the discussion greatly increases complexity of the discussion. From analysis I've read, central planning is supposedly fine when country doesn't have much industry, because to start things up, it can provide essential investments and starts organizing production. But when country is somewhat developed, efficiency starts to matter and top-down approach to decision making of central planning vs bottom-up decision making mechanisms of markets produce different results. Politics and other things are important factors too, but I think that would be too much for this discussion.
No, they were more advanced in certain ways, but the original contention is correct that they were less advanced in others. Notably they were unable to build domes. They were also less productive, so less advanced in an overall sense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_medieval_Arabic_and...
Beware hardware DRM locking up the repairs. That would make everything more fragile.
I assume this is an entirely independent Chinese company without some Dutch sponsor or something. That conforms to local regulations. But now The Dutch government says "we have this new power over you" and that is that. With the consequence presumably being export control on dutch tech, banning from their market, etc? Or were there any more hooks planted that make it easier to force compliance? For example -- and I assume this is not the case in the Netherlands -- in China there is a 51% ownership of the foreign company by a local company (which is more or less state controlled).
It's not, it's a Dutch company, formed according to Dutch law, with headquarters in the Netherlands, that was bought by another Chinese company a few years ago.
Dutch law sets rules on how any company, but especially public companies (so-called naamloze vennootschappen) must be governed. Even if you own all the shares, by law you don't have unlimited and unchecked power in the company, you have to abide by governance rules.
Seemingly simultaneously with the government order, a suit was brought to the court enforcing these laws (the Ondernemingskamer) alledging that the CEO and owner were not abiding by them. The court documents are a bit weird to me as a non-lawyer, with Nexperia named as both plaintiff and defendant, so I'm not sure who brought it, but it might've been the government, who are named as a party.
The court agreed that the suit could have merit, and as an interim measure while the legal proceedings play out, has suspended the CEO and named a temporary director. It also suspended the authority of the owners over their shares (except for one), and assigned a trustee to manage them temporarily. The court did not actually rule on the contents of the suit yet, it only issued interim conservatory measures. We'll likely hear more about how the suit plays out over the next few months.
An interesting matter of contention in the suit is that the CEO/owner want the CLO to be suspended, while the other side asks the court to prohibit firing of the CLO. I presume there has been a conflict in the board, either leading to or caused by the government order.
The court documents are public by the way (in Dutch, obviously): https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/resultaat?zoekterm=nexperi...
OR vs CEO also explains the duplicate entries as they are both representatives of the company.
It's worth noting that Nexperia is a spin-off of NXP (Dutch company) which itself is a spin-off of Philips' (Dutch company) semiconductor division.
It's also worth noting that Nexperia's Chinese owners (Wingtech) are at least partially state controlled.
Unfortunately we seem to be living in interesting times.
So there will noise but this won't stop China' rise and it won't stop Europe's decline, either.
China played a remarkably smart game. We let it happen.
People have been telling us for twenty years that this would happen and nobody listened until it was almost too late.
As soon as China tries to compete with the rich monopolies, the "free market" goes out of the window and becomes "free to do as we tell you".
Hence big tech cozying up to this administration, and all the attempts to ban AI regulation.
China won already, US is just trying to stop the bleeding
When China cannot compete with incumbents those protections also go up and when they can now people like you appeal to free trade (while ignoring existing protections). You are being overly charitable to one side here. Which is it? Free trade or Protectionism?
(Not saying China is playing fair btw, just saying there's a vast amount of underused intellectual resources in Europe.)
any idea what we the rationale/reason to pass that law in the first place? any specific endangered war resource at the time?
And of course, the jobs disappeared from Germany.
https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/KUKA-AG-436260/ne...
Note: Looking for more information about the distribution of jobs atm ( countries). But it's hard to find. Any resources?
But you're right. They still have jobs there, I didn't knew that.
Note: This is about the law Germany created afterwards: https://www.akingump.com/en/insights/alerts/germany-tightens...
I am confused. Are non-“western” stars/nations better in this regard? I am not sure I understand what you are trying to say.
That being said I do not believe in absolutes. One example why such an absolutist approach fails is the tolerance of intolerant, which in itself makes the whole society intolerant.
In a world where everyone donates 50% of their pay check to charity, the person who donates 25% is considered selfish.
Regarding us, the human resources, it is irrelevant however we think.
China would do it without a blink.
Freedom, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
It’s hilarious seeing the US oligarchs distracting from the fact that they’ve transferred massive amounts of wealth from the broader society to themselves by blaming every one else.
There is a fair argument to protect strategic industries and actions like these are probably needed, but let’s not pretend the “markets” are at risk because of anything China is doing, which is essentially giving Americans and Europeans actual stuff in return for pieces of paper.
Uh, you gotta understand that China has never been alone.
West lived for too long for too good, to start believe that they can do whatever, and live good.
What?
They view themselves as communists. Moreover, all these policies have nothing to do with communism.
But the CCP explicitly considers themselves Marxism-Leninism with and their internal beliefs and government structure is structurally follows that.
We consider them Communists and they consider themselves Communist. They do not consider us Communist and we don't either.
You're trying to create a false conflation here and stir division. I'm interested in whose interests comments like yours really reflect. It's certainly not the truth.
> they consider themselves Communist. They do not consider us Communist.
And you know all this because of your deep study, in the original language of course, of the CPC, their internal factions, and the collected writings in their leading policy journals, I assume, yes?
Or dare I even ask did you get this from some 250 word limit editorial in the "wall street journal"?
Perhaps not original language, but per Qiushi, the CPCs theoretical journal on their ideology, an official[translation of a speech by Xi Xinping](https://en.qstheory.cn/2025-07/28/c_1110292.htm):
> Marxist ideas and theories are wide-ranging and profound and maintain relevance through constant study. In the new era, we Chinese Communists still need to study Karl Marx, study and practice Marxism, and continually draw on its powerful knowledge and theories. In this way, we will uphold and develop Chinese socialism in the new era with more resolve, confidence and wisdom. It will support the coordinated advance of the Five-sphere Integrated Plan and the Four-pronged Comprehensive Strategy and ensure that we always stay the course towards national rejuvenation as we break the waves and sail ahead.
If it says its a duck...
I don't care if they are Communists - we call them like that to say "they're authoritarian", however, we're failing to see where we (West) are getting. In order to "defend" our democracy we're becoming increasingly like them.
To think that all that it takes would be to change our lifestyle NOT to buy anymore 5 pairs of low quality shoes per year or so, but 1 or 2 good ones, maybe made by your neighbour. Which is exactly how I grew up with, until someone told us that we need to buy a load of cheap crap, otherwise you're not cool.
Simply because economic nationalism is a characteristic of authoritarian state and has been a characteristic of fascist (Italian fascism, especially) and Nazis does not imply economic nationalism is intrinsically authoritarian fascist.
America for much of its history was protectionist. Europe remains a bloc intended to protect local industries characteristic of national identity, for example the rejection of Mercosur by the French. India seeks to grow its domestic titans and shut out foreign firms while purchasing abroad through activities such as the ArcelorMittal acquisition.
Economic nationalism is very much its own independent theme.
I can read about both sides of the Gaza conflict just fine in evil Western media. It is quite plain to see (read) that Israel is doing some really bad shit there after an, in the grand scheme of things, "less bad" attack on itself. About the pandemic... yes, mistakes were made. There was a dangerous situation and no one was really sure what to do. It's like some people realized for the first time that the government has power and that it isn't always acting in the way they'd prefer. Big fucking deal. I guess a lot of people didn't really understand how the world around them is structured before it bit them in the ass. It's not that bad though, compared to other places and times in the world.
That's not some s** that someone made up. They/We created an unstoppable beast. They thought that China would be like India or Vietnam or so. Nope.
You name it, they build it.
We can only "regulate" it - see what Europe has come up with to justify it - with the CO2 nonsense, "human rights" and all that. More regulations are the only way to prevent to get your market over flooded by products that you can't possibly build at that speed and cost (and not necessarily quality, but finally, most of what we use come from there and aren't MacBooks good? or fridges/TVs/phones, etc).
Western society, in contrast, runs on a kind of religion. People follow a few belief systems: socialism, right-wing conservatism, and perhaps liberalism as a softer sub-flavor.
Here’s the fun part: China learned the hard way that no single dogma—whether communism or anything else—is worth worshiping if it leaves people hungry. They’ve mixed communism, socialism, and raw capitalism, using whatever tools best serve their progress. Ruthless goal achievement.
Meanwhile, Western society has turned the left-versus-right divide into something resembling the conflict between major branches of Islam—where factions despise and fight each other. It’s extremely foolish.
It's soolish, like any blind reglion following. And yeah, with this divide we have, we all become religios == stupid.
About the rest of the post - I would say it's a bit more complicated than just black or white.
Yes, I think that was his point as well. Policy is a set of tools, and depending on the current state of the system there is a right tool for the the job,with, of course, a set of tradeoffs. Discarding tools "of the right" or "of the left" is foolish.
“We gladly put you at the helm of our little fleet, but our ships must all sail in the same direction. Otherwise, who can say how long your stay with us will last. It's not personal, it's only business. You should know, Godfather”
— The late venerable Don Lucchesi
TIL Shockley, one of the original pioneers of semi-conductors and Nobel prize winner, was a total shit. His staff hated him so much that the key players left and started a new company (Fairchild). He later became a eugenics crank.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shockley
The 50% ownership by a sanctioned entity was a reality for a while, and was an issue as soon as the purchase. This didn't change recently. So, this action should have been part of the pre-purchase review (CFIUS in the US...I assume there is an equivalent in China). On the face of it, this all could have been avoided by having a non-sanctioned entity (including another random Chinese company) own enough of the company to get sanctioned entity ownership below 50%.
I could easily see Nexperia chips appearing in Russian munitions in Ukraine setting this off.
It would also match charging the CEO with "incompetence". It would be pretty easy to win that in court if the chips are appearing in Russian weaponry.
You don't get into the China market without losing control.
Nexperia was formed because back in 2017 (if I remember correctly) Qualcomm wanted to buy NXP. So NXP wanted to look more attractive to Qualcomm shareholders and sold its more low-tech business unit to Chinese investors. That acquisition didn't go through because of the tensions between US and China during the first Trump admin.
NXP has been trimming fat since its formation from Philips Semiconductors and American or Chinese companies are buying whatever business unit they can grab. They pretty much buy it for the IP and the customers. Once they get the IP they usually fore the whole team and shut dient operations in NL.
Nexperia wasn't doing this though. They had no interesting technology to steal oe transfer to China to begin with.
That governmental decision was surely not taken lightly, it's a significant move with high risk of increasing geopolitical tension...
The Chinese propaganda machine is already making lots of waves about how NL is no longer a democracy and how this dings NL reputation abroad.
The Dutch have put restrictions on Wingtech to not make certain changes (sale or move of assets, intellectual property, company activities, employees) for a year. That should give you enough to chew on I think (and it is public knowledge). Specifically the IP and assets bits are in focus here, more so because the parent company is on a watchlist. Note that they not only kicked out the CEO - which in itself is an earth shaking move for a company this big - they also took control over the shares.
Good luck for us all being „independent”. We can make processors out of attached plastic bottle caps…
The UK used its National Security & Investment Act (2021) to order divestment of Nexperia’s Newport Wafer Fab in Nov 2022. The UK ordered them to sell 86% of the stake due to National Security concerns
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/acquisition-of-ne...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckg17g39x41o
They have a not huge but very nice line-up of GaN fet devices too. I'd been looking through their line-up here just lack week!
Just fun to see what's on offer here. I couldn't find a latest listings by manufacturer for Nexperia, which is one of my favorite Mouser views.
Securing a Chip industry independent from China, Taiwan and the US has to be the top long term security interest. I only hope that the EU can use it's power to make things like this more feasible and to keep Europe independent from US/Chinese interests.
Arguably the time to do that was in 2018, they could have blocked Nexperia from being aquired by Wingtech in the first place. But I supposed the second best time is now.
That way, the U.S. is free to control all oil resources in the Middle East and conquer new ones in Venezuela. The EU gets nothing but enemies and higher oil and gas prices.
In principle I'm against outsourcing or technology transfers to China, but please do it on you own schedule.
In principle, the tit for tat policy with China should have been initiated 15 years ago. China has restricted its own markets in similar ways since at least that far back, and it was clear then, when they banned Google in 2010, that they were not playing by the same playbook as we were.
The U.S. doesn't control oil in the Middle East, that would be Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Iran, etc, all sovereign nations with their own governments. It also produces more domestically than its own demand and is a net exporter of oil.
Also, not sure why the Ukraine war is the United States responsibility over the EU's responsibility given that its your next-door neighbor and its your eastern flank that would suffer if Ukraine were to fall to Russian control. EU, of course, partly responsible for enriching Russia to the point where it can afford such a war with its own purchases of gas while shuttering nuclear power plants for indescribable reasons.
The news is coming out now, but it actually happened September 30th.
It's why I also think it is possible to hold a pro-free-market pro-tariff position simultaneously without contradiction. Tariffs could be used to "level set" manipulation from foreign governments and make the incoming goods behave as if they were not manipulated (thus also reducing the incentive to manipulate in the first place).
Not sure this is how tariffs are being used in reality.
The consumer isn't everything, the worker does matter just as much.
But we do what they do, and China isn't even communist.
Many people in the West have no idea what's going on in China. Western brands and investments are all over the place. Half the cars on the streets used to be European or American (and that has only recently changed, due to the rise of EVs).
Yet Europeans and Americans often complain, "Why can't Western companies operate in China?" Excuse me?
Western brands have investments, but are required by law to have a local partner, that learns the trade and eventually copies the product:
China bars foreign companies from participating on their own in many industries, but in some of those industries foreign companies can participate only by forming a joint venture with a Chinese partner. [..] Partnering with a Chinese business can be tricky for various reasons, so understanding to what you are agreeing is absolutely critical. This is especially true because the Chinese law, the Chinese government, and the Chinese courts will be heavily biased in favor of your joint venture partner in any dispute between your company and your China joint venture partner’s company. - https://harris-sliwoski.com/chinalawblog/china-joint-venture...
> Half the cars on the streets used to be European or American
And more than half the phones in Europe or America are Asian - what's your point?
So, uh, none?
FWIW, EU countries are still sending more money to Russia for oil than they send Ukraine in aid. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/feb/24/eu-spends-more...
Modern global economies are complicated.
It is stupid that they put themselves in that position, but they've also greatly reduced their dependency as the war progressed.
With the current trade war and their own domestic troubles, China cannot afford to alienate other foreign markets, hence why this is the prime time to drive concessions against them.
is it really on the sly though?
Is it hypocrisy of you decide to punch back after getting punched? Not really. And China certainly was the much more protectionist than the EU for the three decades.
Capitalism != Free Market
It’s like they beg China to do something with Taiwan.