By John Q. Hosedrinker 
China has responded to the Dutch government’s seizure of the chip company Nexperia by blocking exports of certain products from the company. This action appears retaliatory, mirroring the global trend of nations prioritizing their own strategic resources, particularly in semiconductor development. Nexperia’s Guangdong province assembly site will be impacted by the ban, as the company seeks an exception. This situation comes amidst increasingly strained trade relations and serves as a backdrop for upcoming trade negotiations between the US and China.
Read the original article here
China retaliates in response to Dutch seizure of Nexperia, blocking chipmaker’s exports following takeover — 861,000 square foot assembly site in Gaungdong affected as trade war spirals. This situation is escalating quickly, and it’s a clear sign of the growing tensions in the global trade landscape. The Dutch government’s move to seize control of Nexperia, a chipmaker with significant Chinese ownership, is the spark. The response from China, immediately blocking Nexperia’s exports to Europe, is the kindling that’s setting the fire.
The fact that Nexperia does the bulk of its manufacturing in China, around 80%, is a critical detail in understanding the impact. This means China’s export ban directly affects the production capacity and potentially the revenue of the company, particularly impacting the 861,000 square foot assembly site in Guangdong. The Chinese government likely sees this as an act of aggression, a direct challenge to its economic power and strategic interests.
The motivations behind the Dutch government’s actions are complex. While the official line is about protecting European chip supply chains, there’s also likely a considerable amount of pressure from the United States, which has been pushing for greater control over strategic assets and a reduction in reliance on China. The article specifically mentions that the US was heavily involved, suggesting the Dutch government may have been nudged to take this action.
This situation raises fundamental questions about the nature of free trade and international cooperation. It’s hard not to see this as a move away from the principles of a truly open market. If governments start seizing assets based on geopolitical considerations, it could have a domino effect, leading to further restrictions and a breakdown of the interconnected global economy. It’s a departure from the “free market” approach, creating a landscape where political considerations override economic efficiency.
There are accusations that the managing director of the Chinese side of Nexperia was involved in dubious activities that caused the government’s actions. The accusation is that the managing director of the Chinese side of Nexperia, bought an excessive amount of materials from a struggling Chinese sister company, diverting funds unnecessarily. The Dutch were worried over security, health, data, and supply chains, so ultimately spurred the government’s actions.
The article further emphasizes that the West’s initial eagerness for cheap labor and manufacturing in China has now come at a cost. The intellectual property transfer and the build-up of Chinese technological capabilities are now a source of vulnerability. The move by the Dutch shows a growing awareness of the long-term risks associated with relying on China for essential goods and services. This event highlights the dangers of strategic dependency and the need for a more resilient approach to supply chains.
It’s important to consider the broader context of this escalating trade conflict. With China supporting Russia with manufacturing and the like, the world is edging toward a new Cold War. This context makes the protection of strategic assets, like chip manufacturing, a crucial priority for the West. This is the basis on which the Dutch made their move.
Now, in the immediate aftermath, the cost of this decision on jobs in Europe is a definite concern. With assembly taking place in China, the disruption to the company’s operations could lead to job losses in Europe and potentially a transfer of business to the Chinese assembly sites. It raises the question of whether the long-term security benefits outweigh the short-term economic costs.
The fact that the U.S. played a significant role in pressuring the Netherlands also casts light on the delicate dance of international relations. The US-led pressure to remove the Chinese CEO is a clear indication of the concerns about China’s influence and control over strategic industries. It’s a move that some may perceive as an infringement on national sovereignty.
This situation is a stark reminder of how quickly the global landscape can shift. The decision of the Dutch government, in the context of the trade war, is seen by some as a wakeup call, forcing a rethink on European dependency on China. The future of this chipmaker, and the broader implications for the global economy, are now subject to the whims of the trade war.
The question of who “stole” technology and know-how is a point of contention. While the West initially sought cheap labor and accepted the terms of doing business in China, it is argued that China has, in turn, used its position to develop its own technological prowess. This demonstrates the long-term consequences of relying on specific countries for vital products.
The responses in this escalating situation are further complicated by the issue of European manufacturing.