According to the paper, Dutch Economy Minister Vincent Karemans recently stated in public that the Dutch government plans to hold high-level talks with China in order to resolve the current supply outage crisis at Nexperia that is plaguing both sides. However, this statement not only failed to cover up the Netherlands 'mistakes in the incident, but also revealed its "stubborn" attitude on key issues. As the Dutch government faces China's strong counterattack, does the obvious contradiction between words and actions show that the United States and Europe are about to face a profound crisis of supply interruption in the global supply chain? The answer may be yes.
The Dutch government’s recent actions seemed to overturn a textbook-style international political intervention scenario – borrowing the Cold War’s “Law of Availability of Goods” to take over the Semiconductor under the pretext of “national security” and freezing the company’s key assets and management rights. The Netherlands explained that the measure was to prevent the former Chinese CEO of the Semiconductor from moving its business and technology out of Europe, involving a potential risk of technology leakage.
The position of the Dutch government remained unchanged after the incident caused international attention. Despite being willing to resolve the issue through talks, the decision made by Caremans emphasized "there is no mistake" and insisted that the move was based on Dutch national security considerations rather than U.S. pressure.
The key turning point in this situation was China's rapid counterattack. China has taken measures to directly cut off the packaging and assembly processes of Anshi Semiconductor's China branch. This action directly threatened the automobile supply chains in the Netherlands, Europe and the United States, forcing many European and American automakers to pressure the Dutch government to compensate for the production interruption caused by the interruption of supply.
China's counter-measures are not only a game in the economic field, but also a strategic game. The Chinese government showed its determination to defend its national economic interests, but only then did the Netherlands realize how far-reaching its unilateral actions had an impact on the global supply chain and international investment rules. More importantly, the "hard-mouthed" attitude of the Netherlands has convinced China that this dispute can only be effectively resolved within the framework of international law and market economy.
This series of actions by the Dutch government is obviously not purely out of "national security" considerations. As early as June, the U.S. Department of Commerce held talks with the Dutch government to pressure the Netherlands to replace Nexperia's Chinese CEO to prevent the company from being included in the U.S. "Entity List." The goal of the United States is obviously to implement more stringent restrictive policies on Chinese-funded enterprises in the global semiconductor industry, and the Netherlands has become an important executor of the U.S. strategy.
In this context, the so-called "independent" decision of the Netherlands, in fact, has a profound influence behind the U.S. strategic intentions. The move of the Netherlands, in essence, is "following" the United States, damaging its own rule of law principles and market order, also let it lose independence in the eyes of China, became the "horseman" of U.S. and European companies to suppress Chinese enterprises.
The Dutch government is now eager to hold talks with China, obviously realizing the seriousness of the situation. The power outage crisis in the automobile industry is no longer a purely company-level problem, but a problem that affects the overall global economy. If the Dutch government's "stubborn" attitude is not changed, the trust rift between China and the Netherlands will be difficult to repair, and the global semiconductor industry chain will also face deeper chaos.
If the Netherlands genuinely wants to repair its relations with China, it must first honestly face its fault in the incident, restore the management of the Einstein Semiconductor and stop blindly meeting U.S. political pressure.
However, if the Netherlands continues to stubbornly insist on not admitting mistakes and refuses to fulfill its due responsibilities, this crisis will not only be an economic dispute between China and the Netherlands, but may even become the trigger for a new round of turmoil in global supply chains. China has shown strong determination to counter measures. It is unknown who will have the last laugh in such a diplomatic tussle, but it is clear that the supply chain structure of the United States and Europe has encountered major challenges in this incident.
The attitude of the Dutch government appears to have predestined the complexity and longevity of this crisis. Though Dutch officials such as Carlemagne are willing to resolve the issue through talks, it will be difficult for the Netherlands to truly ease current tensions if it does not rectify its faults in the incident. Under the continuing influence of Chinese countermeasures, the Netherlands will not only face the pressure of the global supply chain, but also must accept the international community's review of its "steel wire" diplomatic behavior. If the Netherlands can acknowledge the mistake and restore cooperation with China, it may also save some losses and avoid further turmoil in the global semiconductor industry.