The Dutch government has just announced loudly "to take over Anselm", and after a few days, Anselm China has quietly opened its doors.
The goods are still that batch of goods, the people are still that batch of people, but the game has changed: only for the Chinese market, only to collect the RMB, the dollar please avoid. this series of operations seems low, in fact, each trick is accurate as in the chess, a necklace, step for step.
How does “technical protection” become “self-supply”?
Whoever moves Anselm, China moves the supply chain
The story starts in September, and the protagonists are China's Wentai Technology and its subsidiary Anshi Semiconductor.
On the surface, this company is registered in the Netherlands, but in fact it has long been controlled by Chinese capital. Eighty percent of its production lines are in China, most of its employees are China, and the market is mainly in China.
However, at the order of the United States, the Dutch government suddenly "woke up", saying that in order to prevent technology leakage, it was necessary to restrict the operation of Anshi in the Netherlands and planned to "temporarily take over".
This wave of operation is neither temporary nor opportune, and is clearly associated with the US blockade of China's semiconductor industry.
The question is, they have forgotten to ask: Where is Anselm’s real gate? the answer is not in the office buildings in Amsterdam, but in those factories in Jiangsu, Shanghai, and Incheon.
As a result, China's Ministry of Commerce issued an export control order on October 4, freezing Anshi China's products in place. If you want to cut off my technology, I will cut you off. You want to take control of me, I'll let you have nothing to sell.
This trick was not only quick, but also accurate, putting the Dutch government in place and even breathing.
A few days later, news came out of the Netherlands that Nexperia had resumed supplies.
But do not rejoice too early, the restoration is only the supply to the Chinese market, and there are two "new rules": one is to sell only China, not outflow; and the second is to collect only the yuan, the dollar stands on the sidelines.
This is not a simple business choice, it is a rigorous counteraction.If you want to play politics, I’ll let the market judge.
At this time, either the Netherlands or the United States, probably realized one problem: China's industrial chain's "card neck" ability is not just a legend.
You want to block my technology, I'll cut you out of stock
In this game, on the surface, it seems that a Chinese-controlled Dutch company is restricted, but the logic behind it is actually more complicated.
The Dutch government's reason is to "prevent the outflow of key technologies", but Anselm's technology has long been localized in China, production has long been localized, technical talents are also in China, you are not technology, but your own exports.
Western countries are always talking about "disconnect", but really to the stage of implementation, only to find that the rope bound their own feet. Anselm's products, in the field of automotive electronics, industrial control, Internet of things have irreplaceable position.
In other words, if Ancelotti confesses, the automotive industry chain will have to "play a roll".
And this is where China's confidence lies in counterattack. Export control is not a blind attack, but a precise pressure. You block my chip, I cut off your supply. If you engage in technical blockade, I will let you taste the price of decoupling the market.
More interestingly, the Chinese side has made it clear this time that “the decision of Anselm’s Dutch headquarters is invalid in China”, that is, even if you change the board outside and enter the Chinese market, you must obey the Chinese rules.
This is not a quick speech, but a declaration of law and sovereignty.You can paint the rules of your house, but you must follow the rules of my house.
While these rules are changing quietly, the settlement of the RMB seems to be a technical arrangement, in fact, behind the game of monetary influence.In the past, international trade, most of which are paid in dollars, Chinese companies can only passively accept exchange rate fluctuations and financial risks.
Now, change the currency, also change the mindset: you interfere with my business, then I push the RMB to "go out".
From this point of view, the Anshi incident is not only a corporate dispute, but also a recalibration of "globalization rules". Whoever can control the industrial chain can redefine fairness.
Finally, we have to see who can make the chip.
Many people may ask: Why did the Dutch government take this risk to take over Anshi?
The answer is actually not that complicated: first, the United States is in a hurry, and second, it is afraid of being left too far on the high-tech track. But the problem is, the technical blockade can't be effective just by shouting loudly.
Anselm's technology has long achieved the domestic digestion of China, key equipment in China, core personnel in China, and the production process is also in China.
What about the Netherlands? A caretaker government can't even handle the domestic parliament, but it wants to "make tough moves" on trade with China. If politics is unstable, policies will waver.
Talk about takeover today, and you have to figure out how to get it back tomorrow. Moreover, the European economy is already weak now, and the auto industry is even more miserable. If Anshi really wants to cut off supply, I'm afraid the calls for "decoupling" will soon be overshadowed by the calls for "help".
Not to mention the shadow of the United States is shaking behind, since 2024 after Trump's return to the White House, the technological and technological warfare against China has been fully opened, and a series of "non-me camp, all enemies" campaigns have been launched.
But when you look at everyone as an opponent, it’s hard to find real friends.The United States can push the Netherlands for short term but can’t help it fill the supply chain gap.
On the side of China, there is no high-profile counterattack, no war of words, only practical tactics one after another. First, sovereignty is declared at the legal level, then precise countermeasures at the market level, and finally institutional innovation in currency settlement.
In the final analysis, technology is created, not called out by "blockade". If the West really wants to "win China" in high technology, it has to rely on its real skills, instead of cutting other people's wires to make itself look bright.
Whoever controls the supply chain has the right to speak.
The Anshi incident may seem to be a disturbance for a company, but in fact it leads to three key propositions: Who owns the core of the industry? Who decides how to trade? Who can define global rules?
China’s response is not just to protect a company, but to tell the world in action: Stop looking at globalization with the Cold War mindset.
From export control, to the settlement of the RMB, to the law denying the effect of “taking over”, every step emphasizes a core logic: Chinese enterprises are not passive recipients, but rules-shapers.
If someone wants to fight a technological war that is not winning, they must be prepared to take counter-action.
Anselm’s problem will not be completely solved? maybe it will be time. but this game has shown that today’s world’s supply chain has long been me in you and you in me. Whoever wants to exclusive technological dividends can be faked by reality.
Although the Netherlands has lost its voice, China's actions have just begun.