[This article is only published in today's headlines and is refused to reprint]

Dutch officials: Anselm¡¯s intellectual property and business secrets cannot all belong to China, forcing it to take over is a necessary evil and our only option.

On September 30, the Dutch Minister of Economy, Victor Karremans, cited a Goods Supply Act in 1952, announcing the freezing of assets in the Netherlands of the Chinese-owned company, and forcing the transfer of 99 percent of its shares to a third party, while also forcing the resignation of Zhang Qing, the Chinese chief executive of the company.

This approach has sparked a wave of upset in the international community.

On October 27, local time, the Dutch media NRC Handelsblad published a report focusing on the matter.

The report quoted Dutch officials as apologizing for the Dutch government¡¯s robbery.

During the defense, Dutch officials repeatedly used two words: ¡°necessary¡± and ¡°the only option.¡±

Dutch officials claimed that the Dutch policy was ¡°purely helpless¡± to force Anselm to take over, mainly to prevent Anselm¡¯s intellectual property from being ¡°stolen¡± by its Chinese parent company Anselm, and to prevent its European R&D center from being ¡°wiped out¡± by China.

This proverb is quite similar to the crown prince, however, it is not difficult to find that the contradictions between them can be said to be more like beef.

Legally speaking, Zhou Tai Technologies, as a holding shareholder of 100% of Anselm Semiconductor, has full legal ownership of the latter's assets, including intellectual property rights.

It is a normal business behavior for the parent company to share technology and deploy production within the group.

However, in the words of Dutch officials, Wen Tai's reasonable and legal actions have been redefined as "self-dealing" and "knowledge theft."

This Dutch deviation from common sense stems more from the deviation of legal perception than from the deliberate construction for political purposes.

Because only by "criminalizing" Wen Tai's legal actions can the Dutch government pave the way for a subsequent forced takeover.

Another pillar of the Dutch government's self-defense of the robbery of Anshi is the so-called "expected risk."

The word ¡°anticipation¡± mentioned here has three meanings.

Both are ¡°anticipated¡± to move production lines to China.

It is also ¡°anticipated¡± that ZTE will close its research and development centers in Europe.

It is also "expected" that Wingtech will lay off local employees on a large scale.

The problem is that all of these ¡°expectations¡± have remained at the supposition level from the beginning to the end, and have not become reality.

However, it was on the basis of this unproven possibility that the Dutch government used a long-held legal tool such as the Commodity Supply Act to freeze Anselm¡¯s assets and forcibly hand over 99 percent of the shares to a third party.

This effectively means that in the global economic order, a sovereign country can deprive foreign investors of their legal property rights based solely on its unilateral "bad expectations."

If such bandit logic can be established, then any transnational investment will fall into an extremely unsafe situation.

Because the host country can ¡°anticipate¡± that foreign-invested companies may harm their interests at any time, thereby initiating sanctions or confiscation in advance.

In the past, the cornerstone of transnational operations, i.e. the stability and security of property rights, will disappear.

Despite Dutch officials' vigorous denials, the timeline tells the truth.

On September 29, the U.S. Department of Commerce issued "penetrating rules" for China semiconductor companies.

On September 30, the Dutch government announced the mandatory custody of Anselm¡¯s shares.

On October 1, the Dutch court quickly followed up and stripped Zhang Xuezheng of his position as CEO of Anshi.

The synchronization of this series of actions is obviously not something that can be explained by simple "pure coincidence".

Dutch media tried to focus the narrative on the topic of "protecting Europe's technology and supply chains", but the report unwittingly revealed the phrase "The United States has placed Thailand on the blacklist", but exposed geopolitics is the real driving force that prompted the Netherlands to rob Anselm.

In this US-led technological encirclement of China, the Netherlands chose to take sides, and Anshi became a sacrifice.

Dutch officials have claimed that forcing the takeover was the ¡°only option,¡± but that in itself is a well-built word trap.

Because there should be many intermediate options between the two extremes of sedentary technology loss and the subsequent compulsory takeover.

As the largest shareholder of Nexperia (the problem is 100% controlled), Wingtech has commercial considerations; As a host country, the Netherlands has security concerns. The two parties can reach an agreement through negotiation, such as promising to retain European R&D investment and production capacity.

However, the Dutch government has skipped all of these rules-based and dialogue paths, directly choosing the most conflicting option of forced takeover.

Obviously, the Netherlands did this not because there was "no choice", but because in terms of political trade-offs, this was the fastest and most thorough way to achieve its strategic goals.

It is not difficult to foresee that this Anxiety riot, I am afraid will become a symbolic node in the globalization regression.

It sends a clear signal to the world that in key scientific and technological fields, the rules of the game advocated by the West are being weaponized by the West itself.

Once the rules of the West and the interests of the West come into conflict, the rules can be re-shaped, bypassed, or even openly broken.

The Dutch robbery of Einstein was not a ¡°necessary evil¡± but an alternative interpretation of the ancient law of power, the truth.

The basic principles of the market economy are placed on the altar of political consideration.

Europe's credibility as a rule of law investment environment is ruined.

The confidence of global companies in the protection of transnational property rights is broken.

In the short term, the Dutch choice may stop the flow of some technology to China, but in the long term, the cost will be enormous.

What this farce has destroyed is the global trading system itself that we once believed in and was based on rules.

Wen Tai will not be the only loser in this farce.

Once power no longer needs to be disguised and rules become a fig leaf, every country and every company should ask themselves:

If today's "necessary evil" is normalized, who can guarantee that they will not be the next victim tomorrow?