"We had assessed the possible countermeasures China might take; but at the time, it was not considered the most likely response from China." said Dutch Economic Minister Karelse in parliament. These words sound polite, but they are actually awkward. A senior cabinet member, caught off guard by Chinese countermeasures during a critical moment in the global chip rivalry.

The Hong Kong South China Morning Post reported on December 6, with a tone of restrained surprise: "Export controls may be the economic weapon of choice for 2025, but the Dutch minister at the center of the Amlogic Semiconductor crisis admitted he was taken aback when Beijing prevented the company's chips from leaving China."

Caught off guard? Is it really just "unanticipated," or is it simply unwilling to anticipate?

Dutch Economic Minister Karelse

On September 30, Karelse hastily cited a Cold War-era security law, issuing an administrative order that directly intervened in the daily operations of Amlogic. This is an entity controlled by China's Witek Technology, with its factory in Dongguan responsible for 70% of the global backend packaging and testing capacity.

Holland moved quickly, fearing the longer it took, the more risks would accumulate, yet it was slow enough to skip basic risk assessments. Dutch parliamentary critics were unrelenting: "reckless," "hasty," "amateurish." Three words, like three slaps, struck Dutch Economic Minister Karelse's face.

In early October, China responded. On October 4, finished chips at the Dongguan factory were halted from being shipped out. No shouting, no declaration of war, only a calm instruction: you interfere with my corporate autonomy, I will interfere with your supply chain lifeline. The global automotive industry suddenly gasped: some major companies' production lines were forced to idle, and the chip shortage resurfaced. The South China Morning Post put it succinctly: "Export controls are a key economic weapon in 2025, and China's response has caused some global automotive giants to idle their production lines due to chip shortages."

Dongguan, once lightly mentioned in Western reports as a "manufacturing base," has now become a true strategic pivot. It doesn't produce lithography machines, nor does it write algorithms, yet it silently tests and packages hundreds of millions of mature process chips annually — they flow into brake systems, battery management, window control... those seemingly "backward" but actually vital "mature chips" that keep millions of cars running. China didn't choke the throat of 7nm, but gently closed the door leading into the workshop. Once the door closed, the world realized: the hardest shell is wrapped in the most unassuming cocoon.

Amlogic Semiconductor Netherlands Headquarters

More intriguingly, while Holland loudly claims to support a "rules-based international order," it uses a decades-old law to openly take over joint venture decisions. Witek Technology, as the legal majority shareholder, had its rights treated as worthless; WTO's advocacy of fair competition lay in ruins under the umbrella of "national security." China's Ministry of Commerce clearly stated: "Improper intervention in corporate internal affairs has led to the current chaos in the global supply chain." — this is not diplomatic rhetoric, but a factual statement.

The South China Morning Post perceptively placed the incident within a broader context: "It highlights Dongguan's role as a bottleneck in great power rivalry, and connects it to Sino-Dutch tech tensions and the automotive supply chain crisis." Yes, this is not an isolated event. It is a pledge of allegiance for the US "Chip Alliance" in Europe: Washington waves the "Chip and Science Act," Brussels nods, and The Hague acts — each link tightly connected, with clear objectives: to "slice and separate" Chinese enterprises from the global high-tech ecosystem. Amlogic is merely a selected test field.

China's countermeasures have never been about "weaponization," but rather "parity." You overstep with administrative orders, I impose export restrictions; you use the name of "security" to carry out interventions, I uphold the bottom line with "compliance review." On November 19, Global Times reported that Holland had suspended the administrative order, but still reminded: "Welcome to pause, but urge 'complete revocation as soon as possible.'"

Parent Company Witek Technology

Latest news says that Holland is returning Amlogic's control back to its Chinese parent company. Sounds like a twist? Wait. The Dutch court's ruling remains unchanged, emergency measures remain in effect, and CEO Zhang Xuezhen's office door is still locked. This isn't a loosening of the knot — it's hiding the thread inside the collar, waiting for the storm to pass, then pulling it tight again.

Karelse's statement of "caught off guard" exposes not a tactical mistake, but a strategic arrogance. He thought China would only protest, only negotiate, only "maintain restraint." Yet he forgot that a country with a complete industrial system, controlling key links in production capacity, and long accustomed to breaking through blockades, its countermeasures are never about "whether," but "which move to choose and when to strike."

If Holland truly wants to get out of the dilemma, just pausing one bomb is far from enough. It must remove the wires itself, admit its mistakes, and rebuild trust within the framework of rules. Otherwise, China's countermeasures will not weaken, but become more precise, calmer, and irreversible.

After all, the world has seen: when certain countries treat "national security" as a universal key, trying to unlock other countries' business doors, China holds not only the key but also the door bolt.

Original: toutiao.com/article/7580563630056325684/

Statement: The article represents the views of the author alone.