【Text by Observers Network, Juan Jiaqi】
The court documents are clear, yet the Netherlands refuses to admit it.
According to NOS, a Dutch radio station, despite court records showing that the U.S. had contacted the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs and explicitly requested "replacing" the Chinese leadership at the Chinese-owned company Wanxi Semiconductor, Dutch Minister of Economic Affairs Vincent Kaelmann still attempted to defend his position, claiming that the country's "historical intervention" in Chinese enterprises was not influenced by the U.S., and instead accused China of "mixing facts."
"The (Chinese) claim that we were pressured by the U.S. and colluded secretly is not true," said this outgoing acting minister, who claimed he had never communicated with any U.S. officials on the matter, stating, "Whether this decision or previous choices, they were all my own judgments based on my own considerations." The Netherlands is currently in a caretaker government state. After the collapse of the Schoof government, the Dutch House of Representatives elections are scheduled for October 29.
However, Kaelmann did not explain the content revealed in the legal documents: Court documents released by the Amsterdam Court of Appeal on October 14 showed that as early as June, U.S. officials had already informed Dutch officials that if Wanxi Semiconductor wanted to obtain an exemption from the U.S. revised "Entity List," its Chinese national CEO "must be replaced."
Kaelmann's statements could not even convince his own people. Maaike Ocanoe-Haymans, a scholar at the Kliniken Institute in the Netherlands who studies geopolitical and technological issues, told NOS, "The U.S. is determined to contain China's rise as a technological power. Europe has yet to clarify what kind of relationship it wants to establish with China. Therefore, the Netherlands' tough intervention measures may have been carried out under pressure from the U.S."
On October 16, during a regular press conference of the Chinese Ministry of Commerce, spokesperson He Yongqian stated that China has noticed the relevant situation and firmly opposes the Dutch government's broadening of the concept of national security and using administrative means to directly interfere in corporate internal affairs. Such actions by the Dutch side not only violate the spirit of contract and market principles but will also seriously damage the business environment in the Netherlands, harming both sides.
China also noted that the Dutch court files disclosed on the 14th showed that there had been communication between the Netherlands and the United States regarding the "penetration rules." The U.S. had asked the Netherlands to replace the Chinese CEO of Wanxi Semiconductor and adjust the governance structure to avoid being subject to the penetration rules. China has clearly expressed its position on the U.S. penetration rules, and I would like to emphasize again that such actions severely impact the international economic and trade order and seriously disrupt the security and stability of the global supply chain and industrial chain. The Dutch action is a clear example of the U.S. penetration rules undermining the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese enterprises.
Additionally, according to Reuters on the 17th, the largest production base of Wanxi Semiconductor is located in Hamburg, Germany, but most of its chip packaging and assembly processes are completed within China.
The Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs said in a statement on Friday, "We are highly concerned about the export restrictions on the Wanxi Semiconductor factories in China. We are communicating with the relevant Chinese authorities, as well as other European countries and companies to resolve the issue."
Earlier on the 15th, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian responded to the news about Wanxi Semiconductor's exports, saying that specific details should be directed to the relevant Chinese authorities. Reiterating, the Chinese government has always opposed the broadening of the concept of national security and discriminatory practices against specific countries' enterprises. Relevant countries should abide by market principles and not politicize economic and trade issues. The Chinese government's determination to safeguard its legitimate and proper rights and interests is unwavering.
Photo: Vincent Kaelmann, Minister of Economic Affairs of the Netherlands, video screenshot
Amid the Sino-U.S. rivalry, the Dutch government recently suddenly ordered the Chinese semiconductor leader, Wanxi Semiconductor, a subsidiary of Wintech Technology, to prohibit any changes involving assets, intellectual property, business, and personnel within one year starting from September 30. Subsequently, the Dutch corporate court ruling also appointed a foreigner with decisive voting rights over Wanxi Semiconductor.
Looking at the timeline, these series of operations are hard to avoid suspicion of being a carefully planned "plunder": The U.S. and the Netherlands have long cooperated closely in the field of chip industry export control. Just a day before the Dutch government took action, on September 29, the U.S. government had just issued a new export control "penetration rule," imposing equal-level export controls on Wintech Technology's subsidiaries listed on the "Entity List" with more than 50% shareholding.
Many foreign media outlets, including Bloomberg and the Financial Times, have noted the high coordination of the U.S. and Dutch actions, speculating that the Netherlands' move was likely guided by the U.S.
The Wall Street Journal also reported exclusively, citing a meeting recording it obtained, that a Wintech Technology executive had openly stated in an investor call on the 12th that the Dutch government's directive was a pretext for the new U.S. regulations, actually aimed at seizing control. The executive told investors, "The Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs is clearly a docile sheep following the U.S. government."
This speculation was quickly denied by a spokesperson for the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs, who stated that the U.S. had not participated in the Dutch decision-making process regarding Wanxi Semiconductor, and the timing of the action was "pure coincidence."
However, the detailed court documents later released by the Amsterdam Court of Appeal revealed the behind-the-scenes dealings:
The documents show that the U.S. notified Dutch officials in June that they would expand the scope of the "Entity List," extending sanctions to subsidiaries held by more than 50% of the entities on the list. The U.S. warned the Dutch government that if the Dutch-based Wanxi Semiconductor, as a subsidiary of Wintech Technology, wished to apply for an exemption from the list, it must replace its leadership.
On June 5, the Dutch side conveyed to Wanxi Semiconductor after a meeting with the U.S. that if the company applied for an exemption, the U.S. would "consider mitigation measures specifically."
In further discussions on June 12, the U.S. added, "It can be understood that it takes time to divest equity... but the company's CEO is still a Chinese national, which is a problem. It is almost certain that, to obtain an exemption, the CEO must be replaced."
Three months later, on September 30, the Dutch government cited "serious defects in governance" as the reason to first use the "Commodity Supply Act" to intervene in the management of Wanxi Semiconductor, suspending Zhang Xuezhen, the actual controller of Wintech Technology, from his positions as non-executive and executive director at Wanxi Semiconductor.
The Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs' instructions also emphasized, "This decision aims to prevent a risk that, in an emergency, the products (finished and semi-finished) produced by Wanxi Semiconductor may not be supplied, including chips used in the European automotive industry and consumer electronics sectors."
An employee walks through the clean room of Wanxi Semiconductor. Visual China
Even facing the undeniable evidence in the court documents, on the 14th, Oekje de Vries, the State Secretary for Foreign Trade of the Netherlands, still claimed to the European edition of Politico that the Netherlands made the decision to "take over" Wanxi Semiconductor on its own.
When discussing the intervention in the operation of Wanxi Semiconductor, Kaelmann on the 17th also claimed that this decision was carefully considered, "When you use a law that has never been used before, you must fully assess all possible situations and consider potential consequences."
The Dutch government's actions have already caused major concerns in the automotive industry. According to Reuters on the 16th, multiple major automotive manufacturers' organizations in Europe and the U.S. warned that the chip supply disruption caused by the dispute between China and the Netherlands might quickly affect the U.S. automobile production. The report emphasized that the chips produced by Wanxi Semiconductor are crucial to the U.S. parts and automobile production.
The European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA) said that several automakers and their suppliers received notices from the chip manufacturer Wanxi Semiconductor, stating that it could no longer guarantee chip deliveries. ACEA warned that the automotive industry could face serious disruptions.
In the U.S., the American Automotive Innovation Alliance (AAI), representing almost all major automakers such as General Motors, Toyota, Ford, Volkswagen, and Hyundai, also urged a prompt resolution of the issue.
AAI Chief Executive John Bozzella said, "If the shipment of automotive chips cannot be quickly restored, this will disrupt the automobile production in the U.S. and many other countries, and have severe spillover effects on other industries." Some automakers told Reuters that U.S. automobile factories could be affected as early as next month.
Dutch media also mentioned that the German Electrical Engineers Association (VDE) has also issued a warning, expecting supply shortages within weeks.
Facing the developments, Kaelmann said on the 17th that he hoped to find a solution through consultations with the Chinese authorities.
NOS reported that in current communications with Wanxi Semiconductor and the Chinese side, Kaelmann emphasized the importance of such chips to the economies of various countries, "We must ensure that Wanxi Semiconductor gets out of the current situation, which is in the interest of the U.S., the Netherlands, Europe, and the Chinese economy."
Kaelmann claimed that based on these common interests, he is optimistic about the prospects of the negotiations, but refused to disclose whether he had contacted Chinese officials.
According to the Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf on the 18th, in the eyes of observers, the Netherlands' move is equivalent to "playing with fire."
"This has never happened in Europe before," warned Benedetta Giaraldi, a strategic analyst at the Hague Center for Strategic Studies (HCSS) to Kaelmann, "Minister, be careful! You're playing with fire. Don't let the Netherlands burn itself."
Frans-Paul van der Putten of the Kliniken Institute in the Netherlands was also surprised, "Other countries have done such foolish things in the past, but the Netherlands wouldn't."
Former Dutch Ambassador to China, Gao Wenbo, is worried that this move may trigger countermeasures from China, "The previous restriction on ASML's export of chip equipment to China has caused much dissatisfaction. China may take the Netherlands as an example to send a message, leaving us aside. Norway and Lithuania have experienced this before."
He further pointed out that the countermeasures from China may not be limited to the technology sector, but may also extend to other areas, "such as our agricultural product exports. Previously, the Netherlands supported increasing tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles, and now Dutch pork faces higher import taxes from China."
Van der Putten also said that if the Netherlands does not want to be forced to choose sides between the U.S. and China, the best approach is to diversify risks rather than choosing one side, "but the pressure from the U.S. is stronger than that from China. Moreover, we have close ties with the U.S. in defense through NATO. Our military infrastructure is integrated, so our dependence on the U.S. is much higher."
He believes that one of the underlying logics is "the Sino-U.S. rivalry issue," and on this point, "the Netherlands has no say."
At the regular press conference of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs on October 17, spokesperson Lin Jian once again addressed the issue of the Dutch government's interference in the operations of Chinese enterprises, stating that they had previously responded to the issue, and the relevant Chinese authorities had further clarified their position yesterday. I would like to emphasize again that the Chinese government has always opposed the broadening of the concept of national security and discriminatory practices targeting specific countries' enterprises. Relevant countries should correct their wrong practices, adhere to the spirit of contracts and market principles, and stop disrupting the global production capacity. The Chinese government will resolutely safeguard its legitimate and proper rights and interests.
This article is an exclusive article of Observers Network, and unauthorized reproduction is prohibited.
Original: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7562506842174243382/
Statement: This article represents the views of the author. Please express your opinion by clicking on the 【top/foot】 button below.