
US Pressed Dutch Gov over ASML Sale - HaGoijer
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-asml-holding-usa-china-insight/trump-administration-pressed-dutch-hard-to-cancel-china-chip-equipment-sale-sources-idUSKBN1Z50HN
======
secondo
As a European I feel increasingly concerned about the influence of US in our
recent trading decisions. The sense of an alliance feels somewhat imbalanced
to say the least. Interestingly whereas we have an advanced hardware industry
we’re so far behind on leading software solutions that I doubt there will be
any change to this balance any time soon. I guess software is eating the
world...

~~~
sremani
American Security guarantees do not come for free. Feeling constrained? then
raise an Army and a Navy worth fielding and fighting Russians with out
American assistance.

~~~
cies
Or create a new NATO that does not repeatedly exclude the Russians[1]. And
could also hold a rule not to invade other countries (yes looking at you US).

[https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/fact-russia-
pitch...](https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/fact-russia-pitched-the-
idea-joining-nato-1954-18737)

~~~
Zigurd
To "not repeatedly exclude the Russians" is premature. The Russians have
invaded a European ally of the US. There is a path to Russia becoming a
welcomed part of Europe and that path leads out of Ukraine.

~~~
cies
Sorry? The US invaded so disgustingly so many places since WW2. The "invastion
of Ukraine" is not quite the same: many on Crimea want it to be with Russia?
That's a much lighter invasion when 50%+ welcomes you, than Korea, Dominican,
Vietnam, ... Iraq, Afganistan, etc.

Ukraine status as an ally is the whole point here. As I understand it they
were "given" crimea in the assumption things would stay cool. Since NATO is
hostile to Russia/USSR (they decline their membership, why would that be?),
the Ukraine joining would mean Russia could never get "it's army base" back.
See how difficult the US does today (pay 1B if you make us leave our base in
Iraq + sanctions thread)? Why should Russia not be protective of it's
interests?

That "ally" thing is quite a sick reasoning. There's always some group in a
country that one can say is it's ally. South-Vietnam was the ally! South-
Korea! The common people of Iraq/Libia/Syria/Afganistan! The people on Crimea!
Sure that allegation needs some substance...

I live in neither country. And I have some anti-state tendencies in general.
But the NATO is clearly no all "love and peace" as their PR dept makes it
seem.

------
xt00
Something tells me that ASML will be the target of China hacking them and
trying to get technical info on how to build their own machine. Hate to be
pessimistic but I’ll be waiting for that news story to hit in a year or so..

~~~
dirtyid
A couple years ago, ASML silicon valley based Chinese employees (not all PRC
nationals) sold EUV trade secrets to Chinese/Korean owned XTAL. But ASML CEO
dismissed it as state level espionage and hinted the primary beneficiary was
Samsung semiconductors. From what I heard ASML goes out of their way to
prevent Samsung from reverse engineering their hardware.

But it's only a matter of time. ASML is tied to Wassenaar treaty at the end of
the day. They're the perfect US pawns.

~~~
tooltalk
There appears to be some kind of smear campaign waged against Samsung by its
foundry competitor TSMC at national level. Not sure about this insecurity or
fake rivalry by Taiwanese tech companies who see Samsung as a major threat
([https://phys.org/news/2013-04-taiwan-tech-industry-
samsung.h...](https://phys.org/news/2013-04-taiwan-tech-industry-
samsung.html)), but according to Reuters:

 _ASML rejects Samsung 's involvement in IP theft case with rival_, APRIL 17,
2019, [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-asml-holding-spying-
samsu...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-asml-holding-spying-samsung-
elec/asml-rejects-samsungs-involvement-in-ip-theft-case-with-rival-
idUSKCN1RT1UR)

Samsung invested heavily in both companies XTAL and ASML (and owned at least
5% of the company at one point). Further, Samsung was never in semi-
equipment/chemical business -- that's simply not their core competence.

~~~
dirtyid
I don't think it's a smear campaign per say, Samsung stole their their way to
display tech dominance. It's just recognition that these tactics are still
being embraced in lagging industries in some countries. ASML has no-touch
policy for Samsung employees for their scanners, they've been pretty savvy in
mitigating attempts at copying their tech for the last 20 years.

Also I didn't mean to implicate Samsung was behind the attacks, merely they
benefited most from stolen trade secrets - XTAL directly compete against ASML
in Korean using the secret. The same way Huawei and BOE will benefit from
flexible screen tech stolen by Samsung subcontractor Toptek. So far these have
been economically motivated - thieves not spies.

I think state level espionage is going to happen soon, now that ASML has been
pressured to pick sides.

~~~
tartoran
[https://bits-chips.nl/artikel/to-asml-china-is-just-
another-...](https://bits-chips.nl/artikel/to-asml-china-is-just-another-
korea/)

~~~
tooltalk
_ASML rejects Samsung 's involvement in IP theft case with rival_, APRIL 17,
2019, [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-asml-holding-spying-
samsu...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-asml-holding-spying-samsu..).

------
est31
Wars will more and more be fought by remote controlled or autonomous drones.
People are more ready to become soldiers if they can stay in a safe country,
press some buttons, and their life won't be at stake. Wars will be less
unpopular in the countries that deploy those drones. Even traditional forms of
combat are increasingly supported by technology.

ASML is a key component here: they build the machines needed to build the chip
components of drones. In future wars, having microchip fabs will be as
important as having steel mills was in WW2. So ASML has huge strategic
importance.

~~~
deogeo
You don't need to fight traditional wars if you can dominate economically.
Which seems to be what China has been doing so far.

~~~
est31
Economic sanctions are a powerful instrument but they are only as powerful as
much as the people involved care about their economy. ISIS doesn't care about
economics, they care about beheading non-muslims and creating a medieval
society. Taliban could have gotten rich from accepting mining companies into
their country but instead they chose to fly attacks on the USA and ruin their
reputation. North Korea's economy is a shadow of the south Korean one yet they
won't give in and stop their nuclear program in exchange for economic help.
Managing these people requires application of immediate force, aka military.

Regarding China, it is building a monopoly in the hardware sector. It's
already impossible to avoid China if you want to build a smartphone. The more
this trend continues, the more China will exert influence with its power over
that sector. For a military conflict with China, which isn't unlikely in the
future, this means that anyone else would be at a disadvantage.

------
Zigurd
Trying to keep technology from China is a qualitatively different problem from
other technology sanctions. Russia, for example, has half the GDP of France.
Denying a technology to Russia is effective because the relative price to
Russia to work around technology restrictions is much higher. It costs them,
measurably, visibly, in resources not applied to other pressing needs.

In the case of China, an import restriction amounts to an endorsement that
replicating that technology is a higher priority for a country that, in
general, is entering the first tier of technological powers. Picking fights
with benefits that won't evaporate in a short time would be wise.

~~~
elfexec
> Russia, for example, has half the GDP of France.

Only in nominal terms. Russia's economy is 50% larger in PPP terms.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_\(PPP\))

We can argue about nominal vs PPP forever, but I think people should be aware
of both.

> Denying a technology to Russia is effective because the relative price to
> Russia to work around technology restrictions is much higher.

Sanctions for countries like Russia and China are more of a nuisance than
anything. It just means they have to pay a little bit more to buy/steal/access
the technology.

For example, China had to pay extra to get israel to give them military tech
denied to them by the US.

[https://www.military.com/defensetech/2013/12/24/report-
israe...](https://www.military.com/defensetech/2013/12/24/report-israel-
passes-u-s-military-technology-to-china)

Countries like Russia and China have money, technology or political favors (
both are permanent security council members with veto power ) that they can
trade with our enemies or our allies to gain access to tech.

Of course the US is unsanctionable. The US is the only country in the world
where if another country placed sanctions on the US, it would hurt them and
not the US.

------
java-man
All this will do is encourage development of indigenous technology. Unlike,
let's say IBM360/USSR situation.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_computing_in_the_So...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_computing_in_the_Soviet_Union)

