Maybe pressure from the US gov? As a negotiatingtactic vs China - remeber the moves against MotorSich in Ukraine some years back , where the deal was win-win for both but Washington put the kibosh on it and ultimately got destroyed by Russian offensive.
Since the speed/urgency and unusual application of the law as you mention , mean extraodinary actions must have quite extraordinary causes.
In any case still too many unknowns in the story , hopefully clarity ensues soonest.
Believe it or not, but the dutch government has agency. It's not impossible for US pressure to be a factor, but I think it's more likely the management of the company was planning to move production to china or something like that. That'd (rightly!) spook the government into some quick action, especially given the political climate around Russia seemingly not being content with having their war confined to Ukraine.
Unfortunately we seem to be living in interesting times.
The US has immense pressure on the dutch government, given their control over ASML . Its US big tech and semi design studios that determines who will need to buy EUV from ASML. Given ASML is not allowed to do business with China, Russia etc.
You could just add easily argue that the Dutch government has immense leverage over the US, since ASML controls the leading edge fab technology that underpins Nvidia etc. It seems more to me like a highly profitable partnership that neither side can credibly threaten to withdraw from.
Whatever control America is supposed to have is waning rapidly. America is doing a great job of ceding its soft-power and becoming an unreliable ally at best.
Although without any proof, but the Cold War history convinces me that US usually has the better hands when dealing with EU. US has the bigger and better sticks.
Only with America can EU defend itself against a potential invasion from Russia. No comment on whether it will ever happen but there is no better hand than that.
Its China they will create their own EUV ecosystem, there are sources that keep track of Chinese developments and there's a lot of EUV related patents being rewarded within China.
So i wouldn't be surprised if they will announce first initial set of EUV test runs this year or early next year as a cherry on top of their "Made in China 2025" cake.
1. OP and me were talking about the US government.
2. It's quite possible you are right about Chinese EUV capabilities - I don't have a clue myself as I don't work for NSA or CIA. On the other hand it's one more very big challenge in a field of big challenges and despite what the CCP says Chinese resources are very far from infinite and the clock is ticking demographically.
3. A set of EUV test runs would not impress me to be honest - a full blown production line of EUV generated chips would. The issue doesn't seem to be in doing EUV, the issue is to build systems that can sustain quality at volume.
Ultimately the Dutch, like for instance the Australians, are a rounding error compared to China and a pawn in a bigger game. At least the Dutch can "hide" behind the EU.
So there will noise but this won't stop China' rise and it won't stop Europe's decline, either.
Either way, it cannot be stopped, China will develop independent technology sector because they can and they have no other choice. They don't trust the West and cases like this make such attitude understandable.
As soon as China tries to compete with the rich monopolies, the "free market" goes out of the window and becomes "free to do as we tell you".
>As soon as China tries to compete with the rich monopolies, the "free market" goes out of the window and becomes "free to do as we tell you".
When China cannot compete with incumbents those protections also go up and when they can now people like you appeal to free trade (while ignoring existing protections). You are being overly charitable to one side here. Which is it? Free trade or Protectionism?
China definitely meddles with the affairs of other countries. The belt and road initiative, for example. It's taking some pages out of Europe's old colonial playbook.
You're assuming too much and, along with others here, acting like you've been hurt. "Free trade" is the mantra of Western economists and politicians since the time of Adam Smith, and it's been a ruse since then too. Read him.
> When China cannot compete with incumbents those protections also go up.
They do, but not in the erratic manner, levels or timing we're observing here. China is a party of the WTO and they haven't broken any of its agreements, nor have they used any of its emergency clauses.
> You are being overly charitable to one side here. Which is it? Free trade or Protectionism?
It's not either/or. I can tell you a third option that is worse than both of these - it's jumping from one to the other and back in an erratic manner as we are doing it now.
I could tell you something that's better than all of these too but I won't do it. I've been talking about it for many years, primarily as an alternative to free trade and I'm amazed that at this time, nobody seems to be aware of it.
Like, what's the point of pointing out obvious truths over and over again with the same (lack of) result.
>Adam Smith, and it's been a ruse since then too. Read him.
You should read Keynes as the primary opposing side to US during Bretton Woods, with strong support from most bankers at the time. The WTO has no answer to structural imbalances nor was ever intended to resolve such a matter.
The status quo you support is not grounded in economic literature than it is a incoherent mess that was created through political circumstances. Under a truly multilateral system of the ICU, China would have been severely disciplined years ago for its distortionary surplus actions.
> Under a truly multilateral system of the ICU, China would have been severely disciplined years ago for its distortionary surplus actions.
Don't blame China for this, they provided what they were asked to provide, blame those who "failed to discipline them years ago". Go to the beginning of this thread where I pointed out who tried to stop the trend.
> The status quo you support is not grounded in economic literature than it is a incoherent mess that was created through political circumstances.
The status quo is what reality is today. Punishing China has nothing to do with advancing the US economy, much less when it boils down to erratic tariffs motivated by speculation and crony business relations.
> The status quo you support is not grounded in economic literature than it is a incoherent mess that was created through political circumstances.
This is so rich that I have to correct it again, the hard way:
The economic literature is an incoherent mess that was created through political circumstances.
>Don't blame China for this, they provided what they were asked to provide, blame those who "failed to discipline them years ago"
The fact that you are referencing "they" means you don't actually know how the ICU and the Bancor works do you? Or any of Keynes' larger arguments regarding global macroeconomic stability.
