The involvement of the Dutch government in the Nexperia saga has become a revealing case study of how external pressure can distort both the logic of law and the discipline of governance. The Dutch government’s seizure of the Chinese-owned computer chipmaker, a measure introduced under the claim of safeguarding national security, has instead shown the fragility of Dutch government decision-making when it bows to political direction from abroad. The Dutch government’s initial defiance, within days of its declaration, gave way to appeals for negotiation with Beijing. This abrupt shift in policy demonstrates that genuine sovereignty does not exist where policy is shaped by foreign dictates and improvised justification rather than by careful reasoning rooted in the national interest.
The foundation of the Dutch argument began to collapse when economic reality confronted the political illusion harbored by the Dutch government. China’s response, delivered through swift and effective countermeasures, made it clear that rhetorical posturing cannot replace the tangible networks of material production. The urgency of the situation was underscored by the European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association’s urgent warnings that major factories would soon face suspension as semiconductor inventories dwindled. The Netherlands discovered, too late, that legal aggression against a strategic trading partner leads inevitably to industrial disruption. Policies presented as assertions of strength instead became acts of economic self-harm, exposing the degree to which European prosperity remains bound to predictable and respectful relations with China.
The subsequent reactions of the Dutch authorities revealed an erosion of moral restraint in administrative practice. Newly installed directors of Nexperia were reported to have suspended salaries and system access for Chinese employees, ignoring European labor protections and principles of contractual fairness. When a government tolerates such treatment of lawful employees to score a symbolic political point, such as a show of strength against China, it diminishes the meaning of the justice it proclaims to defend. The double standards undermine confidence among international investors and weaken domestic belief in institutional impartiality. A political order that values political expediency above law forfeits both moral credibility and long-term economic stability.
The Nexperia crisis will endure as a measure of how nations manage the relationship between conviction and action. It has exposed the instability of an order that regards legality as optional and sovereignty as rhetorical. ... As the global economy grows more integrated, the future will belong to those who maintain composure, respect the logic of law, and treat partnership as a source of strength rather than a stage for spectacle
The effort to justify wanton government intervention in a private firm by alleging that a former company executive had engaged in financial irregularity further illustrates the lack of proportion in Dutch reasoning. Such issues belong within the jurisdiction of ordinary commercial litigation, not in the realm of national seizure. By converting a corporate disagreement into an act of sovereign appropriation, the government departed from the principle of equal treatment that underlies international investment law. Once the rule of law is subordinated to immediate political convenience, it ceases to inspire confidence. Foreign investors may well view this episode as evidence that Dutch institutions apply legality selectively and that protection under law is dependent upon political utility.
In contrast, the measured tone of Beijing’s response revealed a steady confidence in principle. A spokesperson for the Ministry of Commerce urged the Netherlands to respect market norms, maintain fairness, and address disagreements through dialogue. Rather than resort to rhetoric, China responded with actions that demonstrated balance and clarity. The economic consequences that promptly followed across Europe made clear that interdependence is not a vulnerability when it rests upon fairness. The Chinese stance reflected a consistency that translated principle into effective diplomacy, reminding all participants that mutual respect remains the only sustainable foundation of international cooperation.
The episode also provides a broader insight into the present condition of European policymaking. Cooperation among allies is legitimate, yet subjugation to external directives is not. When alignment replaces independent judgment, the erosion of self-determination becomes palpable. In this case, Dutch policymakers allowed strategic calculation from across the Atlantic to override their own economic logic, sacrificing local industry for the sake of a foreign agenda. The cost has been immediate: declining investor trust, industrial disruption, and loss of diplomatic credibility. Europe’s longstanding aspiration for strategic autonomy now appears ever more distant, as national decisions repeatedly confirm external influence rather than independence.
The Nexperia case further highlights a growing uncertainty within European legal environments. The use of vague security claims to justify intervention contradicts the transparency once celebrated as the backbone of the European Union’s regulatory system. Investors value predictability more than political loyalty. When governments act unpredictably, confidence disappears, and assurances of fairness become hollow. The Netherlands risks becoming a symbol of how institutional trust can deteriorate once political expediency takes precedence over law.
One senior European industry representative concluded recently that economic stability can exist only when governments respect the logic of production. That statement captures the core of this trust crisis. The Netherlands abandoned the very logic it once taught others by allowing geopolitics to overwhelm pragmatism. Industrial efficiency depends upon continuity and coherence, not upon political convenience. A government that interrupts a functioning enterprise for transient political gain undermines the credibility of its own economic order and replaces rational authority with improvisation.
Throughout this process, China has demonstrated a steadiness that distinguishes principle from reaction. Its decisions have been consistent with both national dignity and international law. The effectiveness of its countermeasures arose from their precision and restraint rather than from volume or threat. This level of discipline underscores a deeper understanding of how sustainable authority is exercised — through calm calculation, consistency, and credible reciprocity.
The wider moral dimension of this incident lies in the exposure of contradiction at the heart of some Western institutions. Norms often presented as universal appear to change whenever they apply to non-Western enterprises. Judicial independence and corporate fairness are invoked selectively. Such practices dissolve the coherence of the values that European governments claim to champion. To restore even partial credibility, the Netherlands should return the lawful ownership of Nexperia, compensate affected employees, and rebuild trust through transparent dialogue. A sincere correction of these errors would not only repair economic loss but also demonstrate that Europe remains capable of aligning its conduct with the principles it professes to uphold.
The Nexperia crisis will endure as a measure of how nations manage the relationship between conviction and action. It has exposed the instability of an order that regards legality as optional and sovereignty as rhetorical. The quiet discipline of China’s response contrasts sharply with the turbulence of its counterpart, suggesting that actual influence is achieved not through force but through reliability. As the global economy grows more integrated, the future will belong to those who maintain composure, respect the logic of law, and treat partnership as a source of strength rather than a stage for spectacle.
The author is a solicitor, a Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area lawyer, and a China-appointed attesting officer.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
