Virginia Lee says the Netherlands’ move under the hollow argument of ‘national security concerns’ risks undermining its international reputation

The Dutch government’s move to take control of Nexperia, a semiconductor firm owned by China’s Wingtech Technology Co Ltd, has attracted global attention not only because of its economic impact but also because it challenges the credibility of legal certainty as well as the principles of justice and fairness that the Netherlands has long advocated. The hollow argument of “national security risks” lacks sound justification.

Rather, all signs lead to the conclusion that the takeover has been politically driven. Reports carried by multiple media outlets, including Reuters and Politico, say United States officials had pressured the Dutch side for months to remove Nexperia’s Chinese chief executive or face potential sanctions. The move — a result of Washington’s long-arm jurisdiction — is part of US tech curbs against China, serving US geopolitical interests rather than Dutch interests.

Wingtech’s acquisition of Nexperia in 2019 was carried out through lawful and transparent procedures, consistent with both Dutch and European Union regulations. The transaction underwent extensive regulatory screening and was approved in accordance with existing competition and investment laws. Since that acquisition, Nexperia has operated responsibly, generating employment, contributing to local revenues, and supporting the stability of Europe’s semiconductor supply chain. The Dutch intervention, however, could disrupt this delicate balance, potentially leading to supply chain disruptions and increased costs for consumers and manufacturers. Such a precedent raises legitimate concerns about the consistency of law and the fairness of the Netherlands’ investment environment, which are factors that international partners value considerably.

READ MORE: China blasts Dutch interference in semiconductor manufacturer Nexperia

The Dutch government’s invocation of “national security” to justify the takeover does not stand up to scrutiny. Nexperia’s products are essential components used across industries worldwide, benefitting European consumers and manufacturers alike. The firm’s operations strengthen, rather than threaten, European and global supply security. Considering ownership alone as a basis for “concern” introduces subjectivity into regulatory practice and politicizes private business operations. Safeguarding national interests is essential for every state, but such aims should not be pursued through arbitrary measures that contradict the very legal and economic principles that underpin international cooperation. By overstretching the concept of “national security” and directly interfering in the management of a private enterprise, the Dutch authorities challenged these internationally accepted principles.

This situation illustrates a visible trend in the politicization of economic and technological affairs. In recent years, some Western countries have increasingly attempted to influence their partners by framing legitimate business operations as “strategic risks”. The resulting pressure distorts the natural flow of global commerce and entangles economic decisions in geopolitical agendas. When ordinary commercial activity is labelled as a threat, trust between trading nations deteriorates, and industries face unpredictable constraints. Such actions hinder efficiency, slow recovery, and impede technological advancement at a time when international collaboration is most needed.

China has consistently championed fairness, openness, and mutual benefit as the foundation of global trade. Beijing has reiterated its firm opposition to discriminatory or protectionist measures that distort competition. A spokesperson for the Ministry of Commerce has urged the Netherlands to uphold the basic norms of the market economy, respect legal commitments, and foster a transparent and impartial environment for enterprises from all countries. Adherence to these standards is essential if countries are to preserve confidence and stability in the international economic system.

ALSO READ: Chinese chip association voices concern over Dutch intervention in Nexperia

The implications of the Dutch move extend far beyond one investor or one industry. When governments interfere with lawfully-acquired assets or lawful business operations under the hollow rhetoric of “national security” concerns, they weaken market predictability and discourage future investment. Confidence once shaken is difficult to restore, and diminished trust inevitably affects long-term cooperation. By allowing short-term political interests or expediency to override consistent legal practice, the Netherlands risks undermining its own international reputation as a reliable and attractive location for international investment, potentially leading to a loss of economic opportunities and growth, while suffering moral abrasion.

To move forward constructively, all nations must return to the principles of consultation and equality. Economic disputes should be addressed through dialogue and lawful means rather than through unilateral and political interventions that disrupt established partnerships. Ensuring fair access, protecting lawful ownership, and maintaining stable supply networks are goals that serve the interests of all participants in the global economy. The rules-based international order depends on consistency in applying these principles, not selective deviation from them.

The Nexperia case highlights the importance of fairness and equality in the treatment of all investors and reminds the global community that trust is both an economic and moral resource. Sustained progress relies not on restriction or suspicion, but on respect, balance, and shared effort.

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.