Comment by adrian_b
4 months ago
China has the right to protest, because nowadays the Chinese companies are not "subjected to the same type of treatment".
There is a huge difference between establishing from the beginning clear rules that set limits to foreign investment, like in China, and changing the rules afterwards, after luring foreign investors, and then taking ownership of their assets, like for Tik Tok and Nexperia.
Obviously I agree that USA and the EU have acted very foolishly in the past by exporting technology to China (foolishly for the national interests, while a few have been greatly enriched by this), but at least they followed consistent policies, not like now, when they change the rules of the game whenever they see that they are the losers.
Philips Semiconductors should have never been sold and become non-Dutch, but if they have been so stupid as to do this, they should assume their responsibility and finance the creation of a new European semiconductor device manufacturer, to ensure the independence of hostile entities.
China also protested when tariffs were floated and any kind of non-retroactive protectionism was proposed. Framing this as only being a problem because the "rules were changed afterward" is deceptive (as is implying that China has "clear" rules). In any case, this Dutch government takeover was done on the basis of a law from 1952, so no, the rules were not changed after "luring" investors (who retain ownership and can still sell their shares, they were not expropriated, so they lose no money).