China, explained.
Nexperia, as a sponsor of Dutch football club NEC Nijmegen, had a robot deliver the match ball ahead of a match at Goffertpark in March 2025 (ANP via Getty Images)
Commercial disputes with China can escalate quickly – and apparently stable ties can be quickly upended.
Subscribe to The Informer for monthly expert analysis, and to Events for advance notice of visiting world leaders and distinguished guests.
You may unsubscribe from Lowy Institute newsletters at any time. For information on our privacy practices and how to unsubscribe, see our Privacy Policy.
What a chipmaker in the Netherlands can tell Australia about its commercial relations with ChinaWhat a chipmaker in the Netherlands can tell Australia about its commercial relations with China
The decision of the Dutch government to seize control of Chinese-owned chip manufacturer Nexperia in the Netherlands and the Chinese reaction to it bear lessons for Australia on investor confidence and the stability of commercial relations.
Nexperia is a semiconductor manufacturing company that is headquartered in the Netherlands and owned by Wingtech Technology, a Shanghai-listed Chinese company. Last week, it became publicly known that the Dutch government had seized control of the company under the Goods Availability Act, citing “recent and acute signals of serious governance shortcomings and actions within Nexperia” as a reason.
The Chinese government’s reaction to this action was prompt and swift. China’s Ministry of Commerce accused the Dutch government of “violat[ing] market principles” and threatened that China will “take necessary measures to resolutely safeguard the lawful rights and interests of Chinese enterprises”. A strongly-worded editorial in China’s state-owned newspaper Global Times went even further. It levelled the accusation of “21st century piracy” against the Dutch government and compared the action to colonial exploitation.
The resulting fall-out from decisions like this can potentially harm other businesses from the same country and damage entire sectors.
For Australia, this might not at first glance seem terribly relevant. The Netherlands is far away, and Australia does not engage in semiconductor manufacturing itself. Additionally, the general impression is that Australia’s relations with China have improved in recent times, especially after Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s and Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan’s recent trips to China.
Nevertheless, Australia should not dismiss this issue as a distant squabble over a high-tech company that does not concern it. Australia is in a similar difficult spot between security and economic concerns and thus, the lessons run deeper.
First are the oft-cited national security considerations in commercial relations with China. Although the Dutch government did not give any detailed reasons for it taking control of Nexperia, the narrative that appeared both in the global and the Chinese press was that this was done on the grounds of national security. When national security is cited, these are usually linked back to relations with the United States and the ongoing trade conflict with China. Multiple Western media outlets emphasised that Nexperia’s parent company Wingtech had been placed on the American entity list and that there had been American pressure on the Dutch government to intervene in Nexperia’s operations.
Nexperia’s headquarters in Nijmegen (Norbert Voskens via Getty Images)
There is some emerging evidence that the narrative of US pressure to seize control of the company is overly simplistic and that there were serious conflicts of interests of the CEO and financial misbehaviour that threatened the viability of the company as a semiconductor manufacturer in Europe. However, in politics, as much as in business, perceptions matter. The view created in some media outlets (and pushed by the Chinese government) is that a Western ally of the United States has taken coercive measures against a Chinese company. The Chinese government interprets this as a deliberate attempt to harm China.
Australia itself has in the past also at least entertained the possibility of seizing assets from Chinese investors. An example of this is the Port of Darwin and the discussions about national security concerns in relation to the port facilities. Even though these concerns have been repeatedly rejected by Australian defence officials, it has been a question that was at least considered by the government. Additionally, the readout of Albanese’s recent visit to China, Chinese media also at least in a side note expressed concerns about Chinese enterprises being treated fairly in Australia. This concern was especially directed at the foreign investment review process in Australia.
Obviously, screening, approving or rejecting foreign investment is very different from a government seizing control of a company. However, the ebb and flow of concerns about Chinese investment and potential measures to take in relation to it are not alien to Australia. Also, like the Netherlands, Australia is a close ally to the United States and thus not immune to similar accusations of American influence in relation to Chinese investments and assets.
In this sense, the current events around Nexperia offer a real-life case study for Australia on what can happen if commercial engagements turn sour. The perception that investments can be seized or controlled harms the confidence of investors for future engagement. Additionally, it significantly damages the political relations between the countries involved.
For Australia, the lesson is to keep a close eye on events like Nexperia in the Netherlands. The resulting fall-out from decisions like this can potentially harm other businesses from the same country and damage entire sectors. Australia has in the past experienced entire sectors being put under Chinese coercive economic restrictions and Australian businesses are vulnerable because of their commercial and trade dependence on China. The Australian government has an increasingly tight spot to navigate in its relations with China. Both the government and businesses should pay close attention to overseas developments even if they appear as far away as the Netherlands because they offer early-warning signs of issues potentially to come.
About the author
Carolin Kautz
Carolin Kautz holds a PhD in contemporary China studies with a political science focus from the University of Goettingen/Germany.
The most-pressing world events explained by Lowy Institute experts and global contributors, in your inbox, every Thursday.
You may unsubscribe from The Interpreter at any time. For information on our privacy practices and how to unsubscribe, see our Privacy Policy.
