Carrot, stick and waiver

An important question hovering around the US semis sanctions on China is will the US get its allies to support the measures. People in the US may be shocked to learn that not all people in the rest of the world feel the same way about China, and even more shocking, those people may have strong interests in continuing to do business with China. We are not policy experts (by a large margin), but we do have some sense of which companies in other countries will take the most umbrage with the restrictions and some things that might be able to offset those allies’ concerns.

When the US issued the latest rules in October, the authors deliberately truncated the window between announcement and implementation, in some cases down to only a week. Past measures had usually been shared months in advance of announcement. With these latest, far wider measures, the US government wanted to eliminate the potential for last-minute hoarding orders. We also suspect they wanted to limit the ability of US-based lobbyists to dilute the sanctions. Tactically, this made sense, but it came at the cost of the rules getting no outside vetting. US companies had little opportunity to prepare, a topic for a future post, but crucially the US government provided essentially no notice to allies. To put it mildly, this was not received well.

There are four countries in particular most affected by these measures. The Netherlands – home of ASML; South Korea – home of Samsung, Hynix and a host of smaller vendors; Taiwan home of TSMC, UMC and a big part of the supply chain; and Japan – with a large electronics and WFE industry. Add in the UK – home of Arm, Germany whose industrial economy is fairly reliant on China, and a few of their neighbors leads to problems with the EU more broadly.

The situation for each country and set of companies is a bit different, but all of them find themselves in a position where support of their ally the US could directly lead to a loss of revenue, significant amounts in many cases.

These companies represent some very important parts of the supply chain, and having the allies’ support will likely mean the difference between the success or failure of the measures. So how can the US keep its allies on-side? We think there are four avenues to consider.

The first is a recognition of shared goals. Many of these countries have shown rising concern over China’s behavior in recent years, and many of the companies on this list suffered from the same unfair trade practices which sparked the trade war in the first place. On the diplomatic front, China’s aggressive, “Wolf Warrior” diplomacy in recent years seems to have cut off more diplomatic approaches to finding common ground. We suspect that many of these countries share at least some of the US’s national security concerns and economic anxiety around China, and so may support the measures.

Even if this is true for governments, many of the companies involved may seek to persuade their governments to allow them to continue doing business with China. Some of the companies have already invested heavily in China and losing access to those assets poses fairly serious hardship. In this particularly acute cases, the US government has been offering waivers to the rules. Hynix and Samsung seem to have gotten these, and from what we can tell the US is being fairly lenient in handing these out for ally countries. However, the waivers are good for only one year, and no one really knows if those will be extended. From what we can tell, the US seems to be adopting selective enforcement of some its policies, which is not really a comfort to most companies, but does indicate some degree of flexibility.

On the other side of the ledger, the US government has made it clear repeatedly that it has a proverbial “stick” to burnish to “encourage” compliance. The new (and old) rules make it quite clear that any product that contain any intellectual property (IP) which can in anyway be tied to the US makes the whole product subject to the regulations. This is most apparent in the case of ASML, who has a large software operation in the US. ASML’s EUV machines are very much at the heart of the sanctions, and we think the US government will go a fairly long way to ensure that none of those get sold to China. To a lesser degree this holds true for TSMC as well. In addition to their dependence on machinery with US IP in it, there is also the matter of EDA tools, a crucial part of the foundry process flow. The EDA companies are all US-based, and their removal from the equation gums up the whole industry.

In between these two extremes there US seems to be considering a whole host of measures to assuage foreign concerns over the sanctions. In our newsletter, we linked to a Digitimes report that cautioned the US is considering curbs on China’s OLED TV makers. China’s TV makers are a big part of the industry, but it is hard to see them as threatening to the US. They operate in a super-competitive market, eking out meager profits. The US has no domestic vendors and would seem to have little reason to go after this sector. That being said, South Korea, Japan and Taiwan all care a lot about TVs and have had to deal with years of low-cost PRC competition eating into their market share. We have no idea if the US is actually going to take any actions against China’s TV makers, but it would probably be a smart diplomatic move to offer those up to its allies. (Pro-tip for US regulators: take a look at those companies’ data collection and retention agreements.)

Speaking of our newsletter. If you would like to join our mailing list please add your e-mail address below. We will never sell your information to anyone:


Processing…
Success! You're on the list.

Moving beyond semis, we also think there are other incentives that these sanctions could provide to allied countries’ companies. From our view point, one of the most contentious parts of the sanctions will be what they mean for China’s nascent automotive industry. China has ~50 EV makers today, and the PRC would very much like to have a globally competitive auto industry. As we have noted elsewhere, semis are an increasingly important part of the industry. China is on a path to self-suffiency for analog and trailing edge auto semis, but the future of the auto industry will depend heavily on access to leading edge digital processors for ADAS and autonomy systems. If China’s auto makers are unable to obtain those chips they will be at a significant competitive disadvantage. This is a situation which other countries might appreciate. Germany, for instance. We imagine there are many other similar points of leverage which the US can apply, if neccessary.

Putting this all together, we think the US has enough arrows in its quiver to generate support from allies. It is not clear if the US government will be able to win over support from some of the individual companies, but we suspect their governments will see reasons to come around.

Photo by Charlotte Harrison on Unsplash

One response to “Carrot, stick and waiver

  1. Hmmm.

    1. “Many of these countries have shown rising concern over China’s behavior in recent years, and many of the companies on this list suffered from the same unfair trade practices which sparked the trade war in the first place”.
    Nope, that cannot explain it. After all, since the founding of the WTO in 1995, legal action has been taken against the US 147 times, the highest number for any member. Since China joined in 2001, it has seen just 42 cases, less than half of the 91 that the US faced in the same period. Of the seven cases in which the WTO has authorized reprisals by the winning party, six were due to the US refusing to comply with the ruling. Particularly concerning is the US government’s malicious blocking of WTO Appellate Body appointments because it has ruled against it in multiple lawsuits. The US has not only repudiated its debts from those cases, it has also ousted the judges and is attempting to shut down the court entirely..

    2. “On the diplomatic front, China’s aggressive, “Wolf Warrior” diplomacy in recent years seems to have cut off more diplomatic approaches to finding common ground”. Aggressive? Argumentative, quarrelsome, contentious, belligerent, hostile, offensive? Nope, that can’t explain it either. The United States is far more aggressive than China. As its embargoes demonstrate.

    3. “We suspect that many of these countries share at least some of the US’s national security concerns and economic anxiety around China, and so may support the measures”. Nope, nobody–certainly not China–is threatening anybody, even verbally.

    What could possibly explain this situation?

Leave a Reply