Hacker News Reader

Comment by DiogenesKynikos | Hacker News Reader

What I mean by "foolish" is that in the long run (a decade), it will not work, and the entire policy of trying to stunt China's economic development will lead to conflict sooner or later.

ASML didn't have a choice in the matter. The US government pressured the Dutch government to withdraw the export license. That's at the diplomatic level, way above the heads of company executives. The Netherlands is part of NATO and is more closely aligned with the US than with China. But the Netherlands could at some point decide that it just wants to do business with everyone.

View on HN

JFK had some thoughts on ways to resolve conflict: https://nationalcenter.org/KennedyInaugural.html but I guess not everyone was on board with "where the strong are just and the weak secure and the peace preserved".

(Διογένης, I like your "bottleneck" much better than Brookings' word choice)

The US are trying to delay the inevitable but they might instead precipitate it, and that is costing them at the same time.

The second issue here is Europe's continued weakness. If ASML controls EUV lithography then Europe should be much more assertive.

My impression is that the European Union is too politically fractured to mount any consistent policy.

Just one example: the French government has made noises about doing something to counter the United States' extraterritorial application its sanctions regime. US sanctions against Iran effectively apply to European companies, even if they have basically nothing to do with the US. The US can unilaterally force the EU to stop doing business with Iran. The French see that as a violation of their sovereignty.

The problem is, if France proposes to do anything about it, Germany will object, because Germany fears that the US will retaliate against the German automotive industry.

Imagine if the US could only take action when 50 states all agreed. There's no powerful central government in Europe that can decide to temporarily sacrifice some interests in order to achieve something more important - establishing independence of action from the US on sanctions policy.

> The problem is, if France proposes to do anything about it, Germany will object, because Germany fears that the US will retaliate against the German automotive industry.

I was under the impression that Germany is generally on board with the idea of using the INSTEX special-purpose vehicle to trade with Iran despite US sanctions. Of course the first (and only?) transaction was only completed this year, so the mechanism doesn't look too successful so far: https://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/en/newsroom/news/instex-tran...

INSTEX has done virtually nothing to weaken the sanctions regime.

The EU would have to take much stronger measures if it was really serious about preventing the US from imposing its sanctions regime on European companies. I'm not an expert, so I can only guess at what sort of measures Europe would have to take, but I imagine they would involve reciprocal retaliation for any measures the US takes to punish European companies.

I am not sure Europe's best interest is to help China replace USA as the world's bully. Compared to future China, even USSR might be remembered with fond memories of that bully who harassed everyone for a time, but is in his hart just a depressed and neglected boy who needed a compassionate touch.

Europe should stand on its own and do what is in its best interests, not the US's, not China's.

I don't think that the US's aggressive stance is in Europe's interests to follow. Standing your ground, sure, but this confrontation seems counterproductive in the long term and, again, is simply trying to delay the inevitable, IMO.

Doesn't Europe already do what is in its best interest? Is Europe's best interest to be world's most powerful bully (which it is not at least since WW2), or to provide good life conditions for its population (which it arguably does), or even something else?

It will have to be powerful. Otherwise others will impose their wishes (as Russia is doing with countries, as the US doing with companies and as China is trying to do with public opinion or statements of facts in European media as well as statements by parliaments).

The relationship between US and EU is very one sided and it’s not the Americans who are the benefactors. EU gets unlimited access to the worlds best consumer market, secure trade everywhere, military bases on their territory, deterrence against the Soviets - they’re so dependent on the US they don’t keep more than token militaries.

Why do you think the EU wants to throw all of this good away?

The Soviets? Are we worried about the Ottomans and the Tartars too?

I was recounting the balance sheet over the past 75 years.

I'm under the impression that the US heavily subsidizes European security. Obviously, the US gets a number of advantages from this as well.

It seems like Europe will have to build up its military if it wants to be able to stand alone. Not that I think a multi-polar world is good for stability. I think US leaders used to keep that in mind a bit more before trying to leverage their position.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com