Semiwiki on LinkedIn Semiwiki on Facebook Semiwiki on Twitter Register / Log in 
Array
(
    [content] => 
    [params] => Array
        (
            [0] => /forum/index.php?threads/china-must-seize-tsmc.16196/
        )

    [addOns] => Array
        (
            [DL6/MLTP] => 13
            [Hampel/TimeZoneDebug] => 1000070
            [SV/ChangePostDate] => 2010200
            [SemiWiki/Newsletter] => 1000010
            [SemiWiki/WPMenu] => 1000010
            [SemiWiki/XPressExtend] => 1000010
            [ThemeHouse/XLink] => 1000970
            [ThemeHouse/XPress] => 1010570
            [XF] => 2021370
            [XFI] => 1050270
        )

    [wordpress] => /var/www/html
)

China Must Seize TSMC

A

Arthur Hanson

Well-known member

China has now firmly stated they must seize Taiwan if need be. This presents a worldwide challenge and any additions, thoughts or comments on this issue would be appreciated. This could easily throw the world into conflict and depression if not handled with wisdom and clarity. This is clearly a major danger not only to the world economy but to peace as well. China should become a customer of TSM rather than a destroyer, which would be almost inevitable in a military conflict. This is when we will learn if Putin and Xi are from the same mold. I hope Xi has more wisdom that Putin.
 
I find it interesting to get the Mainlander perspective sometimes, not for face value, but for unpacking.

So from reading the link, I think Mainlanders worry about sanctions, and connect the dots to military power as a solution. That is true, to a point. The US has military power but it does not connect the dots to, say, US seizing TSMC fabs. What restrains the US (or Mainland) from seizing stuff?

A sense of fair play, respect for property rights, and reciprocity of property rights, restrain the US.

It shows how close to the surface the lawlessness of the Mainland is, that banditry, seizing TSMC, would be considered at all.
 
Probably my thoughts are not worth that much, but anyway:

To me it shows the Chinese government is afraid of sanctions. It seems sanctions don't work that well against Russia (other discussion).
But clearly the TSMC EUV ban on their Chinese clients as set forth by the Trump administration, are still angering the Chinese. They are also afraid of a reaction if they were to buy Russian oil and gas at a discount.

Threatening with war usually isn't the nature of doing politics in China. So clearly the subject of not being able to profit from US EUV technology , or a boycott against their textile industry (let's say socks) makes them much more emotional, than let's say the possible bankruptcy (and maybe anti-China uproar?) in Sri Lanka. The party in China is only allowed to rule by the Chinese people in times of economic prosperity, seems to be the reasoning of the party.
 
China's rhetoric is like Russia's in Ukraine. Russia and China working together is an issue.
 
benb said:
I find it interesting to get the Mainlander perspective sometimes, not for face value, but for unpacking.

So from reading the link, I think Mainlanders worry about sanctions, and connect the dots to military power as a solution. That is true, to a point. The US has military power but it does not connect the dots to, say, US seizing TSMC fabs. What restrains the US (or Mainland) from seizing stuff?

A sense of fair play, respect for property rights, and reciprocity of property rights, restrain the US.

It shows how close to the surface the lawlessness of the Mainland is, that banditry, seizing TSMC, would be considered at all.
Click to expand...
To be fair, while China might be contemplating seizing something in the future, US is seizing Russian property left and right right now.
 
lilo777 said:
To be fair, while China might be contemplating seizing something in the future, US is seizing Russian property left and right right now.
Click to expand...
In what way exactly ? Some assets have been frozen as part of sanctions. But that is different from confiscation or theft. That's a speciality of the Russians ...
 
tooLongInEDA said:
In what way exactly ? Some assets have been frozen as part of sanctions. But that is different from confiscation or theft. That's a speciality of the Russians ...
Click to expand...
US does not have Russian companies on their soil to speak of so they are seizing private property of the Russian individuals. Here is just one example: United States Obtains Warrant for Seizure of Two Airplanes of Russian Oligarch Roman Abramovich Worth Over $400 Million. Most of the seizures of the Russian companies are done by US "allies". Here is an example: Germany Takes Over Control of German Gazprom Subsidiary by Using Unprecedented Measures Under Germany’s FDI Regime.
In case of TSMC, China won't even need to seize anything. If they return Taiwan under Chinese control, they can keep the same ownership of TSMC. But TSMC now will have to obey China's laws not ROC/US laws. So TSMC will obviously have to drop all sanctions against Chinese companies. They would also have to follow any sanctions against US businesses should China government impose any.
 
lilo777 said:
US does not have Russian companies on their soil to speak of so they are seizing private property of the Russian individuals. Here is just one example: United States Obtains Warrant for Seizure of Two Airplanes of Russian Oligarch Roman Abramovich Worth Over $400 Million. Most of the seizures of the Russian companies are done by US "allies". Here is an example: Germany Takes Over Control of German Gazprom Subsidiary by Using Unprecedented Measures Under Germany’s FDI Regime.
In case of TSMC, China won't even need to seize anything. If they return Taiwan under Chinese control, they can keep the same ownership of TSMC. But TSMC now will have to obey China's laws not ROC/US laws. So TSMC will obviously have to drop all sanctions against Chinese companies. They would also have to follow any sanctions against US businesses should China government impose any.
Click to expand...
Thanks. OK so a quick read suggests:

1. Abramovich's planes. The US government put these under export restrictions as part of the sanctions (legal, not taking ownership). Abramovich/someone acting for him chose to move the planes knowingly in violation of this order. The US government legally took possession of the planes. I don't see the problem here. The Russians knowingly violated the restrictions and paid the price. Plane stupid (by the Russians).

2. Gazprom Germany. The German government has taking voting control of Gazprom Germany, but not control of the assets (if I read this correctly). This - as with the plan sanctions - is a legal restriction on transfer of the assets which does not take ownership of the assets.

It is very clear in the UK at least that any attempt to confiscate or use sanctioned Russian assets by the UK government could - and would - be challenged in court. There were suggestions that the huge Russian oligrachs mansions in London shoyuld be used to house Ukrainian refugees, but it hasn't happened for exactly those reasons (the Russians are here in the first place because we have a working legal system and they don't). Good luck challenging the government in court in Russia (or China).
 
tooLongInEDA said:
Thanks. OK so a quick read suggests:

1. Abramovich's planes. The US government put these under export restrictions as part of the sanctions (legal, not taking ownership). Abramovich/someone acting for him chose to move the planes knowingly in violation of this order. The US government legally took possession of the planes. I don't see the problem here. The Russians knowingly violated the restrictions and paid the price. Plane stupid (by the Russians).

2. Gazprom Germany. The German government has taking voting control of Gazprom Germany, but not control of the assets (if I read this correctly). This - as with the plan sanctions - is a legal restriction on transfer of the assets which does not take ownership of the assets.

It is very clear in the UK at least that any attempt to confiscate or use sanctioned Russian assets by the UK government could - and would - be challenged in court. There were suggestions that the huge Russian oligrachs mansions in London shoyuld be used to house Ukrainian refugees, but it hasn't happened for exactly those reasons (the Russians are here in the first place because we have a working legal system and they don't). Good luck challenging the government in court in Russia (or China).
Click to expand...
I don’t really care about the legal minutia. The government can always invent the legal reason to do things which in some case is pure abuse of power. Which export restrictions are they talking about? The planes were exported long ago and were in possession of the dude and physically located outside US. What about all the yachts that the governments around the world are arresting and sending to US? Like this one: $300 Million Yacht of Sanctioned Russian Oligarch Suleiman Kerimov Seized by Fiji at Request of United States. His crime? Apparently he paid for something in dollars. There are two problems here: US are creating BS laws and then they are applying extraterritorial jurisdiction. Most countries in the world object to this because it violates their sovereignty. Most of them can't do anything about it (even EU countries).
Following US template, China could also come up with the law that, say, it is illegal for Chinese company to own a property in Arizona. Then would it be legal for their government to take over TSMC?

That said, the legal status of TSMC if China takes control of Taiwan is probably not that important in the global scale. There would be plenty of all sorts of problems for everyone regardless.
 
lilo777 said:
What rhetoric do you have in mind? In the Joint Communiqué, the United States recognized the Government of the People's Republic of China as the sole legal government of China, acknowledging the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China. All but a few marginal states in the world share the same position. That's different from the Russia/Ukraine situation.
Click to expand...

lilo777, if you are intimating that this Joint Communiqué, states that Taiwan is part of China, you are incorrect.

Fortunately, grammatically, and legally, “acknowledging the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China”, is ambiguous, and does not equate to “acknowledging Taiwan is part of China”.

Otherwise, the Joint Communiqué would have stated such, and would not be ambiguous.

Further, the US would not be able to operate under the guise of “strategic ambiguity” without grammatical and legal ambiguity.
 
fansink said:
lilo777, if you are intimating that this Joint Communiqué, states that Taiwan is part of China, you are incorrect.

Fortunately, grammatically, and legally, “acknowledging the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China”, is ambiguous, and does not equate to “acknowledging Taiwan is part of China”.

Otherwise, the Joint Communiqué would have stated such, and would not be ambiguous.

Further, the US would not be able to operate under the guise of “strategic ambiguity” without grammatical and legal ambiguity.
Click to expand...
Add to this the fact that US does not recognize Taiwan as an independent state and you get the picture. In case of Taiwan, US' "strategic ambiguity" refers to whether or not US is going to defend Taiwan, not the fact that US sees them as part of China.
 
lilo777 said:
Add to this the fact that US does not recognize Taiwan as an independent state and you get the picture. In case of Taiwan, US' "strategic ambiguity" refers to whether or not US is going to defend Taiwan, not the fact that US sees them as part of China.
Click to expand...

You are incorrect again.

The US could not be ambiguous about defending Taiwan, without ambiguity within the various agreements and communiqué.

It's the multitude of ambiguity in these agreements and communiqué, that allows the US to be ambiguous.

Fortunately, the legal prowess of the US legal teams prevailed.
 
fansink said:
You are incorrect again.

The US could not be ambiguous about defending Taiwan, without ambiguity within the various agreements and communiqué.

It's the multitude of ambiguity in these agreements and communiqué, that allows the US to be ambiguous.

Fortunately, the legal prowess of the US legal teams prevailed.
Click to expand...
Nope. That's what wikipedia says aboit it:

Taiwan
The oldest and longest running of the United States' deliberately ambiguous policies was whether and how it would defend the Republic of China on Taiwan in the event of an attack by the People's Republic of China (Mainland China). This issue is at the cornerstone of United States–Taiwan relations and a central sticking point in United States–China relations. This policy was intended to discourage both a unilateral declaration of independence by ROC leaders and an invasion of Taiwan by the PRC. The United States seemingly abandoned strategic ambiguity in 2001 after then-President George W. Bush stated that he would "do whatever it takes" to defend Taiwan.[7] He later used more ambiguous language, stating in 2003 that "The United States policy is one China".[8]

In October 2021, President Biden announced a commitment that the United States would defend Taiwan if attacked by the People's Republic of China.[9] But then the White House quickly clarified: "The president was not announcing any change in our policy and there is no change in our policy".[10] In May 2022 Biden again stated that the U.S. would intervene military if China invaded Taiwan. Though a White House official again stated that the statement did not indicate a policy shift.

Just defense. Feel free to find any evidence to the contrary.
 
OMG, please don't admit you are basing your arguments on what Wikipedia says.

Try making logic arguments based on fact.

I gave you logic statements of fact, and the best you can do is to quote Wikipedia.
 
fansink said:
OMG, please don't admit you are basing your arguments on what Wikipedia says.

Try making logic arguments based on fact.

I gave you logic statements of fact, and the best you can do is to quote Wikipedia.
Click to expand...
You did not provide any facts, just your own interpretation. I am afraid US government does not really care about your interpretation. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, they are not the ultimate authority but I suspect people who contributed to this article have more relevant expertise than posters on semiconductor forum. But if you want more, here it goes:

When President Biden responded “yes” to a reporter who asked whether the United States would be “willing to get involved militarily to defend Taiwan,” the debate over the policy of “strategic ambiguity” toward the island was reawakened. The White House quickly clarified that, despite the president’s off-the-cuff remark, there was no policy change: The United States continues to recognize Beijing as the sole legitimate Chinese government, while supplying arms to Taiwan — and not comment on what further actions it would take to defend it.

This one is from WP and it is quite typical in that it also mentions just defense in the context of strategic ambiguity with confirmation that "The United States continues to recognize Beijing as the sole legitimate Chinese government". I am not even sure what your argument is. Is it that US does not recognize Beijing as the sole legitimate Chinese government? But the State Department says just that in clear terms.
 
lilo777 said:
You did not provide any facts, just your own interpretation. I am afraid US government does not really care about your interpretation. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, they are not the ultimate authority but I suspect people who contributed to this article have more relevant expertise than posters on semiconductor forum. But if you want more, here it goes:

When President Biden responded “yes” to a reporter who asked whether the United States would be “willing to get involved militarily to defend Taiwan,” the debate over the policy of “strategic ambiguity” toward the island was reawakened. The White House quickly clarified that, despite the president’s off-the-cuff remark, there was no policy change: The United States continues to recognize Beijing as the sole legitimate Chinese government, while supplying arms to Taiwan — and not comment on what further actions it would take to defend it.

This one is from WP and it is quite typical in that it also mentions just defense in the context of strategic ambiguity with confirmation that "The United States continues to recognize Beijing as the sole legitimate Chinese government". I am not even sure what your argument is. Is it that US does not recognize Beijing as the sole legitimate Chinese government? But the State Department says just that in clear terms.
Click to expand...
Your ignorance of refutation is tiresome.

I'm sorry you're unable to sufficiently understand and argue grammatical or legal terms, but until you resolve my answer to your first incorrect interpretation to the "well known" The 1979 U.S.–P.R.C. Joint Communiqué, I'm done responding to your misdirections.

Make a grammatical or legal argument to my first answer: “acknowledging the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China”, in no way equals “acknowledging Taiwan is part of China”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top