During a long hearing, Karremans – whose behaviour was described variously as
“reckless”, “sloppy” and “amateurish” – was quizzed on why he did not predict Beijing’s response, which caused some global auto giants to idle production lines due to a shortage of chips.
A defensive Karremans described a “well-considered and substantiated decision, in which we took all the risks and all the information into account and carefully weighed them against each other”.
“This wasn’t a likely option, because an export control measure is a non-proliferation instrument,” he said.
While some appreciated the dilemma facing the Dutch minister, many demanded clarity on why he moved in the way he did, without consulting parliament, the European Union or the automotive industry.
“We understand the need to intervene. But we do question the sloppy way in which it was done, like a driver accelerating but forgetting to update the navigation system,” said Laurens Dassen, a centre-left lawmaker with Volt Netherlands.
“Did the minister properly anticipate China’s potential reaction? Why were we, as parliament, only informed on October 14, when China had already announced on October 4 that it would not export chips?” he asked.
Karremans responded that “you never know how China will react ... there’s no certainty about that in advance. When you make such a decision, you never have any certainty about how it will unfold”.
“You never consider a scenario in isolation, but always in relation to a certain degree of probability with which you think it will occur. That’s how that assessment was made.”
The minister was forced to deny claims from several lawmakers that a planned trip to China was cancelled because ministers in Beijing refused to see him.
“Why isn’t the minister going to China next week? Because the Chinese ministers can’t be there? Isn’t that strange? You plan something like that, don’t you? You make an appointment with someone, don’t you?” demanded Alexander Kops of the right-wing Party for Freedom.
Karremans said “this was not the case”, adding that he had personally decided to postpone the trip.
“You always check … whether you can also meet at the ministerial level … and then it often doesn’t fit into the schedule. Ministers … have all sorts of obligations,” Karremans explained.
The minister further defended his dramatic intervention, saying he personally had seen “very, very convincing” evidence that Nexperia’s Chinese owner, Zhang Xuezheng, was transferring funds, technology and confidential knowledge to a separate foreign entity he controlled; preparing to move patent rights out of Europe and planning to downsize or relocate European production.
“It would have happened faster anyway if I hadn’t intervened, because then they would have been gone in the foreseeable future.”
Asked by lawmakers to clarify the role of the United States, Karremans denied any link between to add Nexperia to a government blacklist and its insistence on – outlined in independent court documents – and his move to impose the act on September 30, the date the US blacklist was expanded.
“There’s been a lot of speculation about that … what was the US’ role in this? Did the US call the Netherlands, and was there pressure to issue this order? I can tell you … that’s not the case,” he insisted.
Karremans confirmed that the EU was not consulted in advance of his decision because he was worried about leaks, which could have sparked a scramble to remove the technology from Europe.
“Why didn’t I inform European countries beforehand? I considered it, but didn’t. I’ll explain why. With these kinds of decisions, you keep the circle very small, especially when it concerns national economic security,” Karremans said.
“If the intention to make this decision became public, it could have had serious consequences. If the acting party, in this case the CEO in question, had learned of what we were about to do, irreversible steps could have been taken quickly.”
With the dust still far from settled, lawmakers pressed Karremans on what happens now: whether China will resume full shipments, whether Europe can restore trust in his decision-making, and whether the diplomatic damage with Beijing can be repaired.
The minister talked up his consultations with China, saying that he had suspended the order “as a diplomatic gesture” to Beijing, “as they had taken the first step towards us” in permitting the flow of chips from Nexperia’s Dongguan plant.
“If that gesture from China hadn’t happened, I wouldn’t have done it,” said Karremans, although he said that the two corporate entities involved – Nexperia’s Dutch and Chinese operations – remain at loggerheads.
“Due to everything that has happened, contact is currently very limited. It is therefore crucial that we pursue a pragmatic solution that fully restores both parts of the value chain,” Karremans said, adding that “contact is still suboptimal”.
While the minister defended his actions in broad terms, he admitted regret over an interview in the Guardian last month, in which he stated he would take exactly the same course of action if he were in the same position again. It is understood that the article in question led several European governments to complain to The Hague.
“In retrospect, I can say with absolute certainty that I could have handled things differently … especially when it concerns a quote in the press,” Karremans said.
Pieter Grinwis, an opposition conservative MP, said the “infamous” interview had “added fuel to the fire”.
