Different but related:
- How the US (and five others) define "economic coercion" they condemn, and differentiate it from the economic tools they use to pressure countries?
The South China Morning Post's November 23, 2022 article The Netherlands resists US call to ban more chip-making equipment sales to China, pledges to defend interests (which looks like it's originally from a paywalled Bloomberg article includes the following:
While ASML hasn’t sold any of its most advanced extreme ultraviolet lithography machines to China because the Dutch government has refused to grant it a license under US pressure, the company can still sell less sophisticated chipmaking systems to the Asian country.
However, US officials have been pressuring the Dutch government to ban the sales of immersion lithography machines, the most advanced kind of gear in ASML’s deep ultraviolet line-up, Bloomberg News has reported. The Biden administration has been working to get allies including the Netherlands and Japan to adopt the sweeping measures it unveiled in early October to ban more chip machines for China.
If I understand correctly, semiconductor fabs in China are already using deep ultraviolet (DUV) immersion lithography tools from ASML in manufacturing, and the US now wants not only to block extreme ultraviolet lithography (EUV) but also any further DUV-immersion equipment and technology from reaching China, something which is already in use there.
- Have I got that right?
- Can the extension these technology blockings for China into DUV immersion photolithography be seen as a "technology blockade" or "unfair practice" in the context of accepted norms and practices in international trade?