China’s self-defeating Dutch gun barrel diplomacy

Its practice of coercive power at home might assure its power at home, but the Chinese Communist Party’s practice of coercive power abroad often weakens its political interests abroad. Just as Xi Jinping places far too much confidence in Mao Zedong’s statist economic theories, so also does he place too much faith in Mao’s lesson that “Every Communist must grasp the truth, ‘Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.’”

This bears note in light of China’s policy toward the Netherlands.

The Netherlands is important to China, because China is desperate to secure the Dutch government’s allowance of continued exports by Dutch semiconductor manufacturer ASML. The Dutch government is under significant pressure from the United States to further restrict ASML exports to China, reflecting U.S. fears that China will use those exports to boost its military capabilities. The Netherlands has introduced a number of China-focused restrictions in recent years.

In turn, the Chinese Embassy to the Netherlands pushes a public narrative that Beijing seeks only win-win cooperation with the Netherlands. It says ASML exports benefit both nations and that the Netherlands should reject U.S. arguments to the contrary. Interviewed in January, Ambassador Tan Jian declared, “We don’t want to see things go from bad to worse. We should enhance dialogue, understand each other and see how we can join hands or work together.” In a speech last month, Tan offered his “hope the Netherlands will continue to uphold free and open trade, contributing to the stability of the global supply chains.” He concluded, “Allow me to repeat my favorite line: China is part of the solution, not part of the problem.”

On paper, Tan’s rosy let’s-be-friends approach makes far more sense than the “wolf warrior” threats he previously issued in 2023. ASML exports are economically lucrative for the firm and for the Dutch economy. ASML has a new soft-spoken CEO who is desperate to maintain trade ties with China. And while he has been keen to maintain U.S. support for his bid to lead NATO, Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte has often proceeded slowly in restricting ASML exports to China. Chinese public diplomacy that presents U.S. pressure as self-interested and against Dutch interests might feasibly pay dividends.

The problem is that Xi and the Communist Party elite cannot resist coercive power and the pursuit of zero-sum success. As a case in point, the Chinese intelligence services have repeatedly been called out by the Netherlands for their aggressive espionage targeting that country. This has understandably damaged China’s standing with the Dutch people. And now China has started another spat.

Last week, a helicopter operating off of a Dutch warship in the East China Sea was aggressively intercepted by two People’s Liberation Army fighter jets and a helicopter. The Dutch complained that the harassment in international airspace and waters “created a potentially unsafe situation.” Rather than let the matter rest there, however, China struck back with a hyperbolic onslaught on Tuesday. As a PLA spokesman put it, “We sternly warn the Dutch side to strictly restrain the actions of its maritime and air forces, and any infringement and provocation will be firmly countered by the Chinese side.” He added that the mild Dutch intercept complaint had “distorted the facts” of the PLA’s “completely legal and reasonable” intercept and that China had “made serious representations” in response to it.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

This totally unjustified activity and ensuing fury will obviously aggravate the Dutch government and people. Their warship and helicopter were operating in international waters and airspace. Their conduct posed no threat to China. In response, however, the Chinese first threatened the safety of Dutch military personnel and have now issued further threats against them. Quite how this comports with Tan’s “favorite line” insistence that “China is part of the solution, not part of the problem” is unclear.

Regardless, this dichotomy between rosy rhetoric in public and aggressive action behind the scenes speaks to two key points: first, the Communist Party’s fetish for the duplicitous pursuit of zero-sum victories, and second, its incapacity to recognize that coercive action does not always translate to Party success.