fokicomfort.blogg.se

In short, because of Beijing’s action, the United States is now asking South Korea to incur an even greater cost to align its semiconductor policy with Washington’s, when it was already hesitant to incur the initial price of expanded export controls. lawmakers have even called for the administration to leverage extraterritorial measures should the Korean government not acquiesce to U.S. Indeed, with Micron now at least partially prohibited from selling to Chinese buyers, it has been reported that the United States has asked South Korea to prevent its firms from backfilling behind Micron. Beijing is likely hoping to increase tensions between Washington and Seoul.

Instead, one-year exemptions from the October controls were granted to both Korean firms, and it seems these exemptions will be extended for another year as Washington and Seoul work to negotiate a longer-term solution.Ĭonsidering this background, the targeting of Micron appears to be a relatively savvy tactical play by China. Seoul has been reluctant to align its export controls with Washington.

South Korea’s top semiconductor firms, Samsung and SK Hynix, are global leaders in memory chip manufacturing, but they both also have significant sales and production platforms in China. Japan and the Netherlands announced their own similar sets of controls on semiconductor technology exports earlier this year, but South Korea, whose firms play critical roles in the semiconductor manufacturing supply chain, has not yet followed suit. However, for the October 7 controls to be effective, the Biden administration would need to multilateralize them to prevent foreign competitors from backfilling demand. To understand China’s motivations in targeting Micron, it is necessary to go back to October 7, 2022, when the Biden administration unveiled an extensive set of export controls on the most advanced types of semiconductors and the complex equipment needed to manufacture them. However, either response would play into China’s primary aim in targeting Micron: complicating Washington’s efforts to build an allied coalition to cut off China’s access to advanced semiconductor technologies. policymakers to respond forcibly to CAC’s action, retaliating against China or pressuring South Korea to prevent Samsung and SK Hynix, Micron’s primary competitors in China, from “backfilling” demand, i.e., selling similar chips to Micron’s customers. The reality may be more complex and call for a more nuanced response from Washington. actions restricting China’s access to advanced semiconductor technologies. Many observers and policymakers in the United States view CAC’s decision as thinly veiled retaliation for recent U.S. semiconductor firm, failed its cybersecurity review and that “critical infrastructure operators in China must halt procurement of Micron’s products,” (author’s translation). On May 21, the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) determined that Micron Technology, Inc., a U.S.