Free trade or not? Washington calls the shots

ASML, the Dutch semiconductor giant, is grappling with the harsh reality of manipulated "trade freedom" in an "America First" era.

As revealed in its earnings report last week, the company's third-quarter orders plummeted to roughly 2.6 billion euros (2.8 billion US dollars), less than half of the previous quarter's 5.6 billion euros (6 billion dollars), triggering a nosedive in its stock price and stripping it of the title of Europe's most valuable tech firm.

Behind these headlines, however, lies a deeper logic: what is supposed to be a free and open global market has been increasingly cornered by geopolitically-minded America.

The Chinese market accounts for nearly half of ASML's global sales, making the company particularly susceptible to US export restrictions that limit the sales of advanced chip-making equipment to its Chinese partners.

No wonder that Dutch Economic Affairs Minister Dirk Beljaarts, during a September visit to Washington, lamented that "We have our own economy to keep up and to make sure that our companies can do business as freely as possible."

His remarks highlighted not only business concerns but also growing frustration with Washington's attempt to push China out of the emerging technology race, at the expense of numerous businesses' growth prospects.

While the United States often cites "national security" to justify its attempt to weaponize its trade policies, its ulterior motive is to preserve its dominance by constraining foreign competitors.

This strategy is nothing new. From targeting rising Japanese tech companies like Toshiba in the 1980s to using long-arm jurisdiction against French power and transportation conglomerate Alstom in the 2010s, Washington has been bent on employing non-market measures to undermine rivals.

At present, this approach remains unchanged. Such measures as the 100 percent tariff on Chinese electric vehicles and proposed caps on AI chip exports to Gulf countries demonstrate that economic pressure has become a new norm of US foreign economic and trade policy, regardless of whoever will be affected.

For all its talk of championing free trade, Washington's selective use of free-market principles has disrupted global supply chains and stifled innovation. The creed of "trade freedom" in this context is illusory, shaped more by US interests than by genuine market openness.

For tech multinationals like ASML, whose operations hinge on seamless integration across R&D, manufacturing and sales, what they need most is a stable environment, where strategic decisions can be made with predictability.

Yet, escalating US measures are redefining the rules of the game, prioritizing short-term leverage over sustainable growth, eroding trust among international partners and threatening the kind of global cooperation that has long driven technological progress.

The lesson from the woes of ASML and the like is compelling: zero-sum tactics and economic coercion cannot sustain anyone's long-term progress. A prosperous future for the global market can only count on genuine openness, free of power plays that would put "freedom" in the grip of a single country to decide whom to grant or deny.