Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the recent intervention by the Trump administration requiring the Chinese-controlled U.S. company HieFo to divest its semiconductor assets, highlighting a systematic trend of the U.S. and its allies to curb Chinese semiconductor enterprises' overseas expansion [1][8]. Group 1: HieFo Acquisition Background - HieFo acquired EMCORE's digital chip and related wafer design, manufacturing, and processing business for approximately $2.92 million on April 30, 2024, as EMCORE faced severe operational pressures due to continuous losses in 2023 [3]. - EMCORE's core products, which include critical components for the U.S. military, embedded the company deeply within the defense supply chain, setting the stage for potential U.S. government intervention [3]. Group 2: U.S. Government Intervention - The intervention was triggered by HieFo's ownership structure, with control held by a Chinese national who previously served as EMCORE's engineering vice president. The U.S. claimed that HieFo did not proactively report the acquisition to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) [4]. - CFIUS utilized enhanced monitoring powers under the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act (FIRRMA) to initiate a review of the non-reported transaction, revealing the expanded authority of CFIUS to retroactively review completed transactions [4]. Group 3: Broader Implications and Patterns - The HieFo incident is part of a broader pattern of interventions, including the Netherlands' ASML semiconductor case and the UK's FTDI equity divestment, all of which share a common theme of using "national security" as a pretext without substantial evidence [5][6]. - These interventions target the semiconductor sector, aiming to block Chinese access to critical technologies and maintain Western technological dominance [6]. Group 4: Impact on Global Semiconductor Industry - The forced divestiture of HieFo's assets could disrupt global contracts and intellectual property, affecting technology development and production capacity [7]. - Similar actions in the ASML and FTDI cases have already led to significant disruptions in the global semiconductor supply chain, highlighting the potential for increased costs and inefficiencies across the industry [7]. Group 5: Conclusion on U.S. Strategy - The article concludes that the U.S. and its allies are employing overt technology protectionism under the guise of national security, aiming to stifle the development of China's semiconductor industry and preserve their technological hegemony [8][9]. - This trend poses risks for Chinese enterprises seeking overseas investments and could hinder global technological innovation and cooperation, ultimately harming collective interests [9].

Group 1 - The article highlights the U.S. plan to restrict AI chip exports to Malaysia and Thailand, reflecting the increasing polarization in the international tech landscape and the impact on global South countries [1][2] - It discusses the threefold challenges facing international tech development: protectionist political maneuvers, institutional deficiencies in global governance, and reduced cooperation due to factional divides [1][2] - The article emphasizes the need for global South countries to collaboratively build an inclusive and shared tech development ecosystem to overcome these challenges [1][3] Group 2 - The existing tech governance system's functional deficiencies exacerbate the vacuum in international rules, with the U.S. frequently withdrawing from multilateral cooperation, undermining global governance [2] - The article notes that the polarization of tech competition has marginalized the innovation needs of global South countries, leading to increased uncertainty in international cooperation [2][3] - It suggests that global South countries should enhance digital infrastructure cooperation and create a favorable atmosphere for tech collaboration through quality innovation projects [3][4] Group 3 - The article advocates for the establishment of a stable and sustainable international innovation cooperation framework, focusing on mutual recognition of technology standards in key areas like renewable energy [3] - It calls for strengthening collaboration to mitigate tech security risks and enhancing communication under the framework of relevant UN agreements [3] - The essence of international tech cooperation is framed as the co-creation and sharing of development opportunities, emphasizing the need to replace factional confrontation with common development [4]