China Rejects Dutch Strategy, Calls ‘Threat’ Claims Baseless

The Chinese Embassy in the Netherlands issued a strongly worded statement on Thursday expressing “serious concern and strong dissatisfaction” over the Dutch government’s newly published International Security Strategy 2026-2030, which Beijing says hypes the so-called “China threat” and makes unwarranted accusations about China’s foreign cooperation.

Diplomatic Pushback

In a statement published on its official WeChat account, the embassy accused the Dutch document of containing content that “seriously contradicts objective facts,” according to China Reporter. The spokesperson asserted that China has always adhered to peaceful development and an independent foreign policy, describing the nation as “a defender of the international order, a builder of world peace, and a contributor to global development.”

“China’s development brings opportunities, not challenges, to the world; it is a stabilizing force, not a source of risk, and certainly does not pose a so-called ‘threat’ to any country,” the embassy spokesperson said, as reported by Global Times.

The Dutch Strategy

The International Security Strategy 2026-2030, submitted to the Dutch parliament on June 17 by Foreign Minister Tom Berendsen, represents a fundamental shift in Dutch defense policy. Its primary focus is reducing Europe’s dependence on the United States for security guarantees, but it also contains significant provisions regarding China.

According to NL Times, the strategy calls for Europe to produce its own versions of key conventional weapons systems within four years, explores closer cooperation with France on nuclear deterrence, and aims for a “burden shift” within NATO. On China specifically, it outlines plans to reduce reliance on Beijing for critical raw materials and to curb the transfer of sensitive knowledge and technology.

“Investing in enhanced European security is not a choice, but a simple necessity,” Berendsen wrote in the strategy document, as quoted by DutchNews.nl. The minister also emphasized an “open where possible, closed where necessary” approach to economic security.

Broader Tensions

The diplomatic confrontation over the security strategy is the latest flashpoint in a deteriorating bilateral relationship. In October 2025, the Dutch government seized chipmaker Nexperia from its Chinese parent company Wingtech, citing national security concerns. China responded by calling on the Netherlands to “immediately correct its mistakes,” as CNBC reported.

The Netherlands, home to semiconductor equipment giant ASML, has been at the center of US-led efforts to restrict advanced chip technology exports to China. Meanwhile, China’s trade surplus with the EU reached record levels in 2026, fueling European concerns about economic dependency.

The Ukraine Dimension

In its statement, the Chinese embassy also addressed the Ukraine crisis, citing President Xi Jinping’s “Four Shoulds” framework as China’s fundamental guideline. The reference appeared aimed at preempting any Dutch criticism of China’s position on Ukraine, given that the Netherlands has been a strong supporter of Kyiv and the Dutch strategy identifies Russia as the most significant threat to NATO territory.

Demands and Implications

Beijing urged the Netherlands to “abandon ideological bias and zero-sum game mentality, view China’s development objectively and rationally, stop overstretching the concept of national security, stop spreading false information about China and hyping up the so-called ‘China threat theory.’”

The Chinese response came on the same day the strategy was published, suggesting the embassy had prepared its rebuttal in advance — an indication that Beijing considered the issue significant and anticipated the Dutch document’s contents.

Analysis: A Pattern of Friction

This diplomatic confrontation is not an isolated incident but part of a structural tension between China’s narrative of peaceful development and Western concerns about Beijing’s growing military, economic, and technological power. The Dutch strategy frames China as both a competitor — in technology and raw materials — and a potential security concern, while China insists it is a stabilizing force.

The timing of the Chinese response — issued on the same day the strategy was published — suggests the embassy was closely monitoring the Dutch parliamentary process and had prepared a rebuttal in advance. This indicates Beijing considered the issue significant and anticipated the document’s contents.

Notably, the Dutch strategy’s China content appears relatively measured compared to some other Western countries, focusing on raw materials and technology transfer rather than more aggressive containment language. Yet even this moderate framing drew a forceful Chinese response, underscoring Beijing’s sensitivity to any characterization of its international posture as threatening.

What’s Next

The incident adds another layer of complexity to an already strained China-Netherlands relationship, coming on top of tensions over the Nexperia seizure, technology transfer restrictions, and broader EU-China trade disputes. The Dutch strategy aligns with a European trend of “de-risking” from China — reducing economic dependencies while stopping short of full decoupling.

As of Thursday, no official Dutch government response to the Chinese embassy’s statement had been published. However, the broader trajectory is clear: the Netherlands is attempting a difficult balancing act — reducing dependence on the US for security while simultaneously managing a complex economic relationship with China. The diplomatic friction over the security strategy underscores the fundamental disconnect between China’s self-portrayal as a peaceful development partner and Western perceptions of China as a strategic competitor.

With the EU introducing measures such as anti-subsidy tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles and export controls on dual-use technologies, and China responding with its own export controls on critical minerals, the Netherlands-China relationship will likely face continued headwinds. The question now is whether both sides can find common ground — as they did in their May 2025 consensus on trade, technology, and climate cooperation — or whether this latest confrontation marks a further step toward strategic divergence.