“Microelectronics has become a weapon”

VDE dialog: The new position paper is the fourth in a series. How does “Hidden Electronics IV” differ from its predecessors?

Prof. Christoph Kutter: What’s new above all is the different geopolitical environment. Microelectronics is no longer simply a key technology, but has also become a strategic instrument of power. We’re seeing supply chains being deliberately interrupted and export bans imposed. Microelectronics is therefore literally being used as a weapon. At the same time, there is a growing risk that Europe will no longer play a role in these conflicts and will simply be forgotten. The current paper is therefore intended as a wake-up call – Europe must become technologically sovereign!

Technological sovereignty sounds ambitious. What exactly do you mean by that, and how realistic is this goal?

Sovereignty doesn’t mean that we have to do everything ourselves. We don’t want self-sufficiency, which would indeed be unrealistic. But we do need to be relevant and efficient enough that others need us and depend on us. So it’s not about making all the chips ourselves. Even the USA doesn’t do this, as you can see with Nvidia, the largest chip company in the world. It’s purely a design house without its own production facilities. But Europe must be in a position to develop and design its own key technologies and enter into manufacturing partnerships. If you don’t have a presence here, you lose importance not only economically but also politically.

In your opinion, where are Europe’s greatest deficits – and where are its strengths?

Europe’s greatest weaknesses are clearly in logic and memory manufacturing. Other deficits relate to chip design – we hardly have any so-called “fabless” design houses that then have their chips manufactured by external production companies – the “foundries”. Europe is also in a weak position when it comes to advanced packaging technology, i.e. the processing stage after chip production. Europe’s strengths, on the other hand, lie in power semiconductors, sensor technology, certain analog components and opto-electronics.

The paper also discusses three-nanometer technology. Some consider this superfluous. What is your response?

The history of semiconductor technology shows that what is considered superfluous today will be standard tomorrow. Just a few years ago, hardly anyone would have believed that three-nanometer nodes would become necessary for many applications. This technology is used for high-volume products and will also be affordable for smaller quantities in the future. In addition, the presence of such cutting-edge technologies generates spillover effects from which many other sectors benefit. That’s why it’s right and important to bring this technology to Europe.

A central concern of the new position paper is a European master plan for microelectronics. What should this plan offer – and how does it differ from the previous European Chips Act?

We need a European master plan – binding, ambitious and long-term. The Chips Act is an important step, as are the previous programs in Germany. But they are often too short-term. A master plan would have to cover at least ten years, with clear objectives, stable funding and a consistent political priority. Microelectronics needs continuity. Short-term funding waves are not sufficient to build up a strategically relevant industry.

And are you satisfied with the financial resources in Europe so far?

If we look at what China or the USA, for example, are investing, then Europe’s commitment does not go far enough. Other countries sometimes spend hundreds of billions, even if much of this is not in the form of direct subsidies but of tax incentives. Many years ago, under EU Commissioner Neelie Kroes, Europe set itself the goal of achieving a global market share of 20 percent. But without appropriate measures, such a project quickly fizzles out. Progress was only made with specific programs such as IPCEI, for example the Bosch factory in Dresden. But overall, the critical mass is lacking. We need more and, above all, more long-term commitment.

In the paper, the authors call for military requirements to be more closely integrated into the microelectronics strategy. This is also new.

That’s right. Europe has concentrated on civilian applications for too long. In the past, there was a clear separation between civilian and military research. But today we see that defense capability has become essential. And this also includes the ability to produce our own chips for security-relevant applications. Otherwise we will have to buy all our weapons abroad, with all the uncertainties that entails. It is therefore only logical to include military requirements in funding strategies – especially as the civilian sector can also benefit from this. Modern microelectronics are dual-use. Those who master them can do both: innovation and defense.

Does this also reflect the motivation that prompted you and the other authors to publish a new “Hidden Electronics” paper now?

Yes, that definitely plays a part. The geopolitical situation has changed dramatically. And we’re not just talking about the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine, but also the policies of the Trump administration and the increasing tensions between the USA and China. Microelectronics has become a geopolitical power factor. Europe must not be a mere spectator in this scenario. The paper therefore clearly warns that those who fall behind technologically will lose their sovereignty!

So what would you like to see from politicians?

First of all, the existing programs must be successfully implemented – such as the TSMC factory and possible follow-up projects. Funding in the area of chip design should also be systematically continued. In the long term, the focus will then be on the master plan mentioned earlier, with a clear strategy and stable funding.