In my inexpert opinion these sanctions create pressure for China to enter or expand into the sanctioned markets and thereby create more competition with American companies. It seems very short sighted.
The sanctionist demands that other countries consume their own products, or those made from a coalition of countries not bound by the sanctions.
Economists used to be mostly in agreement that protectionism is always a net bad, but in the last couple of decades have realized that carefully crafted protectionism can be used to allow domestic industries to develop to the point where they are able to compete internationally.
One kind is to pretend to be an open trading nation whilst in reality there are all kinds of "compliance requirements", backroom deals, vague red tape, impenetrable beaucracy such that it is effectively impossible for foreign entities to be successful.
Then after a few years the foreign-owned business is sold off to a local company and the conclusion is that foreigners "just dont know how to do business in that country".
If done right, you get all the benefits of protectionism with none of the retaliation in return.
I wonder if the economists talk much about this kind of protectionism.
They absolutely started by stealing things and then figuring out how to make them on their own. But that's no different than how the US built its rocket industry, or how Apple built their OS, or any number of other non-Chinese entities doing the same thing.
Let's not forget the "how it started, where it is now" meme of the whole thing
Wasn't this from military conquest?
> , or how Apple built their OS
And wasn't Xerox compensated with Apple stock?
But sure, reverse engineering happened a lot (Phoenix bios, IIRC).
But it's much more USA, EU, UK, Australia, Japan, Canada etc.
There is a widespread, consensus view that China's rise must be managed whilst they continue to be a brutal and aggressive dictatorship.
The British empire tried to enforce no home-grown industries in certain industries among its colonies by law and by dumping or taxes. Didn't work out so well for either the UK or the colonies. This sort of forced competition through export controls may be for the best all around in the long-term.
Sanction means those uncompetitive local startups don't have to compete with established players, giving them chance to catch up.
I wish more people knew or understood this. The central government, as much as it wants, doesn't have great control on the local level. It's even enshrined in a Chinese idiom: 天高皇帝遠 or "Heaven is high and the emperor is far away". Furthermore, China's model is actually quite decentralized. There's a lot of freedom at the provincial and local level -- it pretty much has to but the CCP has been able to leverage it to experiment with different ideas at different provinces.
However it acts like one much more so than many other countries, and especially under Xi jinping.
See also https://archive.is/ZoShw (NY Times Who Owns Huawei? The Company Tried to Explain. It Got Complicated. 2019)
This is how Huawei was set up decades ago. They would have had no reason to hide or obfuscate their ownership back then. They used a legal device - the union holds shares on behalf of the employees - to get around restrictions on the number of shareholders in a private company.