Your example of this is from 2011. Chinese joint venture / technology transfer requirements in the automobile sector were eliminated several years ago.
This was a policy that was enacted when China first opened up. It was a fair deal: foreign companies got to exploit cheap Chinese labor, and in return, they transferred some IP to China. However, that IP transfer was never enough to make Chinese cars internationally competitive. Only the development of EVs - where China is the biggest R&D spender in the world - allowed China to leapfrog foreign manufacturers.
You also raise domestic component requirements to qualify for subsidies. The US does exactly the same thing.
> So these are very deliberately orchestrated mercantile policies to gain advantages with forced tech transfer, limited foreign competition, and subsidized overcapacity and export subsidies.
The problems with this explanation are:
1. China leads in EV R&D. Chalking up its dominance to theft of foreign IP doesn't make any sense.
2. China specifically invited Tesla to enter the country, and showered it with subsidies. As a result, Tesla has done very well in China. The foreign companies that are losing market share in China are the ones that missed the EV transition. VW dominated the Chinese auto market until just a few years ago. Now, it's heading to 0% market share. Why? It didn't focus on EVs.
3. China is not dumping its "excess capacity." Chinese companies are selling their cars in foreign markets at a substantial markup, and netting large profit margins in foreign markets. That's the opposite of how dumping works.
> As of this week, EU has over 100+ countervailing measures
This was a purely political decision. Automobile manufacturers in France were scared of Chinese competition and demanded protectionist measures. The Germans opposed the measures, because they sell lots of things in China and don't want to get into a trade war. The French won that fight at the EU level.
