China’s systematic “innovation mercantilism” is a threat not only to
the world’s major economies—particularly to the European Union, Japan,
and the United States—but also to the very soul of the global trading
system. Yet while China has imposed its corrosive and harmful economic
and trade policies on the world unilaterally, it would be impossible
for any other nation, acting on its own, to mount an effective
response. China has proved that it is undeterred by the threat of
economic nationalism, even on the part of the United States, just as
it is unphased by transactional deals and ad hoc trade disputes with
the European Union and Japan at the World Trade Organization (WTO). In
fact, the last few years have seen China doubling down rather than
reforming as it continues its quest for global dominance across a wide
array of advanced industries that, once lost in an affected nation or
region, are virtually impossible to resurrect.
The last few years have seen a seismic shift in views toward China’s
mercantilism in the United States, the European Union, and Japan. This
is most clear in issues around nonreciprocal market access, predatory
state-funded and state-directed foreign investment, forced technology
transfers, and theft of trade secrets. To its credit, the Trump
administration has taken the lead in highlighting China’s harmful
policies, and tried to use mainly bilateral leverage in getting China
to change its approach.
It's mentioned that China is forcing technology transfer, but according to the TRIMS agreement developing countries are allowed to ask for technology transfer from developed countries in exchange for paying for IP owned by developed countries, so how is it trade mercantilism is China abides by TRIMS and even the TRIMS+ agreement? Another thing is that every country practice theft of trade secrets. It has been determined that France was the biggest theft of German technologies. https://www.france24.com/en/20110104-france-industrial-espionage-economy-germany-russia-china-business
The Enabling Clause is the WTO legal basis for the Generalized System
of Preferences (GSP). Under the GSP, developed countries offer
non-reciprocal preferential treatment (such as zero or low duties on
imports) to products originating in developing countries.
Under the GSP, developing countries such as China can enjoy non-reciprocal preferential treatment.
As for predatory state-funded and state-directed foreign investment, China does own state-funded companies, but how does one determine if it's predatory or not? The United States often give tax subsidies to local companies or bail them out, so is there any legal basis in all of this, and why didn't the WTO do anything about China if it were true as the U.S. alleges?
Does the U.S. accursation of “innovation mercantilism” by China have any legal basis?