So what? The EU and China use their own bespoke language when they want to do something that doesn't in the minds of perhaps outsiders have a good justification.
> The US "sanctions" had major effects on the markets for various consumer products and on the profits of certain companies, but they had little or no effect on anything that truly matters for national security.
Which sanctions specifically? The ones we put on Russia which raised the cost of oil and gas and other commodities? I'm sure you are not in favor of those since it caused prices to rise. Right?
> Attempting to prevent Huawei from making smartphones has absolutely no relationship with the US national security.
The US didn't prevent Huawei from making smartphones, the US required that Huawei not be utilized in major infrastructure because of security concerns. The Chinese are obviously adversaries to the United States, Europe, Canada, Australia, Taiwan, and others and so utilizing their infrastructure which would of course have backdoors and permit Chinese spying on allied activity isn't acceptable. Seeing how Russia went on to invade Ukraine (supported by China) it proved to be a prescient move.
> Choosing what to buy is an internal matter of USA or of any other country
Exactly like how utilizing tariffs is an internal matter of the United States or any other country and allows us to choose what we buy. So you can't criticize American tariffs and also hold this view.
> ASML is free to license its technology as they please, but obviously they would be very stupid to do so.
They're actually not free to license their technology, believe it or not, because some of their key patents are American, but that's besides the point. But just to be clear, if allowed you would support ASML setting up shop in China, licensing its technology, and so forth to Chinese companies. If they did that, how long do you think it would be before ASML began to suffer the same fate as many other companies are now?
> I have already said that one of the things that I dislike at USA is that it has fought for decades to dismantle all protectionist barriers in all countries, to enable US companies to sell more there, ...
The US (along with Europe) worked to remove protectionist trade barriers over time to lower prices which you've advocated for. Europe wanted those removed (and then went on to add protectionist trade barriers back in while the US didn't) so they could sell more products to the American market.
> which has lead to the destruction of many local industries.
That's actually the fault of China. But I'm confused because you also support the destruction of local industries as long as it means lower prices. Why pay triple the cost for hand towels which could be manufactured in Portugal when you can get the same thing from China? Europe then allowed the imports of those products and your local industries collapsed or relocated manufacturing to China.
> I have also already said that I consider the availability of locally-produced goods, to avoid excessive interdependencies, more important than the lower price that could be achieved when all the production for the entire world of a certain item would be concentrated in a single giga-factory.
You said that but your comments don't support those claims. For example you want and are ok with the European car industry being destroyed by cheaper Chinese cars, but that would create excessive interdependencies (bye bye auto industry) and would remove locally-produced goods such as automobiles and the factories, raw material inputs, machinery, and parts used to create those vehicles.
> would prefer to buy them cheap from China, instead of being forced by the actions of the US government to buy them at triple prices from Micron and Qualcomm.
Europe chooses to engage with the United States for security. Europe also supports democratic Taiwan. You are blaming the wrong entity here. If Europe would no longer like the United States to support it militarily it can choose to do that. If Europe wants to support China over Taiwan they can do that. Spending 5x more on your military will result in some sort of cost increase or standard of living shuffle, but maybe that will be counteracted by additional cheap imports from China as you stop supporting democratic Taiwan? I guess it remains to be seen.
However, what matters are the actions, not the words. The US "sanctions" had major effects on the markets for various consumer products and on the profits of certain companies, but they had little or no effect on anything that truly matters for national security.
Attempting to prevent Huawei from making smartphones has absolutely no relationship with the US national security.
Forbidding the use of Huawei communications equipment in critical infrastructure has absolutely nothing to do with the US "sanctions". Choosing what to buy is an internal matter of USA or of any other country that institutes such regulations and only incompetents will use in critical infrastructure black boxes that may be controlled by another country.
Trying to equate a measure taken against the world and in favor of Qualcomm, by sabotaging the production of smartphones at Huawei, with an internal regulation like forbidding the acquisition and use of Huawei equipment for infrastructure, is a logical fallacy. Only the second of these 2 is justified.
> Would you be in favor of ASML being able to license out its technology to China?
ASML is free to license its technology as they please, but obviously they would be very stupid to do so.
More than twenty years ago, Huawei entered the smartphone market by licensing the technology for making smartphones from Siemens. Siemens sent engineers in China, at Huawei, who stayed there for a half of year or more, to teach the Huawei engineers how to make smartphones.
Already at that time, I considered what Siemens was doing as being incredibly stupid. Of course, a few years later Huawei was making better and cheaper smartphones than Siemens, while Siemens decided to abandon the smartphone market. All that is the fault of the management of Siemens, not of anyone else. The worst part was not the licensing of the technology, even if that was very dumb, but the incapacity of the management to prioritize the continuous improvement of their products, both by becoming better and by becoming cheaper, while Huawei was very motivated to do this, so starting from at most the same position they still pulled far ahead.
I have seen plenty of companies which were forced to abandon markets, or went bankrupt or were acquired by competitors, and which blamed their fate on supposedly unfair competitors, e.g. from China. But in all those cases I have never seen any attempt from those companies to really compete. All were complacent to have products that were successful in the past and now they were making only negligible changes to them, especially from the point of view of the production costs, hoping that those products will continue to make money forever, even without any significant improvements.
I hope that the European car industry will survive, but if anything happens to it it will be only due to mismanagement, not due to China, because what should have been done to make competitive electric cars was known for decades and in Europe there was more expertise in power electronics than anywhere.
You accuse me of being in favor of things that directly contradict what I have said in my first comment.
I have already said that one of the things that I dislike at USA is that it has fought for decades to dismantle all protectionist barriers in all countries, to enable US companies to sell more there, which has lead to the destruction of many local industries.
I have also already said that I consider the availability of locally-produced goods, to avoid excessive interdependencies, more important than the lower price that could be achieved when all the production for the entire world of a certain item would be concentrated in a single giga-factory.
But protective measures must be chosen wisely. As long as there is no local production, there is nothing to protect. And also, if local production is protected from competition, there must exist alternative legal means to force them to design and fabricate competitive products, instead of exploiting the privilege of being protected.
Until I will see the resurrection of the European industries of memories and of smartphones, I would prefer to buy them cheap from China, instead of being forced by the actions of the US government to buy them at triple prices from Micron and Qualcomm.