Politics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people interested in governments, policies, and political processes. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
Some examples: China bans foreign entities from owning land, currency restrictions make it hard for companies to move funds abroad, Chinese companies are known for violating patents, and finally the government often blocks foreign operations to support domestic competition.
So why aren't Chinese companies operating in the West treated in the exact same manner? Wouldn't a tit-for-tat approach force China to start cooperating more quickly?
Except to the extent that "national security interests", immigration policy, or the enforceability of tax laws are involved, a major theme of U.S. law is that the legal standing of a person should not depend on who that person is. This concept is related to the ideas of "equality under the law" and "rule of law".
This theme of U.S. law encourages people to do business in the United States. It makes it easier for people to understand the law. It also discourages corruption and other sordid practices. Except for the idea of restricting foreign ownership of land, the ideas mentioned in the original post are contrary to this theme of U.S. law.
Many countries (including Mexico today, and England when the American colonies were being founded), severely restrict foreign ownership of land. Some of these restrictions were legacies of the idea that ownership of land was tied to a feudal lord-vassal relationship. These restrictions are often tied to the idea that allowing a foreigner (who might someday be an enemy of the country's sovereign) to own land creates the risk of foreigners establishing a base in the country. Twice in its history, Mexico has witnessed the truth of this logic.
These policies are examples of what the academic literature calls industrial policy. As the relevant Wikipedia article states, such policies "are interventionist measures typical of mixed economy countries." Given that China still claims to be a socialist economy and Western countries do not, it is hardly surprising that China is more willing and able to enact such policies. Quoting again from the same article:
China is one of the most prominent cases where the central and subnational governments still intervene in nearly all economic sectors and processes. Even though market mechanisms have gained in importance, the state control prevails. [emphasis added]
In recent decades, more highly interventionist industrial policies have also been typical of newly industrializing countries, especially in East Asia. Japan and South Korea are prominent examples. Based on these and other examples, we might expect that as China's economy matures, it should gradually become more open to foreign competition or face stagnation. Quoting again from Wikipedia, "contemporary industry policy generally accepts globalisation as a given, and focuses less on the decline of older industries, and more on the growth of emergent industries." In China, many basic industries are still emerging, while in the West they are already mature and competitive.
For a detailed account of how China's modern industrial policies have developed, see "The Rise of Industrial Policy in China, 1978-2012" by Sebastian Heilmann and Lea Shih.
===
Here is a totally separate point, which is more directly relevant to the question, but also a bit speculative. Western countries, particularly the United States, don't seem all that interested in trying to penetrate the Chinese economy in the first place. While trade with China is important, they may not see a lot of opportunities to compete in the large and complex emerging market of China. This is most clearly reflected in China's exclusion from the TPP.
This comes down to what's confusingly called "most favoured nation" status, which is (unlike what you'd expect from the name) the lowest rung of trade deals. See e.g. http://tech.mit.edu/V114/N27/china.27w.html for some of the history.
It also comes down to an old choice: guns or butter? Trade or war?
The US and China fought to a standstill over the Korean peninsula. That conflict ended with North Korea as a sort of human buffer zone between US forces and the Chinese mainland. There is also the frozen conflict between the "two Chinas": PRC and ROC (Taiwan). Every country is forced to pretend that one or the other does not exist.
Opening trade to China gives the West leverage, because now there is something we can take away. An option one step short of war.
You should also not assume that China would happily sit by introvertedly if not allowed to trade. The worst case would be that China spent all that manufacturing effort of the past decades on weapons rather than iPhones. It might also have pursued destabilisation of more nearby West-aligned countries.
Let's not also overlook that a lot of Westerners have benefited from China's partial
