China's new policy on Taiwan

There are several interesting points in the statement made by Chinese President Hu Jintao at an event commemorating the 30th anniversary of the publication of "Message to Compatriots in Taiwan" held in Beijing today:

1. The possibility of some sort of Economic Cooperation Agreement, or free-trade agreement, between China and Taiwan,
2. Taiwan could participate in international organizations "with reasonable arrangements made upon practical consultations between China and Taiwan". No wonder China softened its stance at the WTO earlier with regard to the GPA and candidacy of Taiwanese officials in WTO committees.
3. The two sides should end the state of hostility and reach peace agreements and "try to avoid war between brothers". This has not eliminated the possibility of taking Taiwan by force, but the position of China has been greatly softened from earlier stances.

告台胞书发表30周年 胡锦涛提出"六点"

(2008-12-31)

http://zaobao.com/special/newspapers/2008/12/others081231z.shtml

　　来源：中评社

　　纪念《告台湾同胞书》发表30周年座谈会31日上午在北京人民大会堂举行，中共中央总书记、国家主席、中央军委主席胡锦涛出席座谈会并发表重要讲话。中共中央政治局常委、全国人大常委会委员长吴邦国主持座谈会，中共中央政治局常委、全国政协主席贾庆林出席。

　　胡锦涛发表讲话说，明天是2009年元旦，在这里我谨代表祖国大陆各族人民，向广大的台湾同胞致以诚挚的问候和衷心的祝福。1979年 元旦全国人民代表大会常委委员会发表《告台湾同胞书》，郑重宣誓了争取祖国和平统一的大政方针，两岸关系发展由此揭开了新的历史篇章。《告台湾同胞书》明 确提出，实现中国的统一，是人心所向，大势所趋，一定要考虑现实情况，完成祖国统一的大业，在解决统一问题时，尊重台湾现状和台湾各界人士的意见，采取合 情合理的政策和办法，不使台湾人民蒙受损失。《告台湾同胞书》明确提出，我们寄希望于台湾人民，也寄希望于台湾当局，《告台湾同胞书》明确倡议，通过商谈 结束台湾海峡军事对峙状态，撤除阻隔两岸同胞交往的藩篱，推动自由往来，实现通航、通邮、通商，开展经济文化交流，《告台湾同胞书》的发表标志着我们解决 台湾问题的理论和实践进入了一个新的历史时期。

　　胡锦涛指出，自1949年台湾问题形成以来，我们始终把解决台湾问题，完成祖国统一大业作为自己的神圣职责，进行了长期不懈的努力。1978年党的十一届三中全会作出把党和国家工作中心转移到经济建设上来，实行改革开放的历史性决策，中国的发展从此进入历史新时期。

　　胡锦涛说，《告台湾同胞书》就是在这样一个重要历史背景下发表的，30年来我们为促进台湾问题的解决提出了一系列对台方针政策。邓小平 同志根据国际国内形势发展变化，从中华民族根本利益和国家发展战略全局出发，在毛泽东同志、周恩来同志关于争取和平解决台湾问题思想的基础上创造性的提出 "一国两制 "伟大构想，为确立"和平统一、一国两制"的方针作出了历史性贡献。江泽民同志提出现阶段发展两岸关系，推进祖国和平统一进程的八项主张，丰富和发展了对 台方针政策，党的十六大以来，我们就对台工作做出重大决策部署，提出一系列新主张，新举措，赋予对台方针政策新的内涵，《反分裂国家法》的制定和实施，把 我们关于解决台湾问题的大政方针法律化，表达了我们坚持和平统一的一贯立场和最大诚意，同时表明了全中国人民坚决反对台独，捍卫国家主权和领土完整的共同 意志和坚定决心。《告台湾同胞书》发表以来，在两岸同胞和各界人士的共同努力下两岸关系发生重大变化，1987年底两岸同胞长期隔绝状态被打破，两岸同胞 交往日益密切，两岸经济合作蓬勃发展，形成互补、互利的格局，1992年两岸达成"九二共识"，双方在此基础上举行首次"汪辜会谈"，2005年国共两党 领导人实现历史性会谈，达成《两岸和平发展共同愿景》。

　　胡锦涛指出，今年3月台湾局势发生积极变化，两岸关系迎来难得历史机遇，5月以来，本着建立互信、搁置争议、求同存异、共创双赢的精 神，两岸协商在"九二共识"的基础上得到恢复，并取得重要成果，两岸全面直击，双向三通迈出历史性步伐，双方妥善处理一系列问题，保持两岸关系改善和发展 势头，推动两岸关系展现出和平发展的前景。今天两岸同胞往来之频繁，经济联系之密切，文化交流之活跃，共同利益之广泛是前所未有的，中国人民维护台海和 平，推动两岸关系发展，实现祖国和平统一的事业，日益赢得国际社会理解和支持，世界各国普遍承认一个中国的格局不断巩固和发展。

　　胡锦涛说，30年来两岸关系发展的实践告诉我们，推动两岸关系发展，实现祖国和平统一最重要的是要遵循"和平统一、一国两制的方针" 和现阶段发展两岸关系推进祖国和平统一进程的八项主张，坚持"一个中国"的原则绝不动摇，争取和平统一的努力绝不放弃，贯彻寄希望于希望台湾人民的方针绝 不改变，反对台独分裂活动绝不妥协，牢牢把握两岸关系和平、发展的主题，真诚为两岸同胞谋福祉，为台海地区谋和平，维护国家主权和领土完整，维护中华民族 根本利益，30年的实践充分证明我们制定和实施的对台工作大政方针顺应了时代潮流和历史的趋势，把握了民族根本利益和国家核心利益，体现了尊重历史、尊重 现实、尊重人民愿望的实事求是精神，反应了对两岸关系发展规律的深刻认识，从而推动两岸关系发展取得了历史性成就。

　　胡锦涛强调，我们要继续长期坚持和全面贯彻这些被实践证明是正确的大政方针，继续推动祖国和平统一进程不断向前迈进，30年的实践充 分证明，祖国大陆改革开放和现代化建设不断取得巨大进步，是推动两岸关系发展，实现祖国和平统一的雄厚基础和可靠保障，决定了两岸关系的基本格局和发展方 向。30年的实践充分证明，海峡两岸中国人有能力、有智慧把两岸关系的前途掌握在自己手中，通过交流合作增进感情融合，增加共同利益，通过协商谈判，积累 共识，减少分歧、循序渐进解决问题，30年的实践还充分证明台独分裂势力及其分裂活动违背两岸同胞共同利益，损害中华民族根本利益，中国不可阻挡的历史潮 流，是对两岸关系和平发展的最大威胁，必然遭到两岸同胞共同反对，任何人，任何势力把台湾从中国分割出去的企图都是注定要失败的。

　　胡锦涛说，经过30年的改革开放中国的面貌发生了历史性变化，中国同世界的关系发生了历史性变化，两岸关系历经风雨坎坷，也站在了新 的历史起点上，回顾近代民族之艰难奋斗历程，展望未来民族之光明发展前景，我们应该登高望远，审时度势，本着对历史、对人民负责的态度，站在全民族发展的 高度，以更远大的目光，更丰富的智慧，更坚毅的勇气，更务实的思路，认真思考和务实解决两岸关系发展的重大问题。解决台湾问题的核心是实现祖国统一，目的 是维护和确保国家主权和领土完整，追求包括台湾同胞在内的全体中华儿女的幸福，实现中华民族伟大复兴，以和平方式实现祖国统一最符合包括台湾同胞在内的中 华民族根本利益，也符合求和平、谋发展、促合作的时代潮流，我们一定要以最大诚意尽最大努力，争取祖国和平统一。

　　胡锦涛指出，首先要确保两岸关系和平发展，这有利于两岸同胞加强交流合作，融洽感情，有利于两岸积累互信，解决争议，有利于两岸经济 共同发展，共同繁荣。有利于维护国家主权和领土完整，实现中华民族伟大复兴。为此我们要牢牢把握两岸关系和平发展的主题，积极推动两岸关系和平发展，实现 全民族的团结、和谐、昌盛，我们应该把坚持大陆和台湾同属一个中国，作为推动两岸关系和平发展的政治基础，把深化交流合作，推进协商谈判作为推动两岸关系 和平发展的重要途径，把促进两岸同胞团结奋斗，作为推动两岸关系和平发展的强大动力，携手共进，戮力同心，努力开创两岸关系和平发展新局面，以恪守"一个 中国"，增进政治互信，维护国家主权和领土完整是国家核心利益，世界上只有一个中国，中国主权和领土完整不容分割，1949年以来大陆和台湾尽管尚未统 一，但不是中国领土和主权的分裂，而是上个世纪40年代中后期中国内战遗留并延续的政治对立，这没有改变大陆和台湾同属一个中国的事实，两岸终归统一，不 是主权和领土再造，而是结束政治对立，两岸在事关维护一个中国框架这一原则问题上形成共同认知和一致立场，就有了各族政治互信的基础，什么事情都好商量， 两岸应该本着建设性态度积极面向未来，共同努力创造条件，通过平等协商逐步解决两岸关系中历史遗留的问题和发展过程中产生的新问题。

　　继续反对台独分裂活动是推动两岸关系和平发展的必要条件，是两岸同胞的共同责任，凡是有利于两岸关系和平发展的事，都应该大力推动，凡是破坏两岸关系和平发展的事都必须坚决反对。

　　第二，推进经济合作，促进共同发展。两岸同胞要开展经济大合作，扩大两岸直接三通，后置共同利益，形成紧密联系，实现互利双赢，我们继 续欢迎并支持台湾企业到大陆经营发展，鼓励和支持有条件的大陆企业到台湾投资兴业，我们期待实现两岸经济关系正常化，推动经济合作制度化，为两岸关系和平 发展奠定更为扎实的物质基础，提供更为强大的经济动力，两岸可以维持签订综合性经济合作协议，建立具有两岸特色的经济合作机制，以最大限度实现优势互补， 互惠互利，建立更加紧密的两岸经济合作机制进程，有利于台湾经济提升竞争力和扩大发展空间，有利于两岸经济共同发展，有利于探讨两岸经济共同发展同亚太区 域经济合作机制相衔接的可行途径。

　　第三，弘扬中华文化，加强精神纽带。中华文化源远流长，瑰丽灿烂，是两岸同胞共同的宝贵财富，是维系两岸同胞民族感情的重要纽带，中 华文化在台湾根深衣茂，台湾文化丰富了中华文化的内涵，台湾同胞爱乡爱土的台湾意识不等于台独意识，两岸同胞要共同继承和弘扬中华文化优秀传统，开展各种 形式的合作交流，使中华文化星火相传，发扬光大，以增强民族意识，凝聚共同意志，形成共谋中华民族伟大复兴的精神力量。尤其要加强两岸青少年交流，不断为 两岸关系和平发展增添蓬勃活力，我们将继续采取积极措施，包括愿意协商两岸文化教育交流协议，推动两岸文化教育交流合作，迈上范围更广、层次更高的新台 阶。

　　第四，加强人员往来扩大各界交流，两岸同胞要扩大交流，两岸各界及其代表性人士要扩大交流，加强善意沟通，增进相互了解，对于任何有 利于推动两岸关系和平发展的建设性意见我们都愿意作出积极回应，我们将继续推动国共两岸交流对话，共同落实两岸和平发展共同愿景，对于部分台湾同胞由于各 种原因对祖国大陆缺乏了解，甚至存在误解，对发展两岸关系持有疑虑，我们不仅愿意以最大的包容和耐心加以化解和疏导，而且愿意采取更加积极的措施让越来越 多的台湾同胞在推动两岸关系和平发展中增进福祉。

　　胡锦涛特别指出，对于那些曾经主张过、从事过，追随过台独的人我们也热忱欢迎他们回到推动两岸关系和平发展的正确方向上来，我们希望民进党认清时势停止台独分裂活动，不要在与全民族的共同意愿背道而驰，只要民进党改变台独分裂立场，我们愿意作出正面回应。

　　第五，维护国家主权协商涉外事务，我们一贯致力于维护台湾同胞在国外的正当权益，我们驻外使领馆要加强台湾同胞的协议，我们了解台湾同 胞对参与国际活动问题的感受，重视解决与之相关的问题，两岸在涉外事务中避免不必要的内讧有利于增进中华民族整体利益，对于台湾同外国开展民间性经济文化 往来的前景可以进一步协商，对于台湾参与国际组织活动问题，在不造成"两个中国"，"一中一台"的前提下可以通过两岸的务实协商作出合情合理的安排，解决 台湾问题，实现国家完全统一是中国内部事务，不受任何外国势力干涉。

　　第六，结束敌对状态，达成和平协议，海峡两岸中国人有责任共同终极两岸敌对的历史，极力避免再出现骨肉同胞兵戎相见，让子孙后代在和平环境中携手创造美好生活。

　　胡锦涛说，为有利于两岸协商谈判，对彼此往来作出安排，两岸可以就在国家尚未统一的特殊情况下的政治关系展开务实探讨，为有利于稳定台 海局势，减轻军事安全顾虑，两岸可以就军事问题进行接触、交流，探讨建立军事安全互信机制问题。我们再一次呼吁在"一个中国"原则的基础上，协商正式结束 两岸敌对状态达成和平协议，构建两岸关系和平发展框架。两岸同胞是血脉相连的命运共同体，包括大陆和台湾在内的中国是两岸同胞的共同家园，两岸同胞有责任 把它维护好建设好，实现中华民族伟大复兴要靠两岸同胞共同奋斗，两岸关系和平发展新局面，要靠两岸同胞共同开创，两岸关系和平发展成果由两岸同胞共同享 有，我们要坚持以人为本，把寄希望于台湾人民方针贯彻到各项对台工作中去，理解、信赖、关心台湾同胞，体察他们的意愿，了解他们的诉求，为他们排忧解难， 满腔热情，为台湾同胞多办好事和多办实事，依法保护台湾同胞正当权益，最广泛的团结台湾同胞一道推动两岸关系和平发展，台湾的前途系于两岸关系和平发展， 系于中华民族伟大复兴，在推动两岸关系和平发展，实现中华民族伟大复兴的道路上台湾同胞将同大陆同胞一道共享一个伟大国家的尊严和荣耀，以做堂堂正正的中 国人骄傲和自豪。

　　胡锦涛也提到，长期以来广大香港同胞、澳门同胞和海外侨胞心系祖国统一大业，是反独促统的重要力量，我们衷心的希望香港同胞、台湾同 胞、海外侨胞为推动两岸关系和平发展，实现和祖国平统一作出新的贡献。多年来国际社会对中国政府和中国人民维护台海和平，推动两岸关系发展，实现国家完全 统一的事业给予了积极支持，中国政府对此表示赞赏和感谢。中国的统一不会损害任何国家的利益，只会促进亚太地区和世界繁荣稳定，只会有利于中国人民为人类 和平与发展的崇高事业作出新的更大的贡献。

　　胡锦涛最后指出，两岸统一是中华民族走向伟大复兴的历史必然，尽管前进道路上还会出现困难和阻碍，但只要我们坚定信心，不懈努力，紧紧依靠两岸同胞就一定能够开创两岸关系和平发展新局面，迎来中华民族伟大复兴的锦绣前程。

　　座谈会上，全国人大常委会副委员长兼秘书长李建国，全国政协副主席、台湾民主自治同盟中央主席林文漪，中华全国学生联合会主席刘凯，中共中央台湾工作办公室、国务院台湾事务办公室主任王毅先后发言。

　　中央党政军群有关部门和北京市负责同志，各民主党派中央、全国工商联负责人以及各界代表等出席了座谈会。

China's reaction to the subsidy case

Commenting on the recent case brought by the US against China on famous brands subsidies, Mr. Xiankun LU, Counsellor in the WTO mission of China, stated, "Such complaints are very normal between WTO members. We'd bring a complaint too if we were facing similar problems. Thus, it's hard to say whether this would have any impact on US-China trade. It would not have any impact on any other subsidies measures either." (emphasis added)

Indeed, China requested for the panel in another case against US CVD practices the same day.

按WTO规则处理美出口补贴起诉

http://www.sina.com.cn  2008年12月23日 02:57  每日经济新闻
◆每经记者 江旋 发自北京

    昨日，商务部条法司负责人就美国和墨西哥要求终止中国对知名品牌的补贴措施表示，中方一贯尊重世贸组织规则，反对贸易保护主义，对美墨的磋商请求，中方将按照世贸组织规则予以处理。

    中国驻WTO代表团参赞卢先�表示，从19日开始的10之内中方会向美墨答复，确定磋商时间。按照世贸组织争端解决程序，磋商期一般为60天。

    "这类申诉在WTO成员之间是很正常，我们如果遇到这样的问题也会提起申诉。所以，很难说会对中美贸易产生什么影响，"卢先�说，"对其他的补贴措施也不会产生影响。

The Great Subsidy War is Coming?

On Dec 22nd, China requested the establishment of the panel in the case against US AD & CVD duties on certain products (steel pipe, tires, etc.). This is the third case China has brought against the US and the 2nd case China brought against US CVD practices. There are several interesting issues in this case:

1. The request for the panel was made only a few days after the US brought a case against Chinese export subsidies. As the US itself has been providing various loans lately to private firms, one wonders whether this would set off the trigger for a global war on subsidies (and/or CVDs) ? To be more specific, one wonders whether China would bring a case against US subsidies (rather than CVD practices) any time soon?

2. In its panel request, Chin also alleged that the US breached Art. 15(b) of the Accession Protocol of China, which sanctions the application of the "alternative benchmark" approach in CVD investigations against China. According to China, the US breached this provision by failing to make a finding of "special difficulties" before resorting to the "alternative benchmark" approach. The interesting legal question here is: does the Accession Protocol create legal obligations for China only, or does it create legal obligations for other WTO members as well?

New wine in old bottle

At the TNC meeting on 17 December, the last one in 2008, DG Lamy raised some interesting points in his speech. Some of the key issues are highlighted below, which my comments in brackets.

On the wider WTO front, I would like to put forward three elements for your consideration, which also stem from our discussions since Friday:

First, I believe that the WTO has a particular responsibility to follow up on the trade measures which been taken in the wake of the financial crisis; you all know that I have set up an internal Task Force to produce regular updates of these measures so that we have a better sense of the trade consequences of the financial crisis.

(HG: These measures include export restrictions on agricultural products, rescue packages that could be challenged as illegal subsidies, etc. Some of these are discussed in an article by Aaditya Mattoo and Arvind Subramanian in the next issue of the Foreign Affairs)

I am ready to report to you periodically on developments on that front in writing, as suggested by Egypt on behalf of the Arab Group and by Japan, also with the support of a number of other Members. My first report could come already this week.

I also believe it would be useful to provide a forum where this WTO radar picture could be discussed collectively; I do not think we need to reinvent the wheel so we could use one of the existing forums in the house to this effect: the Trade Policy Review Body. I have discussed this with the Chair of the TPRB, Ambassador Agah of Nigeria, and he is agreeable to this. We will be looking into a date during the second part of January when a first review among Members could be held on the basis of this radar picture.

(HG: There has been some talks to create a so-called "Bretton Woods II". I don't think that is necessary. While the Bretton Woods institutions surely have their shares in creating the mess we are in today, the main reason for the trouble is not because the existing rules or institutions are insufficient. Instead, it was exactly because the institutions did not do what they are supposed to do and we did not follow the rules that we are in the trouble today.)

Second, I believe we need to keep reviewing developments in the area of trade finance where the WTO early interventions have been useful in mobilising resources for this important area; trade finance is an area which seriously impacts trade flows for developing countries and we should remain vigilant and active.

Third, I believe we need to have a clear roadmap for work on Aid for Trade in 2009, culminating with the second Global Review before the summer break. We need to keep the focus on mainstreaming trade into Members' development policies and we also need to keep pressure on the mobilization of funds, which has been reasonably successful but where more could be done, in particular in view of the current financial crisis.

Looking into 2009, some of you have mentioned your desire to brainstorm over issues which are beyond the scope of the negotiations but which relate to areas interfacing the WTO. I agree with this. The only point I would make is that this may be a useful exercise, provided it does not distract us from our main objective of advancing the Round. I suggest we come back to this in the General Council sometime at the beginning of 2009.

(HG: Does this mean the resurrection of the debate on competition, labour and environment? Some of these have been explicitly rejected by the membership before. Is this the right time to revive talks on these issues? I'm not so confident)

A final point: in the New Year we will also have to discuss the next WTO Ministerial Conference, by which I mean our regular mandated Ministerial Conference; my own sense is that this need not be the big jamboree we have seen in the past, but rather a venue where Members take a strategic look at the future and steps to advance the goals of the organisation. On this issue, the General Council Chairman will consult with Members to get their views and take this forward.

(HG: Good for the WTO: ever since the HK Ministerial 3 years ago, the WTO has not had a ministerial conference. This is a breach of Art IV.1 in the, but the question is who has the standing to sue the WTO on this.

As I've said before, one problem with WTO MCs is that there is too much media attention, and nobody can really work well under spotlight. It's good to know that the DG also prefers low-profile MCs over the noisy carnivals in the past. )

In sum, while the year may end in disappointment, we should now gather ourselves and work in 2009 to demonstrate that the WTO remains as necessary and credible as ever. The world trading system needs the Doha Round to better respond to the needs and aspirations of its Members. Concluding the Round should remain our focus in 2009. But this endeavour takes place within a more global portfolio of WTO activities in which we need to keep investing. This task starts today.

From textiles to peanuts

On Friday, the USTR filed another WTO case against China concerning China's "Famous Brands" programs. According to the Consultation Request, the Chinese programs allegedly violate the SCM Agreement, the Ag Agreement, and the NT obligation under GATT Art. III.

In the press release, USTR Susan Schwab announced that the reason to take this case was because "we were disturbed to find that China still appears to be using WTO-illegal measures to promote its exports, ranging from textiles and refrigerators to beer and peanuts. We are going to the WTO today because we are determined to use all resources available to fight industrial policies that aim to unfairly promote Chinese branded products at the expense of American workers, farmers, ranchers, manufacturers and intellectual property owners". Of course this case is not about peanuts, even though China happens to be the largest exporter on this. The more likely cause is textiles, as US textile firms try to find other ways to fight the onslaught of Chinese exports ahead of the expiration of the Special Textile Safeguard at the end of this year.

Interestingly, Sanlu is also on the 2005 list of "famous brands" in China. Moreover, the website of the China Promotion Committee for Top Brand Strategy even provides detailed instructions on how to distinguish some "famous brands" Chinese dairy products, including milk powder made by Sanlu, from the fake ones. Now it seems the best way might be testing the melamine levels of the products concerned.

Taking down the pirates

The UN Security Council recently approved a resolution allowing foreign military forces to go after pirates on land in Somalia. In case anyone was thinking this is something new, the FDA has already opened an office in Beijing a month ago. While the stated goal of the new office, the first foreign office of the FDA, is to ensure food safety and protect consumers, the responsibilities of the office also include detecting counterfeit/pirated drugs. It seems that piracy is not that far away from you and me, and China is not that remote from Somalia after all.

The scapegoating game continues

In an interesting recent article, Paul Blustein, Journalist in Residence at The Brookings Institution provides a behind-the-scenes account on what really happened during the ill-fated WTO Ministerial this July. It seems that it was not really fair to blame it on China. Instead, China's biggest neighbour (in terms of population) and the US seems to be the one who were responsible.

Merry Christmas to China - from Geneva

The AB report for the Auto Parts case has just been released to the
public. Not surprisingly, the AB affirmed the Panel on almost all
accounts. However, by refusing to affirm the panel on the Art. II.1
claims, the AB has left a huge loophole in the future implementation
of the AB ruling. It is interesting to see whether China will try to
exploit this loophole when the time comes for enforcement.

Taiwan's scorecard (nice GPA)

Taiwan scored two major diplomatic victories recently:

1. In an official document released ahead of the recent APEC summit, Mr. Ma Ying-jeou, the head of the Taiwanese government, was referred to in his official designation - President. This is a first time since Taiwan joined the APEC in 1991. Moreover, Taiwan was able to send the former Vice President Lien Chan as the head of its APEC delegation this year. Again this is the highest level official from Taiwan to ever participate in an APEC summit. This is ground-breaking, especially if you consider that Taiwan was not allowed even to send officials at Minister level just a few years ago.

2. Taiwan has finally finished its accession talk to the Government Procurement Agreement (GPA) and will be joining the WTO-sponsored pluri-lateral agreement in a few days. While Taiwan has finished its accession negotiations since as early as 2002, due to China's opposition over the titles of some of the entities covered by the agreement, six years have passed by without any progress. Unlike other WTO agreements, the GPA deals exclusively with the procurement by government entities, making it a sensitive topic for China. When China and Taiwan both sought the accession to the WTO a few years ago, China insisted on joining the organization before Taiwan to save face. Now that China is willing to let Taiwan join the GPA even before China itself has yet to become a member, this seems to be a major progress in Beijing's way of doing things.

Of course, there is still one question remain: which entities will be included in Annex 1 of Appendix 1 of Taiwan's GPA deal? According to the GPA,  this annex contains central government entities. If Taiwan includes any entity in this annex, does it mean that Taiwan is no longer a sub-central government but should rather be treated as a central government or independent sovereign in its own right? Of course, lawyers may argue that the term "central government" does not necessarily contain sovereignty connotations, but I guess most people (non-lawyers) will agree that the "ordinary meaning" of the term does imply that the government is an independent sovereign.

Seminar on China and WTO dispute settlement

I will be in Brussels next week, visiting the European Commission and several law firms there. On Nov 25th, I will also give a seminar on China and WTO dispute settlement at the European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE), one of the leading think tanks on trade policy in the world. Interested blog readers in Brussels and the vicinity are most welcome to join the seminar. more details on the time, venue, and registration information can be found here.

Teaching WTO dispute settlement to Developing Country officials

For the past week I've been teaching the WTO dispute settlement module at an executive program for developing country officials organized by the newly-created Temasek Foundation Centre for Trade & Negotiations (TFCTN), a policy research centre at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University. It is always encouraging to see so many developing country officials who are interested in learning more about WTO dispute settlement. The TFCTN will offer some more similar courses in the years to come. I hope more developing country officials will benefit from this course and other similar initiatives.

Call for papers: Second Biennial General Conference of the Asian Society of International Law (Tokyo, 1-2 August 2009)

The Second Biennial General Conference of the Asian Society of
International Law (following its inaugural conference in Singapore in
2007) will take up the important issue of Asia's relationship with the
international legal order under the main theme of "International Law
in a Multi-polar and Multi-civilizational World - Asian Perspectives,
Challenges and Contributions." The Organizing Committee cordially
invites paper proposals and/or submissions for the event which will be
held on 1-2 August 2009 at the University of Tokyo, Japan. The
deadline for panel proposals is 31December 2008; the deadline for
papers for "regular" panels is 31 January 2009; and the deadline for
discussant papers in the plenary session and agorae papers is 28
February 2009.

Please visit the following website for details of the Tokyo Conference 2009.

http://www.asiansil-tokyo2009.com

Another election

While the attention of the whole world is focused on the US presidential election, WTO Director General Pascal Lamy announced that he will seek a second term. For those of you who watch elections for fun, this one is probably going to be rather disappointing as I don't expect a heavily-contested match at the Centre William Rappard.

New article in Journal of International Economic Law

"Saving the WTO from the Risk of Irrelevance: The WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism as a 'Common Good' for RTA Disputes", the article that I co-authored with my HKU colleague Chin Leng, has been published in the JIEL, an Oxford Journal. Interested blog readers can access the whole paper free of charge via the links below. As always all comments and criticisms are most welcome.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <jielaw-tfl@highwire.stanford.edu>
Date: Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 1:16 PM
Subject: Your article has been published in Journal of International Economic Law
To: gaohenry@gmail.com
Cc: jielaw@oxfordjournals.org

Dear Author I am pleased to inform you that Oxford Journals has published your article in Journal of International Economic Law. Here are the free-access links to your online article: Abstract: http://jiel.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/jgn036? ijkey=kSTnWR95zO6pmim&keytype=ref Full Text: http://jiel.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/jgn036? ijkey=kSTnWR95zO6pmim&keytype=ref PDF: http://jiel.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/jgn036? ijkey=kSTnWR95zO6pmim&keytype=ref The full citation for your article is: Saving the WTO from the Risk of Irrelevance: The WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism as a 'Common Good' for RTA Disputes Henry Gao; C. L. Lim Journal of International Economic Law 2008; doi: 10.1093/jiel/jgn036 This is the final published version of your article and it can be cited using the DOI given above (for more information on DOIs see http://www.doi.org). Please see below for additional information and the conditions of use for the links. You can view information about how your article has been accessed on your Article Data Webpage, a new service for Oxford Journals' authors. View the latest online usage figures, track citations, and register for relevant journal alerts. Visit the page regularly to see how your article is used over a period of time. Thank you for publishing with Oxford Journals and I hope to be of service to you again soon. Best wishes, Journal of International Economic Law Production Editor E-mail: jielaw@oxfordjournals.org Visit Journal of International Economic Law Online

2008 Biennial Interest Group Conference: The Politics of International Economic Law: The Next Four Years--Washington, DC

I will be speaking at the Biennial Conference of International Economic Law Interest Group of the American Society of International Law on November 15th. The conference announcement and program can be found here. 

Who Moved Our Milk?

At the kind invitation of Prof. Chang-fa Lo at the Asian Center of WTO & International Health Law and Policy (ACWH) at the National Taiwan University in Taipei, I attended the Workshop on Public Health: International Trade and Domestic Legal Issues in Taipei from October 16 to 17. I presented a paper titled "Who Moved Our Milk? A Primer on the Domestic and International Legal Issues in the Contaminated Milk Case in China". The following is the "Introduction" Part of the paper:

The time was the summer of 2008, a season of pride and excitement for the Chinese as China was about to fulfill its century-old dream to host the Olympic Games on the land of 5000 years of civilization. As the Olympic Torch was carried across China's shinning new cities along the coast, the rumor of deadly baby milk powders also traveled in the backward towns and villages in the hinterland of China. At Eight PM Beijing Time on August 8, 2008, the big game was launched in Beijing with the biggest Opening Ceremony the world has ever seen. For the two weeks after that, the deafening sound of "Zhongguo Jiayou", or loosely translated into "Go China", drew people's attention away from everything else that is happening on this vast land, including the lonely cries of the babies who have been suffering from kidney problems after drinking certain milk powers. After another lavish party finally drew an end to the Games on August 24, newspapers across the country started to report various cases of kidney failures of babies after they drank baby milk formula manufactured by "a certain brand". On September 11, 2008, the Shanghai-based Oriental Morning Post published a story titled "Fourteen Babies in Gansu Province Developed Kidney Stones after Drinking Milk Powers made by Sanlu". This story is the first one to reveal the identity of the manufacturer: the dairy giant Sanlu Group, which is based in Shijiazhuang, the capital of the northern province of Hebei with a name that means literally in Chinese as "The Place Where the (Kidney) Stones Come From". On the same date, Sanlu announced that, upon discovering melamine in some of its baby milk powers as a result of its self-inspection, it will recall all baby milk powders produced before August 8, or the day the Olympic Games opened. Just as the same date in the US seven years ago, this date, September 11, 2008, will forever be remembered by many in China, including, as the scandal unravels in the next few weeks, the 50,000+ children who were affected by the tainted milk powders and their relatives; the manufacturers, importers, and retailers of the thousands of products worldwide contaminated by the same chemical; the dozens of suspects who were arrested in connection with the scandal; and, last but not least, the handful of senior government officials who were sacked amid the fallout.  

At the time this article is written, it still remains unclear as to exactly how melamine, a chemical that is usually found in paint and has no nutritional value whatsoever, was so widely used in virtually all dairy products manufactured in China. However, as the author is neither a medical practitioner nor a chemist, this question will not be the focus of the inquiry here. Instead, this article will discuss the possible legal responses to the case. In carrying out this task, it is useful to first lay down several premises that we know for sure: first, the dairy products have been contaminated with melamine; second, the contamination occurred during the production process in China; third, melamine was added by someone intentionally rather than inadvertently; and fourth, the contamination affected products destined for both domestic consumption and exports. With these commonly-accepted facts as the background, this article proceeds to discuss how a public health crisis is handled under the rules of both the domestic legal regime and multilateral trading system. After discussing the pros and cons of the legal responses under both regimes, this article argues that, while domestic legal actions usually provides the most direct and effective remedy, this is not always the case. Instead, for countries with defective legal regimes, legal actions under international rules, though usually slow and not always effective, might turn out to be the best strategy to fix the problem.

Got milk, Mr. Mandelson?

Peter Mandelson was sent for treatment of kidney stones after assuming the new position of the Business Secretary of the UK. Apparently, the stone was developed a few days after he reportedly drank a cup of milk made in China. That's a nice farewell gift for the former Trade Commissioner for the EU.

Trade and everything

This time is about tainted milk. As a die-hard WTO imperialist, I cannot help thinking of the possible trade issues involved in the case. SPS? MFN? Art. XX?

Another seemingly irrelevant issue is the Special Safeguard Mechanism (SSM). According to some people at least, this is THE REASON for the collapse of the Geneva talk a few weeks ago. To tackle the issue, Prof. Robert Baldwin proposed that rather than using import volume as the sole variable, we should also consider the level of import penetration in the domestic market. If imported products are replacing domestic products in the market, a country should be allowed to invoke the SSM.

One problem, however, is how this formula would deal with scenarios such as what happens in China following the tainted milk scandal. Nowadays, few people are buying domestically produced dairy products, but as people still need milk, they are turning to imported dairy products instead. To put that in terms of the Baldwin formula, the average consumption is the same as before (probably a bit lower as some people have chosen to shun milk and drink soybean drink instead), but imports have grown significantly. Thus, under the Baldwin formula, China could invoke SSM in this case. Of course, for political concerns, it's doubtful that China will want to invoke the SSM in the current case. The point, however, is that this could happen in every case where people prefer to choose imports over domestic products because the domestic products are of inferior quality. We all know bad money drives out good, but shall bad (domestically produced) products be allowed to drive out good (imported) products? It seems this theory could potentially be (a)bused by countries for just that purpose.

You can follow this debate by posting replies directly to this blog, or at the IELP blog.

China Launched website for FTAs

The MOFCOM just launched a website for China's FTAs. According to the
website, China's concluded FTAs includes the CEPA with HK, Macau,
ASEAN, Pakistan, Chile, NZ, and the Asia Pacific Trade Agreement with
Bangladesh, India, Laos, Korea and Sri Lanka. The FTAs under
negotiation includes those with the GCC, Australia, Singapore
(negotiation concluded earlier this month and agreement expected to be
signed in October), Iceland, Peru, Noway and Southern Africa Customs
Union (SACU). Also, China is studying the feasibility of FTAs with
India, Korea and Costa Rica.

The whole site is in Chinese, with some of the agreements have English
texts available.

"中国自由贸易区服务网"正式运行

2008-09-27 09:22 文章来源：商务部新闻办公室
文章类型：原创 内容分类：新闻

　　9月27日，"中国自由贸易区服务网"正式启动运行。作为商务部的一
项重要公共服务，"中国自由贸易区服务网"的设立宗旨是深入贯彻落实党的十七大提出的"实施自由贸易区战略"要求，向社会各界提供我国自贸区的建设进展和实施情况，推动社会各界对自贸区谈判的认识和参与，促进我国已签署自贸协定的宣传和实施，供国内外企业和消费者查询和适用自贸协定带来的各种贸易、投资优惠和便利。

　　"中国自由贸易区服务网"网址为http://fta.mofcom.gov.cn。主要内容包括：我国自贸区建设情况介绍、我国自贸区谈判最新进展、我国签署的自贸协定文本查询、自贸区关税减让查询、自贸区服务贸易和投资等领域的谈判成果、与自贸区谈判相关部委的业务介绍、自贸区问题解答等。

　　近年来，在经济全球化深入发展的同时，区域经济一体化迅猛发展。截至2008年8月底，向WTO通报、仍然生效、以自贸区为主的区域贸易安排已达213个，涵盖全球货物贸易一半以上。在党中央和国务院的领导和部署下，我国积极顺应区域经济一体化潮流，稳步推进自贸区建设，与五大洲的30个国家和地区建设13个自贸区，涵盖我国2007年外贸总额的四分之一。当前，自贸区已经成为加入WTO之后，我国对外开放的新形式、新起点，以及与其他国家实现互利共赢的新渠道、新平台。

WTO Movie

Finally there's a movie for the WTO.

Fwd: SMU School of Law - A Joint Seminar on WTO and FTA

---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: LAW <law@smu.edu.sg>
Date: Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 5:17 PM
Subject: School of Law - A Joint Seminar on WTO and FTA
To: SMU_Faculty_Admin <staff@smu.edu.sg>, "Faculty (Adjunct)" <FacultyAdjunct@smu.edu.sg>, "Faculty (Visiting)" <FacultyVisiting@smu.edu.sg>

 

Click here if you are unable to view this page.

	School of Law cordially invites you to A Joint Seminar on The World Trade Organization (WTO) and Free Trade Agreements (FTA) By Prof. Mitsuo Matsushita Professor Emeritus, University of Tokyo Founding Member, WTO Appellate Body and Prof. William J. Davey Guy Raymond Jones Chair Emeritus, University of Illinois College of Law Former Director, Legal Affairs Division, WTO Secretariat View CV 9 October 2008, Thursday 3.00pm to 5.30pm Networked Seminar Room 1-3 School of Law Level 1 60 Stamford Road Singapore 178900 Location Map Abstract Established in 1994, the WTO has quickly become one of the most important international organizations in the world today. Over the past few years, however, the WTO has met many new challenges. One of the most serious challenges is the FTAs that have mushroomed around the world, especially in the Asia region. How would these FTAs affect the WTO? What are the other challenges facing the WTO? How should the WTO deal with these challenges? In this joint seminar, two of the world's most renowned scholars on WTO will share with you their thoughts on these issues and beyond. The seminar will start with a lecture on "Proliferation of FTA and its Implications on the World Trading System" by Prof. Matsushita, a founding member of the WTO Appellate Body, popularly known as the "World Court on International Trade". In the second part of the seminar, Prof. Davey, former Chief Legal Advisor of the WTO Secretariat, will continue the intelle ctual journey with a lecture on "The Future of the WTO". Afterwards, there will be an opportunity for an interactive dialogue with both speakers on these and other issues relating to the multilateral trading system. Registration Kindly register by 7 October 2008, Tuesday. Attendance is by registration only. We look forward to seeing you at this event. Yours sincerely, Office of the Dean School of Law Singapore Management University

	© Copyright 2006 by Singapore Management University. All Rights Reserved.

Conference Announcement: The WTO in Difficult Times: New Challenges and New Prospects

The WTO in Difficult Times: New Challenges and New Prospects

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

It is with great pleasure that we invite you to the International Conference on "The WTO in Difficult Times: New Challenges and New Prospects", co-hosted by SMU School of Law and the Asian WTO Research Network.

Synopsis of Conference

The subprime meltdown, inflation, global food shortage, and rising oil prices……the world has become a very difference place as we entered 2008. How will the new economic environment affect the World Trade Organization (WTO), and how shall the WTO deal with these new challenges in such difficult time? Bringing together leading WTO scholars from Asia and beyond, this international conference will provide a good opportunity to reflect upon some of the most pressing issues facing the multilateral trading system today.

Registration

Free Admission. Click here for registration.
Further details can be found at our conference website.

A Different Type of Trade/Exchange

If you ever wonder how the Chinese government uses the gigantic foreign reserve it built up through foreign trade, the following article by Andrew Batson from the WSJ might interests you. This is a very different type of foreign trade or foreign exchange than the ones we used to know, and it seems China is also getting better and better at this (like at everything else). 

URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122121919505927749.html

If you want to see for yourself, the goods are at: http://www.rree.go.cr

 

China Used Foreign-Exchange Reserves In Diplomatic Deal with Costa Rica

By ANDREW BATSON
September 12, 2008 7:54 a.m.

BEIJING – China secretly agreed to use its foreign-exchange reserves to buy $300 million in bonds from Costa Rica as part of a deal that enticed the Latin American nation to switch diplomatic recognition to Beijing away from Taiwan, newly-published government documents show.

The documents provide rare evidence that China has used its $1.81 trillion in official reserves, the world's largest such store, for explicitly political purposes as well as financial ones. The documents describing the deal were released by the Costa Rican government on an official Web site this past week after a court challenge by local newspaper La Nación, which published accounts of their contents. According to the documents, China's State Administration of Foreign Exchange in January purchased $150 million of the U.S. dollar bonds, which pay 2% annual interest, and will purchase another $150 million in January 2009.

The politically-driven investment by SAFE, as the foreign-exchange agency is known, could lead to a backlash just as it becomes an increasingly active player in international stock markets. It could also undercut efforts by the China Investment Corp., a sovereign investment fund that is run separately from SAFE, to be welcomed as a global investor that pursues only financial returns.

The negotiations that led to the Costa Rica purchase are part of a long tradition of "checkbook diplomacy" practiced by diplomatic rivals China and Taiwan. China considers self-governed Taiwan part of its territory and demands that its diplomatic partners sever official ties with the island.

Most of the handful of countries that keep diplomatic ties with Taiwan are poor developing nations to which it gives aid. But China's growing economic might has in recent years allowed it to outmaneuver Taiwan and convince many countries to change their ties. Costa Rica switched its diplomatic recognition to Beijing in June 2007. The impoverished African nation of Malawi followed in December.

Costa Rican Vice President Laura Chinchilla has defended the deal with China, saying "We believe the country received only positive news with the establishment of this relationship," according to a statement by her foreign ministry on Wednesday. She noted China's commercial promise and its support for Costa Rica in international forums like the United Nations.

On its Web site, Costa Rica's foreign ministry published copies of an agreement between the two governments that was signed in Beijing on June 1, 2007, as well as several subsequent letters. China is to give Costa Rica another $130 million in direct economic aid that will not be repaid, in addition to the two-stage bond purchase.

In a statement Friday, China's foreign ministry did not contest the validity of the Costa Rican documents. "China provides assistance to the Costa Rican government within its means. The goal is to help Costa Rica's economic and social development," the statement said.

SAFE doesn't publicly discuss its investments and took steps to ensure this deal would also be secret. In an English-language letter dated Jan. 2, 2008, a SAFE official named Fang Shangpu wrote to the Costa Rican finance ministry setting out terms of the bond deal, including a request that Costa Rica "shall take necessary measures to prevent the disclosure of the financial terms of this operation and of SAFE as a purchaser of the bonds." On Jan. 7, finance minister Guillermo Zuniga replied in a letter saying "It is a pleasure for me to confirm that these suggestions are acceptable to us."

Costa Rica also published a letter by foreign ministry official Edgar Ugalde, confirming that SAFE's first investment of $150 million took place on Jan. 23, 2008. Asked to comment, the State Administration of Foreign Exchange said "the investment in Costa Rica government bonds is a normal investment activity for foreign exchange reserves," noting that it owns bonds issued by many other governments.

--Bai Lin in Shanghai and Miguel Gonzalez in Hong Kong contributed to this article.

 

The "Evil" Organization in Geneva

No I'm not talking about the WTO. This time around the winner is the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) , where the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) will be switched on this Wednesday. According to some sources, the LHC could, at least in theory, creates black hole that will destroy the entire planet. This again proved that the charm of Geneva is universal: it's a favorite place not only for secretive spies or diplomats (or spies disguised as diplomats), but also for crazy scientists.

Now if you link this with the collapse of the DDA in July, everything seems to make perfect sense: if the world is gonna be destroyed in a few weeks, who cares about trade negotiation any more? Thus, instead of the made doctors at the WHO (which is, btw, another Geneva-based organization), it seems that the wild scientists at the CERN are the ones who really sabotaged the trade talks.

For those of us WTO imperialists who want to save the WTO at all cost, is it now time to consider moving the WTO to Hong Kong or Singapore again?

WHO is the culprit of the DDA negotiation breakdown?

In the latest round of the finger-pointing game since the breakdown of the trade talks in Geneva, the WHO emerged as the winner. According to a recent report in BNA's International Trade Daily, the WHO's Commission on Social Determinants of Health blamed trade liberalization for reducing the "capacity of national governments to support public expenditures in health, education and other sectors" in many low-income countries because of their greater reliance on import tariffs for public revenue.

After checking the actual report, I found the argument in the report is not as radical as it sounds:

"Low-income countries often have relatively weak direct tax institutions and mechanisms and a majority of the workforce operating in the informal sector. They have relied in many cases on indirect taxes such as trade tariffs for government income. Economic agreements between rich and poor countries that require tariff reduction can reduce available domestic revenue in low-income countries before alternative streams of finance have been established. Strengthened progressive tax capacity is an important source of public finance and a necessary prerequisite of any further tariff-cutting agreements."

We all know that you can temporarily suspend your TRIPS obligations for public health reasons, but the really interesting question for our fellow trade lawyers is: can a country invoke its public health obligation under the WHO to defend its chaotic tariff regime?

Conference Notice: 3rd Meeting of the Port-city University League (PUL) - "The port as a complex reality: legal and environmental issues"

---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: Reitoria da Universidade de Lisboa <reitoria@reitoria.ul.pt>
Date: 2008/9/3
Subject: 3rd Meeting of the Port-city University League (PUL) - "The port as a complex reality: legal and environmental issues"
To: henrygao@smu.edu.sg

Dear Sir or Madam,

The University of Lisbon (Portugal) will organise on the 27-30 October 2008 the 3^rd Meeting of the Port-city University League (PUL) with the theme "The port as a complex reality: legal and environmental issues".

The PUL intends to foster collaboration, excellence and innovation between port cities and higher education institutions toward creating a global base of research and education. At a time that the network of global ports is expected to develop further developments, the PUL is very keen to enhance further international cooperation and holds a meeting at Lisbon to share different experiences and to define new strategies.

The 3^rd Meeting of the PUL aims at providing up-to-date information and further discussions on the complex integration of ports on a city context, focusing on a range of topics related to legal, urban and environmental issues. The meeting will include both lectures and port visits and is aimed not only at research scientists, but also for those involved in the assessment of environmental quality, management systems, insurances, trades, etc. The speakers' panel is composed of some of the most renowned international experts on port and city communication, trade, border control, industrial development, ocean and coastal management and environmental protection.

Considering the relevance and broadening of the theme we kindly request your collaboration in publicizing this Meeting so that many higher education institutions can participate and give way to a fruitful debate.

The program, registration and other information details are available at http://www.pul2008.ul.pt. The deadline for registration is 3^rd October 2008. In case you need further information, please do not hesitate to contact the organisation through the following e-mail address pul2008@reitoria.ul.pt.

We really expect you to join us.

The Organization Team
Rectorate of the University of Lisbon
Alameda da Universidade
1649-004 Lisbon
Portugal

Exmos. Senhores,

A Universidade de Lisboa vai organizar de 27 a 30 de Outubro de 2008 o 3.º Encontro Liga Universitária de Cidades Portuárias, subordinada ao tema "O porto como uma realidade complexa: questões legais e ambientais".

A Liga Universitária de Cidades Portuárias (PUL – Port-city University League) pretende fortalecer a colaboração, excelência e inovação entre as cidades portuárias e as instituições de ensino superior com o intuito de criar um think tank sobre o tema, uma base global de investigação e ensino. No momento em que a rede global de portos está em franca expansão e em que é cada vez mais relevante o estreitamento de laços de cooperação internacional a PUL reúne-se em Lisboa para partilhar diferentes experiências e definir novas estratégias de acção.

O 3.º Meeting da PUL visa essencialmente debater a perspectiva actual sobre a complexa integração de portos em contexto citadino, focando-se num conjunto de temas relacionados com questões legais, urbanas e ambientais. A reunião inclui conferências e visitas ao porto de Lisboa, dirigindo-se não só a investigadores, mas também a todos os que estão envolvidos na avaliação da qualidade ambiental, sistemas de gestão e administração, seguros, comércios, etc. O painel de oradores integra conceituados especialistas nacionais e internacionais na área do desenvolvimento dos portos e respectiva tecnologia, envolvência urbana, sustentabilidade social, económica e ambiental.

Solicitamos a vossa colaboração na divulgação desta Reunião para que seja possível uma participação ampla das instituições de ensino superior cujo contributo, dada a relevância e abrangência do tema, deverá proporcionar um debate frutuoso.

O programa, inscrição e outras informações sobre o Meeting podem ser consultados em http://www.pul2008.ul.pt. Salientamos que a data limite de inscrição é 3 de Outubro de 2008. Qualquer esclarecimento pode ser solicitado à organização, através do e-mail pul2008@reitoria.ul.pt

Agradecemos, desde já, a vossa colaboração.

Com os melhores cumprimentos,

A Organização da Reunião

Divisão de Relações Externas da DSRE

Reitoria da Universidade de Lisboa

Alameda da Universidade

1649-004 Lisboa

Telefone: + 351 217 939 193

New G-2?

Fred Bergsten recently wrote in the Foreign Affairs to argue that the US should forge a "partnership of equals" with China. While I have reservations on some of the points raised in the article, such as whether China should bear the blame for breaking the latest Doha talks, or whether the US (or for that matter, other major powers) is really willing to treat China as an "equal partner", I found most of the other arguments very intriguing. The full article is available here. Below are some of the parts I enjoyed most.

"Even the strongest defenders of the current world trading system would concede that at least some of China's criticisms are valid. At best, the Doha Round will achieve only marginal liberalization of world trade after almost a decade of effort. The IMF has failed to enforce its own rules and is being forced to downsize. The World Bank has lost any clear direction. The G-7 (the group of highly industrialized states) has adopted a mutual nonaggression pact among its members, making its criticisms of outsiders such as China seem hypocritical. And by failing to adapt their governance structures to the dramatic changes in the relative economic power among nations, the international economic institutions have lost much of their legitimacy. The fact that some Chinese attitudes are understandable and some Chinese concerns legitimate does not lessen the significance of the challenge but rather suggests some of the logical components of an intelligent response.

To deal with the situation, Washington should make a subtle but basic change to its economic policy strategy toward Beijing. Instead of focusing on narrow bilateral problems, it should seek to develop a true partnership with Beijing so as to provide joint leadership of the global economic system. Only such a "G-2" approach will do justice, and be seen to do justice, to China's new role as a global economic superpower and hence as a legitimate architect and steward of the international economic order.

The present U.S. approach seeks to entice China to join the existing global economic order. Washington's fondness for the status quo is understandable given its basic success and the prominent role it accords Washington. But China is uncomfortable with the very notion of simply integrating into a system it had no role in developing. Both Chinese officials and Chinese scholars are actively discussing alternative structures for which China can be present at the creation. At one particularly contentious point in its negotiations to enter the WTO, the Chinese ambassador reportedly thundered, "We know we have to play the game your way now, but in ten years we will set the rules!" The existing system, moreover, has become increasingly sclerotic, and it might well be that the only way to overcome the enormous resistance to change (manifested in positions such as Europe's refusal to wind down its excessive quotas and give up some of its IMF executive-board seats) is to undertake a fundamental overhaul."

China's contributions in the DDA - from Ambassador Sun Zhenyu

Statement by H. E. Ambassador Sun Zhenyu At the Informal Trade
Negotiations Committee Meeting
Monday,August 11,2008 Posted: 22:07 BJT(07 GMT)
From:wto Article type:Original

Thank you Chairman,
China would like to thank you and the two Chairs of Ag and NAMA who
really have spent a great deal of time and tried to bridge the gaps of
members, we appreciate very much for your efforts.
We have tried very hard to contribute to the success of the round. It
is a little bit surprised that at this time the US started this finger
pointing. I am surprised because they are now talking about cotton,
sugar, rice of China as seems that we are not going to make any
efforts in the Round. Let me explain what China has contributed in the
round.
Because of our accession negotiations, our tariff in agriculture on
average is 15.2% and now bound at this level, which is lower than the
average of European Union, lower than Canada, lower than Japan, lower
than quite a number of other developed countries on average. But on
that basis, we are committed in this round to cut further down our
tariffs, the applied tariffs deeply. And in Nama, our average is 9%,
bound at that level. And in this round, we will cut about 30% in
applied level. So we are making contributions of 50% of the total
developing countries in terms of applied rate cut. So that is our
contribution.
During the Signaling Conference, my minister gave indications that in
spite of our very extensive commitments in our services schedules, we
are going to make new efforts, we are going to give signals to
consider on condition that others will reciprocate, some new
sub-sectors, and some improved offers, eventually the level of
openness of our service market will be roughly at the same level of
some developed countries. So that will be our contribution.
If you consider what the contributions that developed countries are
going to make, in OTDS the US is spending $7 to 8 billion this year or
last year, maybe a little bit more to 10 billion, but they are
offering $14.5 billion with a lot of policy space for themselves. And
in their tariff cut in agriculture, they are protecting their
sensitivities through sensitive products while they are saying "well
even if we have sensitive products for 5 or 4% of our tariff lines, we
will have TRQ expansions". But they can never expand their TRQ to the
level of China's TRQ quantities. In our case, our TRQ is 9 million
tons for wheat, 7 million tons for corn, 5 million tons for rice. How
about your quota, even after the expansion they will never pass half a
million tons. Where is the new market access to the developed
countries?
In NAMA, they are using erosion trying to cover their sensitivities,
keeping their tariff peak in textiles and garments for another 10
years. They will cover all their sensitivities through various
measures while they are asking China to participate in sectors where
we have great sensitivities, particularly in chemicals, in
electronics, in machinery. We need some kind of protection in those
sectors but they want to bring that down to zero or near zero. So they
have protected their sensitivities very well and now they ask us in
our sensitive areas: "you need more efforts to walk an extra mile
there". So we are in a very difficult position but we still want the
round just for the sake of the multilateral trading system. We have
been trying very hard to bridge the gap so we have some consensus on
erosion, we have indicated our contributions in services, and we have
tried very hard to make improvement for issues that we think we can
show some flexibility. But unfortunately on those important issues
such as SPs and SSM, which affect millions of poor farmers. That is an
area where we can't really make further concessions, particularly the
concerns of LDCs, SVEs, they can not accept too high a trigger or too
low a remedy there. Their concerns have to be considered, their poor
farmers' interests have to be considered. And we also have great
sympathies to the solution of the issue of cotton, and in NAMA, the
solutions for South Africa, for Venezuela, for Bolivia, I think there
are all important issues that we have to settle.
Having said that, Mr. Chairman, we will continue to work, to work with
you, with the two chairs who have made great contributions and also
with all other members, and try very hard to cover the last mile and
to try to make compromise. But the major players, the major developed
players, have to show their flexibilities. This is a development
round. They have to remember that this is a development round. If they
cover all their sensitivities by themselves, and keeping on putting
pressures on developing countries, I think we are going nowhere.
Thank you, Chair.
孙振宇大使在贸易谈判委员会非正式会议上的发言
2008-08-11 21:51 文章来源：wto
文章类型：原创 内容分类：新闻

感谢主席。
主席先生，您和农业及非农两位主席为弥合成员之间的分歧花了大量的时间，中国对你们所做出的努力表示诚挚的感谢。
我们竭尽所能，为多哈回合成功做出贡献。在此时刻，美国却开始进行指责，我对此感到有点惊讶。美国对中国的棉花、食糖、大米等问题指手画脚，好像要说明中国在本轮谈判中不会做任何努力。那么，我就简单介绍一下中国在谈判中已经做出的贡献。
在加入WTO的谈判中，中国将农产品平均关税削减到15.2％，并且约束在该水平。这个关税水平比欧盟低，比加拿大低，比日本低，也比很多其他发达国家的平均水平低。即便如此，中国仍然在本轮谈判中承诺将按成员约定公式进一步大幅削减我国的农产品关税，并且是实施关税。在非农领域，我们现在的平均关税只有9%，并约束在该水平。本轮回合，按照发展中国家最灵活削减方案，我们的实施关税水平将削减30%，并且在此水平上约束。从实施税率的削减来看，中国的贡献率占发展中国家总体贡献的50%。这就是中国的贡献！
在服务出价介绍会上，我的部长表示，尽管中国在其服务贸易减让表中已经做了广泛的承诺，我们仍将做出新的努力。在其他成员能够采取对等行动的前提下，我们将考虑在新的分部门改善出价。最终，我们的服务市场开放水平将基本上与发达国家的开放程度持平。这就是中国的贡献！
我们再看看美国的"贡献"：在"扭曲贸易的补贴总量"（OTDS）方面，美国今年和去年的支出在70－80亿美元之间，或者稍多一点接近100亿美元，但是美国只承诺将约束水平降低到145亿美元，为自己预留了大量的政策空间。在农产品关税削减方面，美国通过"敏感产品"来保护自己的敏感部门，并解释说："虽然我们有4％或5%的产品被列为敏感产品，但我们将扩大关税配额"。但是，美国的关税配额量不管怎么扩大，也不可能达到中国关税配额的量。中国小麦的配额量为900万吨，玉米为
700万吨，稻米为500万吨。你们的配额量又是多少呢？就算此次扩大后，你们的配额量也永远超不过50万吨。请问，美国提供的新的市场准入又在哪儿呢？
在非农领域，美国等发达成员利用弱小经济体提出的"优惠侵蚀"要求免费搭车，保护自己的敏感部门，想把纺织品和服装的关税高峰再保留10年。他们一方面通过各种方式来保护自己的敏感产品，另一方面却要求中国在其十分敏感的部门参加部门减让，特别是化工、电子和机械等领域。我们在这些部门需要适当的保护，但是他们却要求我们将这些部门的关税降为零或接近零。他们将自己的敏感产品保护得严严实实，却在我们的敏感部门要求
"你们需要在那里再做努力，再往前走几里路"。中国目前的处境十分困难，但是为了维护多边贸易体制，我们仍然想使本轮谈判获得成功。为了弥合分歧，我们做出了巨大努力。考虑到弱小经济体的特殊困难，我们在"优惠侵蚀"问题上进一步做出让步，促成共识，在服务贸易领域表示愿意做出贡献，在所有我们认为能显示灵活性的问题上不懈努力地改善出价。但是，在影响我们数百万贫困农民生计的"特殊产品"（SPs）和"特殊保障机制"（SSM）等重要问题上，我们真的不能再让步。特别是对最不发达国家（LDCs）和弱小经济体（SVEs），他们不能接受太高的触发水平和太低的救济水平。这些国家的关注必须得到考虑，他们穷苦农民的利益必须得到基本保障。同时，中国对非洲棉花四国和南非、委内瑞拉和玻利维亚等成员的关注也深表同情。我认为这些重要问题都需要解决。
主席先生，总而言之，中国将继续努力，和您一起，和已经做出不懈努力的农业和非农两位主席一起，和所有的成员一起，为完成最后的谈判，为达成妥协而努力。但是，作为主要参与者的主要发达成员应该显示出他们的灵活性。他们不要忘记本轮谈判是一个以发展为主题的回合。如果发达成员一方面把自己的敏感产品都保护起来，另一方面却继续对发展中成员施压，我想我们将一事无成。
感谢主席。

Global food crisis: what went wrong

In a recent speech in India, Lamy made some interesting statements, including the following:

"The negotiations in the WTO on agriculture subsidies and market access are part of the medium and long term solution to the food shortage. We know that we need to increase agriculture production in developing countries and one of the reasons why their production and exports have been discouraged is because of trade distorting subsidies and high tariffs in rich countries."

One can't help wondering what are the other possible reasons?

CSI-Geneva: Who killed (or tried to kill) the DDA?

While it is a bit premature to conclude that the DDA is dead, the finger-pointing game has already started. Below is an autopsy provided by the Trade Observatory is a project of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy.

What caused WTO collapse? It was cotton subsidies, stupid!

August 6, 2008
By Devinder Sharma

In an editorial entitled 'The Next Step for World Trade' (Aug 2, 2008), the New York Times wrote: "The battle lines for the new world order were exposed at the World Trade Organization this week. The breakdown of the Doha round of trade negotiations over a clash between the United States and China and India about farm protection underscores how these new economic giants are changing the balance of power."

In another Reuters dispatch (Aug 2), President George Bush reportedly discussed the collapse of the world trade talks over phone with the Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva expressing disappointment over the failure and reaffirming his commitment to reaching an agreement.

International media meanwhile has shifted the blame squarely onto India and China for the failure of talks. India is accused of stalling the negotiations in order to protect its agriculture. India's trade minister Kamal Nath on the other hand is lapping it all up, and has used this to tirelessly project himself as a savior of the farming community, by time and again reiterating "I am willing to negotiate commerce, but not livelihood security of 650 million subsistence Indian farmers."

But did the talks actually fail when India refused to compromise over a proposal - special safeguard mechanism - that is supposed to protect poor farmers from a flood of imports? Or were it because of something more sinister, cleverer, and a crafty masterstroke that in reality protected American agriculture? Does it mean that two emerging economic giants - India and China - who many believe are likely to tilt the geopolitical balance, walked straight into a well-laid out trap?

You guessed it right. The talks did not fail on the protective shield (SSM) that India and China wanted so as to save their farmers from an import deluge. The WTO talks actually collapsed because the US did not want to make any commitment to cut its massive federal subsidies to cotton growers. Any promise to cut cotton subsidies would have been politically suicidal.

It is as simple as that.

Before you wonder how and why, let me take you through the maze of events that led to the failure. I began to see through the political mischief (or should we call it political sagacity) when Kamal Nath told some journalists that he actually was surprised at the stern position the US Trade Representative Susan Schwab took when the SSM issue came up for negotiations in the finale session. "She went out of the room for sometime and when she returned she simply dug her heels."

Read this in conjunction with what the European Union Trade Commissioner Peter Mendelson has to say: "After that, a US official simply does not show up, when negotiations resume and Susan Schwab, heading into the finales of the negotiations, stopped off in the press room 'to get her rebuttal in first.'"

The proposal on SSM that was out rightly rejected by the US was drawn by the EU in a 'last-gasp bid to unlock an impasse'. The compromise proposal was in reality accepted by the G-7 countries, including the US, as a way to take the negotiations forward.

Both India and China had accepted the EU proposal (with some reservations that could have been ironed out). The new proposal on SSM talked of zero triggers (instead of 40 per cent proposed earlier in the Lamy draft) with a tough rider that expected developing countries to establish the 'demonstrable harm' to food security, livelihood concerns and rural development before the mechanism could be put to use.

Writing in the SUNS bulletin (July 31), the ever agile Martin Khor of the Third World Network says: "Despite the major negative elements, Kamal Nath told the media that he had accepted the proposals, but the US had rejected it". Accordingly, the next morning officials of the G-7 countries had labored for three hours to produce an alternative SSM model, which they presented to G-7 ministers. Quoting Kamal Nath, Martin Khor says that it was Schwab again who rejected the new draft.

Why did Susan Schwab reject the compromise proposals? What has it to do with the "missing US official" who was absent throughout the final round of negotiations? Well, this is where the missing link actually lies. Let us investigate a little more before we find out why the US refused to move ahead.

Reacting sharply to Peter Mendelson's criticism of the US position, Gretchen Hamel, who is the spokesperson for Susan Schwab, replied: "the trade official who missed the resumption of negotiations was in consultation with Schwab at that time." And if you read this with what Kamal Nath had said earlier, Susan Schwab was in reality in touch with Washington DC through that 'missing official".

Nothing wrong, you would say. I agree. But what is obvious is that he carried a directive from Washington DC for Susan Schwab, which she faithfully delivered after she returned to the negotiating table. More surprisingly, before she came into the negotiating room, she had already conveyed it to the media.

Why was Susan Schwab in such a tearing hurry?

Now that is where the crux lies. And Martin Khor provides the answer: "Many ministers, officials and diplomats have been speculating that the SSM was not the real issue that was irreconcilable. In the most widespread view, the US really did not want to face the cotton issue, which was the next item on the G-7 agenda once SSM was settled." What Susan Schwab had therefore succeeded in doing was to deflect attention from the cotton issue, which was the next (and the last) item on the agenda.

The US had to stop the negotiations reaching the cotton issue, and do it fast. The talks had therefore to be derailed. There was no other escape.

No wonder, the leader of the G-33 group and the Indonesian trade minister Mari Pangestu later was quoted as saying: "It is like accusing us of a crime that we did not commit."

Cotton subsidies are a politically volatile issue. The US has already lost the WTO dispute on cotton subsidies. Ever since the cotton issue erupted on the international scene just prior to the 2003 Cancun Ministerial, the US has received flak for protecting its 20,000 cotton growers as a result of which millions of cotton growers in the four African countries - Benin, Burkina Faso, Mali and Chad - continue to languish in poverty. The disastrous impact is also being borne by Indian cotton farmers who are priced out.

In 2005-06, the US provided an estimated US $ 4.7 billion as subsidy to its miniscule population of cotton growers for producing a crop worth $ 3.9 billion. This year, the cotton subsidies have come down because quite a significant proportion of the area under cotton has been diverted for bio-fuels. And regardless of the decision of the WTO Dispute panel, the US has made provision under the US Farm Bill 2008 to enhance cotton subsidies in the next five years.

What it means is that while cotton farmers in developing countries are pushed to penury, and many of them commit suicide unable to bear the burden of an unjust trading regime, US cotton can easily go on a Mediterranean cruise holiday.

Any promise to cut cotton subsidies, and that too with the elections around the corner, would have created a political storm back home. The WTO mini-Ministerial on the other hand would have impressed upon the US to cut down its cotton subsidies at least by 70 per cent (given that the US had agreed to reduce its trade distorting subsidies by 70 per cent, even if it was only on paper), something that George Bush' government couldn't afford.

And if the US chose not to cut down on cotton subsidies, it couldn't have escaped all around criticism. The US would have been called the real villain of free trade, the fall guy, or the 'rogue' country. The political cost of treading on the cotton subsidy issue was therefore too heavy.

The WTO talks had to be torpedoed.

NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for research and educational purposes.

One China, Four Seats (in the WTO); One Country, Two Candidates.

On July 31st, the WTO announced that the Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures has finally resolved the "long-standing issue" of vacancies on the Permanent Group of Exports (PEG). The stalemate started in 2005 when China blocked the nomination of Prof. Lo Changfa, former dean of the law school of National Taiwan University and the most distinguished WTO authority in Taiwan. In retaliation, Taiwan tried to block China's candidate to the AB last November (for some background info on this, see here). With the victory of the KMT over the pro-independent Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) in Taiwan this spring, it seems that, to the relief of most WTO Members, the political back-stabbing days between China and the Separate Customs Territory of TPKM (Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu, which is, BTW, the official name of Taiwan in the WTO) are finally over. China finally agreed to give Taiwan a break by unblocking the Taiwanese candidates. In return, Taiwan also agreed to support Prof. Zhang Yuqing, who is China's candidate to the same body. Thus, now the small group of five experts counts two Chinese among its members, with China and Taiwan sharing the glory. In a similar vein, two officials from China and Taiwan were elected to chair the TBT and TRIMS committee in April this year. Will this "one country, two candidates" arrangement work in the future?

Internationlization of legal education services

From July 26th to August 2nd, I was in Palm Beach, Flordia for the 61st Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Association of Law Schools (SEALS), the largest regional association of law school in the US. I was invited to speak on the Panel on Comparative Business Regulation, but also participated in other panels, including one on the international programs by US-based law schools. I was surprised to find that, even though the US has been aggressively pushing for the opening up of services markets worldwide, most US law schools (except some of the elite schools) have been rather late in their internationalization efforts. On the other hand, many law schools in Europe and Asia are way ahead in this game. Unless more efforts can be put into this, the employment prospects of greduates of US law schools might be further dimmed with the decline of the US influence worldwide.

Collapse of DDA: Blame it on China?

This is my take on China's position in the DDA, which appeared in the first page of the WSJ yesterday.

China picks its side in world trade talks

Developing nations, not richer partners, offer important link

Andrew Batson. The Wall Street Journal Asia. Hong Kong: Jul 31, 2008. pg. 1

BEIJING -- China's willingness to let the latest round of global trade talks collapse is a sign of how the emerging giant's ties with other developing nations are becoming increasingly important, as it sees fewer future gains from negotiations with rich countries like the U.S.

The talks at the World Trade Organization in Geneva foundered after member countries couldn't agree on a proposal to allow developing nations to use special "safeguard" tariffs to shield their farmers from floods of low-priced imports. Wealthy nations led by the U.S. heaped blame on India and China for blocking a global deal over a narrow point. The poorer countries, chiefly India, in turn blasted the rich nations for coddling their farmers with subsidies at a time of record food prices.

Some analysts said an unfavorable political calendar -- with the U.S. president a lame duck and India's coalition government facing elections by May -- was the real culprit. Both those governments clearly believed domestic political constraints prevented them from compromising on an issue that affects their powerful farm lobbies, observers said.

In an interview, India's commerce and industry minister, Kamal Nath, said he expects only a "pause" of a few months in global trade talks, not a complete breakdown. Mr. Nath said he had just hewn to a consistent position in the talks that India was willing to negotiate on trade issues but was unwilling to compromise "livelihood security."

But China's late-hour emergence as a swing factor was a surprising shift in the dynamics of the Doha Round of trade talks -- and not only because it marked a departure from Beijing's usually low-key negotiating style. Its vocal support for India's position, even though the issue of agricultural-safeguard measures is less significant for China, effectively negated a chance to expand markets for Chinese exporters in favor of building political ties with other lower-income countries.

"The Chinese leadership has tried to adopt a strategy to sacrifice economic interests to win the goodwill of developing countries," says Henry Gao, a former WTO official who now teaches trade law at Singapore Management University. "China has always claimed that since it itself is a developing country, its interests will always lie with its developing-country brothers."

As the world's second-largest exporter after Germany, and a major producer of everything from tennis shoes to auto parts, China has little in common with the smaller developing countries that struggle to break into rich-country markets. With an average nonfarm tariff of 9%, China's market is also relatively open: India's average rate is more than 16%. In that respect, China's interests are closer to the wealthy countries who were trying to bring down the high tariff barriers in developing nations.

Publicly, however, China has cast its lot with the developing countries. The state-run Xinhua news agency blamed "selfish and short- sighted actions" by rich countries for the collapse and warned that trade protectionism will be on the rise. "The negotiations are not supposed to produce a deal just for protecting and promoting prosperity in rich nations," the state-run China Daily newspaper wrote in an editorial Wednesday.

China's trade negotiator said the country is ready to bolster trade ties with willing partners outside the WTO process. "On the basis of equality and reciprocity, China is ready to further intensify the bilateral trade and economic cooperation with the members present here," Commerce Minister Chen Deming said in Geneva, expressing particular interest in ties with the so-called least-developed countries and small-and-vulnerable economies.

Indeed, China's trade with other emerging markets -- from Asian neighbors like Indonesia and Malaysia to the Persian Gulf and Africa -- has been booming, even as its exports to the U.S. have slowed sharply this year. China has been particularly active in developing economic ties with Africa, with its companies building infrastructure projects there and striking large mining deals.

Some of those relationships have come under fire by Western critics, most notably in the case of China's ties with conflict-ridden Sudan and the repressive regime in Myanmar. But they do highlight how China seems to be looking for future growth outside its traditional markets of the U.S. and Europe. And that gives China less incentive to participate in WTO negotiations that are still dominated by those big powers.

"There's not so much for them to gain" because the U.S. and European Union markets are largely open already, says Matthew McConkey, director of Asian trade for the law firm Mayer Brown JSM in Beijing. "I don't know what the carrot is for them in this situation."

The biggest trade issue for China these days is the rising number of "safeguards" and antidumping measures used by rich countries to block imports of some products from China. But the global trade talks never seriously discussed eliminating those measures, which are politically important to many governments. So it could be difficult for negotiators to come home with an agreement that would make a material difference to a country that exported $1.22 trillion of goods last year.

Still, some Chinese scholars say a big trading country like China would be one of the largest beneficiaries from a WTO deal that led to a further freeing-up of global trade.

"For the long term, we still hope that there can be a unified global trade framework," says Mei Xinyu, a scholar at the Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation, a government think tank in Beijing. "China is large country that exports to almost every country in the world and imports from everywhere as well. Any bilateral or regional agreement cannot substitute for a true global trade arrangement."

---

Paul Beckettin New Delhi contributed to this article.

A Busy Week

I was extremely busy last week. First I was at the inaugural conference of the Society of International Economic Law (SIEL), which was held in Geneva from July 15 to 17. The SIEL is the first global society for trade lawyers, and it was great to meet so many old friends there. I presented a paper on the Trade Barrier Investigation Mechanism of China, as part of the panel on China and the WTO. The full conference program is available here.

Hopping on the plane immediately after the conference, I flied to Macau for the Academy of International Trade Law organized by the IEEM. Taught by some of the leading scholars on trade law from around the world, this program is the best in this region and I always encourage promising young students to apply. To help students with financial difficulties, a limited number of scholarships are available for qualified applicants.

Right after I arrived in Hong Kong to take the ferry to Macau, the Panel in the China-Auto Parts case issued their highly-anticipated report. As I mentioned earlier in this blog, while the legal issues in the case are relatively straightforward, the more interesting question is how China would react to its first defeat in the WTO.

On the 21st, the day before I left Macau, trade ministers started a week of intensive negotiation at the WTO in Geneva. The main objective of this latest round of negotiation is to work out a new July (2008) package to conclude the DDA. While the WTO states that "the July 2008 package is a stepping stone on the way to concluding the Doha Round by the end of 2008", I doubt that we will see the end of Doha by the end of this year, especially with the result of the US presidential election is still up in the air and the Trade Promotion Authority has not been renewed. It is probably more realistic to aim for 2009, or 2010 as the end of Doha.

Trade and the Olympics: Language as a Trade Barrier

While China hasn't made much progressing in implementing the
obligation in its WTO Accession Protocol to translate all foreign
trade laws and regulations into one of the official languages of the
WTO, it has certainly achieved a lot in training its people to speak
English ahead of the Beijing Olympics. Now that English is only one of
the three official languages of the WTO, is the priority of English
over the other two official languages a violation of the MFN
obligation?

Trade and the Olympics: Immigration Rules as a Trade Barrier

As China tightens immigration regulations ahead of the Beijing
Olympics, it is almost impossible for businessmen from the Middle East
to get visas these days. As the result, the vendors in Yiwu, the
largest wholesalers market for consumer goods in China and arguably
the largest in the world, are having a hard time.

浙江义乌小商品城苦撑待变

(2008-07-10)

　　　以贩售小商品，在两岸深具知名度的浙江省义乌市，最近受到北京奥运反恐与防范公共场所安全的影响，中东采购客与商品生产锐减，出口量与经济因此出现下滑，业者们正苦撑待变。

　　　今年6月份，义乌小商品城的景气指数环比下降57点，出口成长幅度也滑落了14％，不景气背后的原因，竟然与中国政府维护奥运期间安全，以及义乌市政府为了公共场所安全强力拆除违建有关。

　　　一名义乌台商透露，北京奥运即将开办，中国政府为了确保奥运期间安全无虞，数月前索性颁下严令，只要是来自中东地区的旅客，签证都难以开出，而原本在义乌的"穆斯林"客商只要离开大陆，在奥运结束之前也难以再回来。

　　　由于中东客商是义乌境外采购客的主力，人数比率高达6成，平日停留在义乌采购订货的中东客商经常维持在4、5千人之谱，大陆官方严格限制这些人进出后，当地的中东客商少掉一半，对出口生意影响很大。

　　　另一个重大打击来自于义乌政府对违建的强力拆除。台商表示，今年以来义乌前后发生3起严重的公安事故，其中一起工厂火灾烧死了十余人，浙江省政府领导对此极度不满，给义乌市官员很大压力。1个多月前，当地政府开始强制拆除违章建筑，数千家违建工厂因而中断生产。

　　　台商说："义乌共几万家大小工厂，很多是『家庭式』的，它们生产的小商品提供市场大量货源，如今一下少了几千家，货源难免成问题，对经济成长也不好。"

　　　除了这两大原因之外，影响到义乌出口与经济成长的，还有内外大环境的改变。义乌当地业者提到，上游原料价格暴涨、出口退税率调降、出口贸易壁垒都是影响出口与经济的因素。

　　　"现在生意难做。"一名贩售塑胶玩具的业者说："当前石油价格猛涨，作为产业链下游的塑胶玩具，价格也水涨船高。从今年初到现在，上游供应商已经将报价提高将近10％，但我们为了在激烈竞争中保持竞争力，最多只能将价格提高5％，再高的话就没有生意了。"

　　　2008年1至5月，义乌化妆品出口额同比下降22％，塑胶制品出口同比下降13％。

　　来源：工商时报