From "Made in China" to "Sold in China", and "The People(Party) Wear Prada"

Two years ago, I blogged about a special program by the CNN called "Made in China" in the wake of the tainted milk scandal. Recently, CNN started to air another "Made in China" program. No it is not that the last program was so popular that they want to bring it back. Instead the new one is a TV commercial rumored to have been financed by the MOFCOM (MOFCOM later denied this) in an effort to promote Chinese products.

The key message is the following:

"When it says made in China, it really means made in China, made with the world."

In my view, if China were really serious in taming the increasingly harsh wave of protectionism, it should make a different commercial on "Sold in China". After all, the best way to gain popularly is letting people know that they can make money from you, rather than the other way around. 

Fortunately, China has firmly established its reputation as one of the best (read as "most gullible") customers for foreign goods. According to the People's Daily, China has become the 2nd largest luxury market. Some interesting sound-bites from the People's Daily story:

"In 2008, China's super-rich bought a quarter of the world's luxury goods.

According to the World Luxury Association, affluent Chinese lavished 8.6 billion US dollars on shiny and pretty things last year.

It's estimated that if China continue to grow at a similar pace, the nation will surpass Japan as the world's largest luxury goods market within five years upping its spending to a staggering bill of 14 billion US dollars every year." 

Actually I think China might have already become number one, as the data probably doesn't capture the spending made by Chinese citizens in the fashion capitals of the world. Flying to Paris and return overnight just to get the latest Gucci bag has become a popular sport among the Nouveau Riches in China due to the high tariff and tax in the Middle Kingdom. Moreover, I'm not sure if the data includes the sales in HK and Macau, which are also driven primarily by mainland Chinese consumers.

So here are some ideas for the sequel to the popular Hollywood movie: 

1. The People Wear Prada

2. The Party Wears Prada

3. The Panda Wears Prada

4. The Prada Republic of China

5. Guccina

......

Warning: please don't forget to pay me royalty (for Hollywood producers) or license fee (for fastfood joints selling toys inspired by the same ideas), or legal actions will be taken. 

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement

The recent announcement by President Obama raised hopes again that the United States will start negotiations to accede to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). While such announcement is actually over-due, it is still not a bad news. However. the more important question is: is the TPP itself such a good thing? Recently, several colleagues and I have written a series of op-ed articles about the TPP in the East Asia Forum. Interested readers can find the articles here.

More Chinese and fewer Indians in the Secretariat?

It has been reported that India and China jointly sponsored a proposal in the WTO advocating more representation of staff members from developing countries in the WTO Secretariat. While it is understandable that China would want more of its citizens on the Secretariat, it is puzzling that India would support the move.

According to the WTO, out of the total of 629 members of the Secretariat, only 5 are from China, while 12 are from India. In other words, it's less than 1% for China, while about 2% for India. In 2009, China contributed to 5.898% of the WTO's budget, while India's share is only 1.243%. This seems to indicated that India is already over-represented while China is under-represented. If we look at the world trade shares, again the picture is largely the same.

Thus, if India were really serious about its support for China, the first thing it should have done would be asking half of its citizen's on the Secretariat's payroll to resign and give the seats to those from China. 

The only logical explanation seems to be that the claim is based on neither the real trade share or the contribution to the budget. Instead, there are three possibilities:

1. population: but this is rather unlikely. Otherwise, one third of the Secretariat staff members should be either Indian or Chinese;

2. real-world trade share multiplied by different co-efficients for developed and developing countries: but whatever co-efficient we are using, I think it is reasonable to assume that China and India will have the same co-efficient. Thus the net result would still be a very large share for China (assuming, for the purpose of argument, that we multiply developing countries' trade share by 2, this would mean China getting 12% of the seats in the Secretariat, or about 75 people, which would mean that there are at least 3 Chinese in each of the functional divisions excluding the Language Services & Documentation Division - as Chinese is yet an official language in the WTO, it is unlikely that they will work in this devision)

3. Some non-trade-related criterion: however, given that the WTO is a trade body, what is the legitimacy of using non-trade criterion to determine the composition of the Secretariat?

Having excluded all three possibilities, I'm lost. Can anyone enlighten me on this issue?

Zaobao interview on the APEC

I was interviewed in the Lianhe Zaobao, the leading Chinese newspaper in Singapore on the implications of the 2009 APEC Leaders' Declaration in Singapore. The story is reproduced below. You may scroll down for the whole story and an English translation of the article.

My Interview on APEC 2009 in Lianhe Zaobao (Singapore)

LHZB_20091122_GAO-APEC

Soros lectures

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/668e074a-bf24-11de-a696-00144feab49a.html

Formal ECFA negotiations taking-off?

Eight months ago, I blogged about the proposed ECFA between China and Taiwan. Now it seems that the formal negotiations will finally take off as the researchers from both sides have finished and exchanged the results of their feasibility studies. My take is that the agreement probably will be reached the latest by early 2013, as Hu, who will step down as China's president, will probably want the historical agreement as one of his main legacies (Ma will also probably try to get it done by mid-2012 but he probably will get a second term in the office). 

两岸研究部门就两岸经济合作协议在京进行沟通

2009-11-07 09:43 文章来源：商务部新闻办公室
文章类型：原创 内容分类：新闻

　　11月6日，商务部台港澳司负责人就两岸研究部门关于两岸经济合作协议在京进行沟通情况接受《国际商报》记者采访时表示，两岸经济交流与合作目前已达到相当的规模，如进一步就两岸经济合作与发展签署协议，将有力促进两岸经贸合作及各自经济发展，也会对亚洲甚至全球的经济发展有所助益。

　　今年以来，两岸各自就此进行了前期准备。目前双方有关研究机构均已完成两岸经济合作协议的可行性研究，并进行了多次的非正式意见交换。11月5日，两岸有关研究机构在北京再次就两岸经济合作协议的相关研究内容进行了沟通。双方就各自研究报告的模型设定、前提假设、各种模拟情形对两岸经济和产业发展的影响，及对协议框架、早期收获的构想和关切事项进一步交换了意见。

　　在广泛交换意见后，双方研究机构已形成了初步的共同结论和建议，并希望得到进一步确认和完善。至此，两岸专家学者的研究工作基本结束，两岸专家学者共同研究的结论和建议，可以为两岸正式协商提供决策参考。

The road to free trade: 400th accident missed (or settled?)

The WTO recently issued a press release o celebrate the 400th dispute passing through the gate of centre william rappard. DG Lamy noted that "this is surely a vote of confidence in a system which many consider to be a role model for the peaceful resolution of disputes in other areas of international political or economic relations".  While that may well be the case, one may also argue that had Members really had such confidence in the system, they wouldn't have brought so many disputes in the first place. Another thing worth noting is that the number of disputes have greatly decreased after the first decade, which saw an average of 30 cases brought every year. Does this mean that the system has worked so well in deterring trade disputes from arising in the first place, or that people are losing confidence in the system so that they resort to other means and don't bother to bring cases anymore?

déjà vu: The case on coke and other raw materials

The US, EU and Mexico have requested for the establishment of panel against China's restrictions on certain minerals and other raw materials. One of the items at issue is coke, on which I wrote a paper analyzing another similar complaint against China by the EU a few years ago. The paper could be downloaded free of charge here (of particular relevance are pages 334-348). 

Some key points I made in the paper:

1. Contrary to popular belief, the WTO does not just regulates imports. It also regulates exports;
2. In general, quantitative restrictions (on both imports and exports) are per se illegal in the WTO;
3. However, there are exceptions that the country imposing the restriction could invoke to justify its restrictions;
4. But the country would have to meet stringent requirements in justifying that the measure is necessary, and doesn't constitute unjustifiable or arbitrary discriminations, or is otherwise just protectionism in disguise.

Two conferences

I will be speaking at two conferences next week. The first is the Asia-Pacific Trade Economists' Conference on Trade-Led Growth in Times of Crisis. Held in Bangkok, this conference is organized by the Asia-Pacific Research and Training Network on Trade (ARTNeT) in collaboration with the WTO, UNCTAD, UNDP and IDRC. The conference will also mark the celebration for the fifth anniversary of the ARTNeT, a research network sponsored by the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP). Some of the leading trade economists, including Alan Deardorff, Patrick Low, Simon Evenett, Kym Andersen, Patrick Messerlin, KC Fung, and Robert Scollay will be speaking in the conference. As probably the only lawyer among the speakers, I will be presenting my paper on the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (also known as the P4 Agreement).  The Conference brochure is here and the program can be found here. 

The second is a conference on "DSU Reform and Beyond - Enhancing Developing Countries' Capacity to Participate in WTO DSU Proceedings"organized by the ICTSD in Geneva. I will be speaking on the Trade Barrier Investigation mechanism of China.  The agenda can be found here.

Recent MOFCOM statement on protectionism

商务部召开例行新闻发布会（10月15日）

2009-10-15 15:57 文章来源：商务部新闻办公室
文章类型：原创 内容分类：新闻

　　2009年10月15日，商务部召开例行新闻发布会，新闻发言人姚坚发布新闻并回答记者提问。实录如下：

　　姚坚：欢迎大家出席今天的例行发布会。首先，向各位通报今年1-9月份商务工作有关情况。

北京电视台记者：最近，我们发现无缝钢管和皮鞋受到国外的反倾销调查，还有玻璃和纺织行业有可能遭遇反倾销调查，请问您怎么看待目前我们国家对外贸易中面对越来越多产品被国外反倾销调查的情况？第二，请问我们对尼龙66切片进行的反倾销调查是不是属于贸易保护？
　　姚坚：第一个问题关于目前我们遇到的一些贸易摩擦和贸易纠纷的问题。我们注意到了自去年下半年以来，由于全球经济不景气，有些国家没有在自身内部寻找政策解决的方案，而是更多地对于别的国家进口产品提出了要求，甚至是保护主义的措施，这个现象在今年以来确实比较突出。今年前三个季度，从我们商务部公平贸易局的资料来看，一共有19个国家和地区对于中国产品发起了88起贸易救济的调查，包括57起的反倾销、9起的反补贴，总金额大概有102亿美元的规模。对于当前出现的这些贸易保护主义、贸易救济的措施，我们认为，在当前应对金融危机的背景下，各国应当首先加强合作，按照G20峰会的要求，共同协调政策、共克时艰，慎重出台贸易救济措施，坚决不出台贸易保护主义的措施。事实证明，滥用救济措施只能使已经恶化的贸易环境进一步加剧，无助于各国协调政策，走出金融危机的阴影。
　　对于一些明显的保护主义措施的案例，我们坚决反对，同时我们也将一些案例诉诸了世贸。比如美国到目前为止，今年以来一共对中国采取了贸易救济的调查达到16起，而且多个产品都是反倾销、反补贴合并调查。美国一方面不承认中国的市场经济地位，在反倾销的调查、倾销幅度测算和倾销关税计算中寻找替代国，在这样情况下，另一方面又对中国实施反补贴的调查，这是双重歧视，完全没有道理的。今年以来，我们遭遇的贸易救济措施涉案金额102亿，美国也占了相当大的比例达到57%。美国是金融危机的始发地，其经济总量远远超过发展中国家，是头号的经济强国，而中国是110位左右的发展中国家，美国采取这些措施，无论是从技术上，还是其应当承担的责任上都是没有道理的。
　　当然我们应该辩证客观的看待贸易摩擦，大家知道在30年前我们只占全球贸易非常小的规模，今天随着我们国力进一步增强，我们已经是全国第三大贸易体、第二大出口国。今年以来我们出口额已8400多亿美元的出口额，我们产品遇到的一些问题也是许多发达国家在国际化过程中遇到的问题，所以我们需要冷静、客观地看待问题。同时，我们也希望这些应对贸易摩擦的过程是中国产业进步的过程，是中国企业在国际化的过程中进一步提升自己的产品档次、竞争力、品牌，完善销售网络，通过产品"走出去"进一步使中国的销售网络、品牌、设计、人员，甚至文化和公共关系"走出去"。
　　关于尼龙66的问题，这是一个反倾销的案件，是我们依据业界的申请进行了慎重的技术评估作出的一个公告。

The Monkey Business on Trade and Climate Change

A very colorful statement by Dr. Zhang Xiangchen, current DPR of China
to the WTO. If only every statement in the WTO meetings were so
interesting, then my days at the Secretariat would have been much less
boring!

张向晨公使在WTO贸易与环境委员会上的发言

2009-07-14 16:04 文章来源：商务部世贸司
文章类型：原创 内容分类：新闻

Statement on Trade and Climate Change at the CTE Regular Meeting
Dr. ZHANG Xiangchen, DPR of China
10 July 2009

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On 26 June, the WTO Secretariat and the UNEP
jointly released a Trade and Climate Change Report. I would like to
take this opportunity to make some comments on that report. Since it
is almost impossible not to mention the Bali Action Plan these days
when climate change is at question, please allow me to start by
sharing with you my personal experience with the beautiful Island of
Bali.

Last month, I went to Bali to attend the Cairns Group Trade Ministers
Meeting as an observer. One evening, I took a walk at the top of a
mountain with my colleague. The view was fantastic, with the sunset,
the wind, the sea tide, and the monkeys jumping around. All of a
sudden, I heard my colleague screaming "MY GLASSES"! There were traces
of claws on his shoulder, glasses on nose gone. Mr. Chairman, you
could imagine how frenzy and yet hopeless we were. But surprisingly,
some local kids managed to exchange the glasses back with some
peanuts. And my colleague hastened to give some dollars to the kids
out of thankfulness.

On the way back to the hotel, we found something odd about the whole
thing. The monkeys took belongings from the visitors; the kids gave
peanuts to the monkeys; the monkeys gave the belongings to the kids;
and the kids returned the belongings to the visitors and got some
rewards. This is an interest chain! Our suspect was confirmed by our
local driver. This interest chain does exist. The monkeys only realize
the correlation between visitors' belongings and peanuts after
repeated hinting and training. As a result, they fill the first and
most critical link in this chain with their agility.

Coming back to the Report of the WTO Secretariat and UNEP, though the
scientific part has been deemed reasonably good, the legal analysis
part has been unfortunately interpreted by the media as "WTO signals
backing for border taxes". A tossed stone raises a thousand ripples.
Drafters of this Report might feel innocent as they seem to have only
tried to explain relevant provisions in the WTO Agreement, such as the
conditions of applying the general exceptions, and there is no
mentioning of backing for border taxes. That being so, they should be
aware that it is beyond the public and media's ability to fully
understand the legal relationship between the general provisions and
the exceptions. One thing is clear to all, though, that any attempt to
levy border taxes comes out for the purposes of restricting the
competitiveness of others instead of fighting climate change. On this
premise, it is impossible for the conditions of applying the
exceptions to be satisfied, such as "no discrimination between
countries where the same conditions prevail". Even President Obama has
said, "At a time when the economy worldwide is still deep in recession
and we've seen a significant drop in global trade, we have to be very
careful about sending any protectionist signals out there". "I am very
mindful of wanting to make sure that there's a level playing field
internationally", "but there may be other ways of doing it than with a
tariff". With this in mind, the international society should express
condemnations with one voice so as to deter others from following
suit. It is only to be expected that the public and media have
suspicions when the focus is placed on exceptions. There are two ways
of interpreting exceptions. One is to say you CAN'T do something
except under very special circumstances. The other is to say you CAN
do something as long as certain conditions are met. The two ways can
make huge differences. I am ignorant of the functions of the
Secretariat, but I do know that trade and climate change is a very
controversial issue. The WTO needs to be very cautious about making
any opinions on it.

Mr. Chairman, current WTO rules is a small cage which is unable to
hold big monkeys such as climate change. The only way out for climate
change and trade measures is first to reach a multilateral agreement
on climate change. This is what DG Lamy has termed as "Copenhagen
first". Then the relationship between climate change and trade
measures could be further clarified under the WTO framework. These
clarifications should still be based on multilateral discussions and
negotiations, and not make way for unilateral measures.

Finally, let me come back to Bali. Our driver was very responsible. He
swayed a bamboo pole in order to prevent the monkeys from approaching
us, in spite that the "Glasses Gate" still took place. But he did his
duty. He didn't act in collusion with the kids. He even reminded us
not to give too much money to the kids since this would encourage the
malconduct. Monkeys are monkeys, wild and difficult to tame, while
people should be clear about their identities and duties.

I thank you for your kind attention.

中国驻东盟首任大使：与东盟合作,中国并非盯着能源

中国驻东盟首任大使：与东盟合作,中国并非盯着能源

来源:南方都市报 作者:周勇进 时间:2009-3-24 17:31:34
您是第197位读者



未来中国-东盟关系的发展有几个重点方向:一是继续大力推进自贸区建设，二是落实温家宝总理倡议的双方基础设施建设的互联互通。三是推动大湄公河流域的开发、东盟东部增长区、泛北部湾经济合作等次区域合作。四是尽早建成中国-东盟中心，使之成为促进双方经贸、教育、文化、旅游以及民间交流的又一个重要平台。

"能够出任首任驻东盟大使，我感到十分荣幸。"中国驻东盟大使薛捍勤向本报记者表示。

2月27日举行的第14届东盟首脑会议开幕式上，薛捍勤大使闪亮出镜，成为媒体关注的焦点。作为中国继任命驻欧盟大使后任命的又一个驻地区合作组织的大使，薛捍勤曾用"联系、沟通、协调、献策"概括自己的职责，她肩负着推动中国-东盟战略伙伴关系迈向更高水平的重任。

东盟峰会结束后，薛捍勤接受了本报专访。

薛大使表示，东盟有独具特色的"东盟方式"，不会发展成"亚洲版欧盟"，中国与东盟的合作并非盯着东盟某些国家的能源。

东盟不会变成"亚洲版欧盟"

南方都市报（以下简称南都）:美国率先任命了常驻东盟大使，有人称，中国设立驻东盟大使是在跟随美国。你对此有何评论？

薛捍勤:东盟对话伙伴和友好国家根据东盟一体化进程的发展任命驻东盟大使是水到渠成的事情。

中国与东盟国家是山水相连的好邻居。中国任命驻东盟大使体现了中国对中国-东盟战略伙伴关系的重视，对东盟共同体建设的支持。

南都:您应邀出席了第14届东盟峰会开幕式，这次会议取得了很多成果，薛大使认为这次会议最重要的成果是什么？在这次会议上，东盟成员间还有哪些分歧有待解决？

薛捍勤:所有新任命的驻东盟大使都作为嘉宾受到邀请，出席第14届东盟峰会开幕式，以隆重庆祝《东盟宪章》的生效。

此次峰会的成果主要体现在三方面:一是制定了东盟共同体行动计划，批准了一系列对东盟共同体建设具有重要战略意义的文件。二是加快东盟共同体机制建设。三是就合作应对国际金融危机、促进东盟经济发展达成共识。这次峰会对东盟加快共同体建设和一体化进程具有积极意义。

南都:东盟共同体建设的最终目标是什么？东盟会变成"亚洲版的欧盟"吗？

薛捍勤:去年底生效的《东盟宪章》指出，东盟要建设"同一远景，同一个身份，同一个亲爱和共享的共同体"，实现本地区和平、稳定和共同繁荣。

在社会制度、宗教文化、发展水平等方面，东盟成员存在差异明显，多样化的特点决定了东盟不会雷同于欧盟。东盟在长期的发展过程中形成了独具特色的"东盟方式"，具体而言就是互相尊重主权和领土完整、协商一致、循序渐进、照顾各方舒适度等。这种"东盟方式"在东盟发展实践中是行之有效的，并为东盟的团结和发展发挥了重要作用。

战略伙伴关系不容诬蔑

南都:有报道说，中国与东盟某些成员国的合作是对其能源资源感兴趣。您有何评论？

薛捍勤:这种说法与事实完全不符，不能不让人怀疑散布这种言论背后的政治图谋。

中国―东盟战略伙伴关系是全方位的，不仅体现在双方政治上的相互支持，相互信任，也体现在经济上的相互依存，优势互补，平等互利。1997年亚洲金融危机肆虐之时，中国坚守人民币不贬值，与东盟国家同舟共济共渡难关。当前，面对来势凶猛的国际金融危机，中国在努力保持国内经济平衡较快增长的同时，积极通过双边和多边渠道与东亚国家开展合作。

2007年，双方贸易额突破2000亿美元，互为第四大贸易伙伴。2008年双方贸易额达到2311.2亿美元，同比增长13.9%.不久前，中国、东盟完成了自贸区最后一个重要协议―――《投资协议》的谈判，中国-东盟自贸区将于2010年如期建成。

金融危机是危也是机

南都:您对中国与东盟进一步深化合作有什么样的展望？有报告称，由于全球金融危机的影响，中国与东盟的经济合作面临一些挑战，您对此怎么看？

薛捍勤:在当前严峻的经济环境中，中国-东盟合作既面临挑战，也蕴藏机遇。首先，我们有着1997年共抗亚洲金融危机积累的互相信任和合作经验。其次，中国与东盟国家经济基本面还是好的，金融机构运行相对稳健，为双方开展经济合作提供了保障。第三，中国与东盟国家经济都在经历转型期，危机将加快我们产业结构调整的步伐，将为双方下一步合作开拓新的领域。

未来中国-东盟关系的发展有几个重点方向:一是继续大力推进自贸区建设，二是落实温家宝总理倡议的双方基础设施建设的互联互通。三是推动大湄公河流域的开发、东盟东部增长区、泛北部湾经济合作等次区域合作。四是尽早建成中国-东盟中心，使之成为促进双方经贸、教育、文化、旅游以及民间交流的又一个重要平台。

南都:东盟国家是中国的近邻，从地理位置角度看，珠江三角洲地区是中国和东盟合作的前沿阵地，前不久，国务院审议并原则通过《珠江三角洲地区改革发展规划纲要》，您认为在东盟一体化进程中，珠江三角洲地区有哪些机会？

薛捍勤:珠江三角洲地区是我国改革开放的先行区，经济市场化和外向程度很高。《珠江三角洲地区改革发展规划纲要》（2008-2020）赋予珠三角地区新定位，为未来十多年珠三角地区改革发展指明方向。

珠三角地区与东盟开展互利合作有地缘、政策、经济、人文等多方面优势。东盟一体化进程的关键是缩小新老东盟成员之间的发展差距，东盟国家应该是珠三角地区企业"走出去"投资创业的理想目标。我希望，在中国-东盟自贸区即将建成的大好形势下，珠三角地区能够抓住机遇，发挥优势，积极开展与东盟国家的互利合作。

设东盟大使彰显积极外交

南都:你是资深外交官，曾任外交部条法司司长、中国驻荷兰大使兼常驻禁止化学武器组织代表。之前这些任职经历对您担任中国驻东盟大使有什么帮助？

薛捍勤:在总体外交政策的指导下，各方面业务相互联系，相辅相成。对个人而言，多样的阅历和专业知识有助于我尽快进入新的工作角色。虽然东南亚地区的工作对我是个全新的领域，但其业务性质我并不感到陌生。这些年中国与东盟的关系取得了长足发展，对话与合作硕果累累，双方进一步合作的潜力巨大，能够出任首任驻东盟大使，我感到十分荣幸，当然也感到肩上的担子沉甸甸的。

南都:薛大使拥有哥伦比亚大学法学院法学博士学位，属于专家型外交官，这是否代表着中国外交官的未来发展方向？近年来，中国已设立了多位执行一些专门任务的大使，如中国驻欧盟大使，负责非洲事务的大使以及负责朝鲜半岛事务的大使。这是否中国外交实践的一些新变革？

薛捍勤:首先要说明的是，设立专项事务大使是各国外交实践中一种常见的做法，表明一国外交中某个领域或某项事务的特殊重要性和对外需要。中国近年来设立了多位专门的大使、特使，彰显了中国国际地位的提高和积极活跃的外交态势。外交是内政的延续，中国外交的发展从一个侧面反映了中国五十年改革开放所取得的伟大成就。

今天的中国外交队伍人才济济，高学历、专家型的外交官比比皆是，我们的杨洁篪部长就是历史学博士。对于我们这样一个新兴的发展中大国，外交工作的挑战是非常艰巨的，我们需要大批的优秀人才。

女外交官堪称"半边天"

南都:你是一名女性外交官，在同其他国家或国际组织的官员进行沟通时，女性外交官是否更擅长或者更具优势？

薛捍勤:传统外交是男性的职业，高雅且拘谨，女性更多扮演配角。二战后，随着妇女解放运动的发展，大量的职业女性也在外交领域崭露头角。新中国成立后，我们非常重视对女外交官的培养，中国女外交官出现在各种国际外交舞台上，成为外交战线上名符其实的"半边天"。

应该承认，在对外交往中，女性常具有亲和的优势，容易与人沟通。但从另一方面讲，由于职业的特性，女外交官所面临的工作、生活压力可以说比男性更大，成功更难。

南都:在担任中国驻荷兰大使的4年半时间里，您为中荷友好作出了杰出贡献，展现了中国外交官的风度、才华和胆略。现在回想起来，那4年半驻荷大使生涯让您感受最深的是什么？

薛捍勤:四年半常驻荷兰的经历极大地丰富了我的外交生涯，加深了我对欧洲社会的了解。近距离审视西方世界，远距离思考中国的发展，这一近一远让我感悟良多，对现行的国际秩序和中国的发展战略有了更深的认识。外交工作的优势在于我们有机会能够走南闯北，但看世界的目的，还是在于更好地认识自己。

南都:东盟国家是中国的近邻，从地理位置角度看，珠江三角洲地区是中国和东盟合作的前沿阵地，前不久，国务院审议并原则通过《珠江三角洲地区改革发展规划纲要》，您认为在东盟一体化进程中，珠江三角洲地区有哪些机会？

薛捍勤:珠江三角洲地区是我国改革开放的先行区，经济市场化和外向程度很高。《珠江三角洲地区改革发展规划纲要》（2008-2020）赋予珠三角地区新定位，为未来十多年珠三角地区改革发展指明方向。

珠三角地区与东盟开展互利合作有地缘、政策、经济、人文等多方面优势。东盟一体化进程的关键是缩小新老东盟成员之间的发展差距，东盟国家应该是珠三角地区企业"走出去"投资创业的理想目标。我希望，在中国-东盟自贸区即将建成的大好形势下，珠三角地区能够抓住机遇，发挥优势，积极开展与东盟国家的互利合作。

设东盟大使彰显积极外交

南都:你是资深外交官，曾任外交部条法司司长、中国驻荷兰大使兼常驻禁止化学武器组织代表。之前这些任职经历对您担任中国驻东盟大使有什么帮助？

薛捍勤:在总体外交政策的指导下，各方面业务相互联系，相辅相成。对个人而言，多样的阅历和专业知识有助于我尽快进入新的工作角色。虽然东南亚地区的工作对我是个全新的领域，但其业务性质我并不感到陌生。这些年中国与东盟的关系取得了长足发展，对话与合作硕果累累，双方进一步合作的潜力巨大，能够出任首任驻东盟大使，我感到十分荣幸，当然也感到肩上的担子沉甸甸的。

南都:薛大使拥有哥伦比亚大学法学院法学博士学位，属于专家型外交官，这是否代表着中国外交官的未来发展方向？近年来，中国已设立了多位执行一些专门任务的大使，如中国驻欧盟大使，负责非洲事务的大使以及负责朝鲜半岛事务的大使。这是否中国外交实践的一些新变革？

薛捍勤:首先要说明的是，设立专项事务大使是各国外交实践中一种常见的做法，表明一国外交中某个领域或某项事务的特殊重要性和对外需要。中国近年来设立了多位专门的大使、特使，彰显了中国国际地位的提高和积极活跃的外交态势。外交是内政的延续，中国外交的发展从一个侧面反映了中国五十年改革开放所取得的伟大成就。

今天的中国外交队伍人才济济，高学历、专家型的外交官比比皆是，我们的杨洁篪部长就是历史学博士。对于我们这样一个新兴的发展中大国，外交工作的挑战是非常艰巨的，我们需要大批的优秀人才。

女外交官堪称"半边天"

南都:你是一名女性外交官，在同其他国家或国际组织的官员进行沟通时，女性外交官是否更擅长或者更具优势？

薛捍勤:传统外交是男性的职业，高雅且拘谨，女性更多扮演配角。二战后，随着妇女解放运动的发展，大量的职业女性也在外交领域崭露头角。新中国成立后，我们非常重视对女外交官的培养，中国女外交官出现在各种国际外交舞台上，成为外交战线上名符其实的"半边天"。

应该承认，在对外交往中，女性常具有亲和的优势，容易与人沟通。但从另一方面讲，由于职业的特性，女外交官所面临的工作、生活压力可以说比男性更大，成功更难。

南都:在担任中国驻荷兰大使的4年半时间里，您为中荷友好作出了杰出贡献，展现了中国外交官的风度、才华和胆略。现在回想起来，那4年半驻荷大使生涯让您感受最深的是什么？

薛捍勤:四年半常驻荷兰的经历极大地丰富了我的外交生涯，加深了我对欧洲社会的了解。近距离审视西方世界，远距离思考中国的发展，这一近一远让我感悟良多，对现行的国际秩序和中国的发展战略有了更深的认识。外交工作的优势在于我们有机会能够走南闯北，但看世界的目的，还是在于更好地认识自己。

■薛捍勤其人

设立专项事务大使，表明一国外交中某个领域或某项事务的特殊重要性。去年12月30日，外交部发言人秦刚宣布，为推动中国-东盟战略伙伴关系的深入发展，加强中国与东盟的沟通与协调，中国政府已设立驻东盟大使一职，并决定任命薛捍勤为首任中国驻东盟大使。

薛捍勤

出生于1955年9月，她是山东人，毕业于北京外国语学院。

1980年-1982年

中华人民共和国外交部条约法律司科员

1982年-1983年

美利坚合众国哥伦比亚大学法学院学习

1983年-1990年

外交部条约法律司副处长、一秘

1990年-1992年

美利坚合众国哥伦比亚大学法学院学习

1992年-1994年

外交部条约法律司处长

1994年-1999年

外交部条约法律司副司长

1999年-2003年

外交部条约法律司司长

2003年-2008年

中华人民共和国驻荷兰王国特命全权大使

2008年12月30日

中国外交部发言人宣布，薛捍勤出任首任中国驻东盟大使。

自由贸易区：深度开放进行时

自由贸易区：深度开放进行时
http://www.sina.com.cn 2008年11月18日12:09 新华社-�望东方周刊

　　《�望东方周刊》记者舒泰峰北京报道

　　建立自贸区如"搞对象",在WTO这个"大池子"里互相认识后,互有好感的转入单独接触,经过一段时间的互相 了解,如果双方都觉得合适,便喜结连理

　　如果你精通中医,或者厨艺精湛,或者武艺超群,或者在计算机、汽车修理等方面有一技之长,那么只要你愿意,从
今年10月1日起,你就可能获得去新西兰挣取高薪的机会。

　　这一天,《中新自由贸易协定》正式生效,按照这份协定,新西兰为中医、中餐厨师、中文教师、武术教练、中文导
游等5类中国特色职业提供800个市场准入机会;确保计算机应用工程师等20类技术性职业的中方人员得到至少1000
个无需劳动力需求测试的市场准入机会。

　　如果你的年龄介于18至30岁之间,并且拥有高中以上学历,同样能因为这一协定而获益。根据两国达成的《假期
工作机制安排》,新西兰每年将为1000名18至30岁的中国青年提供为期1年的赴新勤工俭学的机会。

　　"目前已经有一批技术人员赴新西兰就业。而就在协定生效当天,就有一位北京的女大学生获得了假期工作许可。" 商务部国际经贸关系司相关人士告诉本刊记者。

　　"自由贸易区",这个对普通人来说尚显陌生的词汇,正在带来更多变化,只是人们并不一定知道。

　　热带水果山竹最早进入中国时卖98元一斤,而现在只要十几元钱――这得益于中国-东盟自贸区安排;在沃尔玛超
市,人们发现来自智利的葡萄酒越来越多,相比于法国、意大利葡萄酒,智利葡萄酒堪称物美价廉――这得益于中国―智利自 贸区安排……

　　自2003年签署内地与港澳更紧密经贸关系安排(CEPA)以来,我国的自贸区版图迅速扩大。迄今,正在或已
经与30个国家和地区建立自贸区13个,涵盖2007年我国外贸总额的四分之一。

　　"这不是普通的对外经济业务,而是一种战略上的需要。"商务部国际经贸关系司司长俞建华说。2007年10月
,中共十七大报告提出要"拓展对外开放广度和深度,提高开放型经济水平",并具体要求"实施自由贸易区战略"。

　　专家指出,参与自贸区建设,意味着中国进入了深度开放时代。

　　谈判"跟菜市场买菜的老太太一样较真"

　　李女士对山竹有强烈的爱好,"98元一斤的时候就买来吃"。不过她与一般消费者不同,她的身份是商务部国际经
贸关系司官员,中国东盟自贸区以及中国新西兰自贸区项目正是由她所在的部门负责。尤其是后者,她全程参与了谈判。

　　中新自由贸易协定于今年4月7日在北京正式签署,这是中国与发达国家签署的第一个自由贸易协定。李女士说,这
是一个"全面的高质量的"协定,"新西兰人评价说,这是他们在1983年与澳大利亚签署协定之后20多年来达成的最有 分量的协定"。

　　"最早是新西兰提出意愿,希望与中国签订一个包括货物、服务与投资各方面的全面协定。"这位官员说。不过,达
成协定的过程并不轻松。谈判于2004年11月由胡锦涛主席与新西兰总理克拉克共同宣布启动,经过3年15轮磋商,于
2007年12月最终结束谈判。

　　所有谈判都是一个讨价还价的过程,李女士的同事曾经形容她"跟菜市场买菜的老太太一样较真"。中新双方各有顾
虑,新西兰担心中国的汽车零部件会对他们产生冲击,而中方则担心新西兰的乳制品会对我国农牧业有影响。

　　"对我国一些牧民来说,一头奶牛相当于一个小金库,孩子上学、结婚全靠它,这种影响我们不得不考虑。"李女士
说。评估的结果,中方认为除了中国,新西兰乳制品还有很多其他出口市场,因此不会对中国造成过大的冲击。

　　不过,在最终的协定中,中方仍然第一次使用了WTO中期审议机制。按照协定,中方应于2019年1月1日前取
消奶粉关税。但根据中期审议机制,在2013年关税减让实施后,2014年关税减让实施前,货物贸易委员会可以评估之
前的关税减让造成的进口增长是否在总体上对中国奶业造成了负面影响。

　　而对于中国的汽车零部件和纺织等强项,新西兰设置了一个过渡期,用9年时间实现零关税。

　　谈判不仅需要知识和智慧,还需要毅力和体力。"有时甚至延续到夜里11点多,双方为一些表述争论不休。"李女
士说,中新之间的谈判原本预计在第14轮结束,结果谈到第四天仍然未达成一致,"他们的首席谈判是哭着离开会场的"。

　　已经加入了WTO,为何还要搞自贸区

　　俞建华司长经常被人问及这样一个问题:既然我们已经加入了WTO,为什么还要搞自贸区?

　　他将WTO比喻为一个"大池子","150多个成员就像150多个运动员,有高有矮,要把池子里的水加深很难
。"原定于2005年1月1日前结束的WTO多哈回合谈判的无限期中止,是"大池子"理论的最有力证明。"相对来说,
自贸区就如同'小池子'。'大池子'转不动,于是大家就把更多的精力放到'小池子'里边来。"

　　以自贸区为主的区域经济一体化,是世界经济发展的一个最新的潮流。俞建华说:"截至2008年9月,向WTO
通报并仍然生效的各种区域贸易安排已达223个,其中80%是近10年间出现的。"

　　在很长一段时间里,美国对东亚区域合作持怀疑、谨慎甚至是忽视的态度。但是,观察者发现,从2005年起,美
国对东亚区域合作的态度由"战略忽视"一下子转为"积极介入"。

　　美国不断深入与东盟整体的自贸谈判,还积极开展同泰国、马来西亚的自贸协定谈判,与柬埔寨签署了《贸易与投资
框架协议》,与越南签署了《双边市场准入协议》,并与新加坡、文莱、新西兰及智利进行商谈,建立可能实行的区域经济体
――亚太自由贸易区(FTAAP)之自由贸易协议。

　　2007年4月,美国宣布与韩国正式达成自由贸易协定,被舆论认为是美国在东亚经济整合圈的边缘上,抢先突破 了一个缺口。

　　日本也是如此。近年来,与新加坡、马来西亚、澳大利亚、东盟均建立了自由贸易区,与韩国的自贸区也在谈判当中 。

　　俞建华用"有声有色"和"风起云涌"来形容自贸区"小池子"里的动静,"自贸区是排他性的,区域外的经济体无
法得到其中的优惠安排。如果不参与,中国就会被排除在外,变成一个孤岛。"

　　冷战之后,东南亚曾经盛行中国威胁论,一开始是"中国填补真空论",90年代中期是"中国军事威胁论",而到
了世纪之交则表现为"中国经济威胁论"等。而此时的东南亚经过金融危机,经济仍然疲弱无力。在这个背景下,2002年
11月4日,我国与东盟签署了《中国-东盟全面经济合作框架协议》,决定在2010年建成中国-东盟自贸区。

　　"当时有一种说法,就是中国会把给东盟的投资抢过来,会把大量的出口产品倾销到东盟去。"原中国加入WTO首
席谈判代表、现博鳌亚洲论坛秘书长龙永图回忆说,中国的目的就是消除东盟的担心,"中国要证明这种说法是错误的,我们
应该和东盟加强经贸合作,使得东盟能够分享中国改革开放的成果。"

　　中新自贸区协定的签署,进一步引起国际舆论的广泛关注。《福布斯》杂志发表评论称,中国与新西兰达成了具有里
程碑意义的贸易协定,使中国在自由贸易的奥运会上拿到了第一块重要的个人金牌。中国正在建立自己的双边贸易伙伴俱乐部 。

　　建立自贸区好像"搞对象"

　　对于自贸区,人们最大的担忧是降低关税后是否会对本国的产业产生冲击。俞建华说,根据经验,世界上没有哪个国
家或地区是因为加入了WTO或者区域经济一体化组织而使自己的某个行业遭到了毁灭性打击,"新西兰不再生产男式皮鞋和
衬衫,但那是一种主动放弃,他们只是在寻求比较优势。"

　　有人将结自贸区比喻为"搞对象",在WTO这个"大池子"里互相认识后,相互感兴趣的转入单独接触,经过一段 时间的互相了解,如果双方都觉得合适,便喜结连理。

　　由于对象单一、目标明确,风险就容易控制,这就是俞建华总结的自贸区的优势――"对象可选"、"风险可控"。

　　据悉,目前有50多个国家和地区,相当于WTO全部成员的三分之一强,希望与中国展开自贸区谈判。这当中如何
取舍?商务部副部长易小准曾对谈判对象的选择标准这样定位:战略意义突出、经济互补性强、市场规模大或者资源丰富、推 动和谐发展效果显著。

　　中国也非常注重示范效应。新西兰在中国贸易伙伴中排名颇为靠后,但它是第一个与中国缔结此类协定的发达国家,
这将对其他发达国家产生推动。商务部人士介绍,中新自贸协定签署后,中国与澳大利亚的谈判正在加速。

　　智利是第一个与中国缔结自贸协定的拉美国家,这个单程飞行就需28个小时的国家,现在与中国之间已经架起了一
座跨太平洋大桥,"而且不收过桥费"。"与智利谈相当于跟整个拉美谈,秘鲁、哥斯达黎加在此后就向中方表达了谈判的意
愿,这也促成了'中国机遇论'在拉美的流传。"商务部国际司综合处官员告诉本刊记者。

　　目前,中国与辐射中东地区的海湾合作委员会(包括沙特、阿曼、阿联酋、卡塔尔、科威特和巴林6国)、澳大利亚
、冰岛、挪威等国的谈判也在进行中,与印度、哥斯达黎加的自贸区联合研究,即"预谈判"已经完成,与韩国的联合研究也 取得了积极进展。

　　走向深度开放

　　对外开放走到今天,自贸区战略与之一脉相承,并被视为发展方向。

　　上世纪70年代,对于迫切需要重整秩序、重建经济的中国来说,机遇来了――经济全球化进一步深化,中国比较容
易地建立了与西方市场的联系,"这实际上得益于全球贸易自由化进程"。

　　1979年,我国设立深圳、珠海、汕头、厦门经济特区。"这是方向性的变化,"国务院发展研究中心对外经济研
究部副部长隆国强说,"那时候我们以吸收出口导向型的外资为主,希望借此创汇。"

　　1986年,我国作出了申请恢复关贸总协定(GATT)缔约国地位的决定。1995年1月,世界贸易组织成立
,从当年7月起我国复关谈判转为加入WTO谈判。"这是重大标志性动作"。

　　15年的艰苦谈判于2001年11月10日结出果实。同时,"挑战和机遇"也被反复讨论,而以开放、接轨促动 国内的改革,是当时人们的一大期许。

　　事实是,加入WTO时的热望似乎并未很快落实。多边谈判进展缓慢,双边于是成为自然的选择。隆国强说:"其实 目标是一致的,都是贸易投资自由化。"

　　从历史脉络上进行观察,俞建华司长评价说,自贸区战略是国家开放战略中指向未来的重要部分,"是开放的深化或
者说深度开放"。这个开放逐渐深化的过程,与世界经济的发展潮流相契合。

　　这也是一种现实需要,不如此就难以进一步突破某些束缚。商务部研究员梅新育曾撰文指出,中国要直接在WTO框
架下确立符合中国利益的某些规则,尚且实力不足,但完全有力量在某些双边和区域经济组织内部做到这一点。

　　他说,《中国加入世贸组织议定书》第15条规定,中国自入世之日起15年内其他缔约方可以不视之为市场经济体
,这项条款加大了中国出口企业的风险。"在当前情况下,中国无法直接取消这项极为不利的条款,消除其不利后果的最佳策
略就是通过区域、双边经贸协定,规定不适用这项条款,绕开它。"梅新育说。

　　俞建华说,自贸区的谈判需要一个积累过程,要不断提升国内市场的应对能力和产业安全,"我们从来没有封死过,
只跟谁谈或不跟谁谈。但是如果一开始就选择欧美国家,他们的要求很高,难度会比较大。这有个客观规律在里边,循序渐进 吧!"

　　"加入WTO并不是开放的终点,"曾经参与加入WTO谈判的俞建华告诉本刊记者,在进行繁难的自贸区谈判的同
时,他们也经常要花大量精力与国内各方协调,"温总理说开放也是改革,现在开放依然是进行时。"-

"The capitalist cancer of WTO is attacking the lung of Geneva"

The WTO stays in Geneva for now, but isn't it high time for at least one of the Bretton Woods institutions, or any other key global organizations for that matter, to find a new home in Asia given the region's growing importance?

Geneva citizens OK expansion of WTO's lakefront headquarters

Associated Press
09/27/09 10:40 AM EDT

GENEVA — Geneva citizens voted Sunday to approve the expansion of the World Trade Organization's headquarters, despite complaints by some that the project would damage the city's lakeside promenade.

Nearly 62 percent of voters cast ballots in favor of the extension, which is part of the organization's 130 million-franc ($126.6 million) renovation plans. Nearly half of the bill will be funded through interest-free loans that the trade body will have to pay back within 50 years, while the Swiss will pay for the rest.

The plan was supported by the Geneva city and cantonal (state) governments. They argued that a "No" vote in Sunday's referendum would have sent a bad signal to the many international organizations that call the city home and add millions of dollars to the local economy.

The expansion will allow the WTO to move all of its staff to its headquarters at the William Rappard Center, a 1926 building based on a Renaissance Florence villa and overlooking Lake Geneva and the French Alps.

The WTO had been trying to find a solution since space constraints forced it to move more than 100 staff to another building 1 kilometer (less than a mile) away in the center of town. The daily Neue Zuercher Zeitung reported in 2007 that the WTO was threatening to move to Hong Kong, Singapore or another destination if the Swiss refused to meet the organization's demands.

Opposition to the construction was led by members of the city's left-wing parties, who argued that work would harm the parkland around the Rappard building and block citizens from accessing the lake.

"The capitalist cancer of WTO is attacking the lung of Geneva," read one of its slogans.

Geneva beat Bonn, Germany, in a contest for the headquarters of the 1995-created WTO with a package that included tax breaks and privileges like more gas stations with tax-free fuel, and more residence permits for family members of diplomats.

Carbon and the other C word

According to a recent report published by the LSE, contraception is almost five times cheaper than conventional green technologies as a means of combating climate change. This finding, if indeed true, would put China as the biggest contributor of carbon reduction as the country is, as far as I know, the only country in the world that has enforced a vigorous (some might use the word "harsh") and effective family planning scheme for the past 30 years. On the other hand, the contraception-carbon linkage would put most Western countries and some rich developing countries such as Singapore as the biggest perpetrators of climate change, as these countries have been desperately trying to boost their population growth in recent years. Given the high living standards in these countries, one person born in these countries would on average leave a much larger "carbon footprint" than someone born in a developing country.

According to LSE, the study is based on the principle that 'fewer people will emit fewer tonnes of carbon dioxide'. What a brilliant insight! I'm sure getting rid of human beings altogether would solve not only the carbon problem, but all the problems in the world!

Of chickens and crabs

As the leading champion of free trade, Singapore doesn't get a lot of coverage in my blog, which is largely devoted to various problematic trade measures. However, last week, Malaysia and Singapore got into a major dispute over where things such as Chili Crab, bak kut teh, laksa and Hainanese chicken rice originated from. Looks like we have a legal battle on geographical indication in the making! Get ready, fellow trade lawyers.

NYT: Got chicken ...... feet?

Chewy Chicken Feet May Quash a Trade War

Qilai Shen/European Pressphoto Agency

A chicken seller at a market in Shanghai. China has threatened to cut off imports of American chicken in a trade dispute.

• SIGN IN TO RECOMMEND
• TWITTER
• SIGN IN TO E-MAIL
• PRINT
• REPRINTS
• SHARE

By CLIFFORD KRAUSS

Published: September 15, 2009

China is threatening to cut off imports of American chicken, but poultry experts have at least one reason to suspect it may be an empty threat: Many Chinese consumers would miss the scrumptious chicken feet they get from this country.

Related

China-U.S. Trade Dispute Has Broad Implications (September 15, 2009)

China Moves to Retaliate Against U.S. Tire Tariff(September 14, 2009)

"We have these jumbo, juicy paws the Chinese really love," said Paul W. Aho, a poultry economist and consultant, "so I don't think they are going to cut us off."

Chicken exports were thrust to the forefront of American-Chinese trade tensions on Sunday when China took steps to retaliate forPresident Obama's decision to levy tariffs on Chinese tires. The Chinese announced that they were considering import taxes on automotive products and chicken meat, a development that some trade experts feared could escalate.

American executives expressed concern about losing what recently has become the largest export market for their chickens, one that is expanding rapidly as the Chinese population grows more prosperous. But the executives also expressed relief that, so far, Chinese importers have told them to keep the feet and wings coming.

"We were told by our customers in China to continue to pack and ship product," said Michael D. Cockrell, chief financial officer of Sanderson Farms, a major poultry producer based in Mississippi. "It gives us a little bit of optimism that we will get over this."

At a time when feed prices are high and domestic chicken sales to restaurants are down because of the recession, the Chinese market is important to the industry. Exports of American poultry totaled $4.34 billion last year. Of that amount, $854.3 million worth of chicken meat (less than 2 percent of total revenue by the American chicken industry) was exported to China and Hong Kong. But industry executives said the exports to China were particularly profitable.

About half of the chicken parts sold to China are wings and feet, which are worth only a few cents a pound in the United States. As delicacies in China, they fetch 60 cents to 80 cents a pound, a price that no other foreign market comes close to matching, according to industry experts.

Mr. Aho said the big chicken feet result from the American preference for white chicken meat. A bird bred for big breasts is necessarily bred to have big, strong feet and legs, he said. The United States is by far the world's leading supplier of king-size chicken feet.

Despite China's fondness for American chicken, the trade has been rife with problems since 2004, when the countries banned each other's poultry products after an outbreak of bird flu. China quickly lifted its ban, but the United States did not, because of continuing concerns about the safety of Chinese chicken.

The Agriculture Department partly rescinded the import ban in 2006 by ruling that China could export cooked poultry meat to the United States as long as it first imported the raw chicken meat from the United States or Canada. But Congress quickly inserted a provision in an appropriations bill that effectively prohibited the import of chickens processed in China, with lawmakers citing unclean conditions.

Rosa L. DeLauro, Democrat of Connecticut Democrat who leads opposition in the House to the imports, said the ban had nothing to do with trade policy. "For me it's about health," she said in an interview.

China appeared to be ready to cut off imports of American chicken products in July, and American poultry producers said the issuance of import permits slowed for a time. But sales have since returned to normal levels.

In an effort to assuage Beijing, American poultry producers have made it clear that they have nothing to do with the Congressional import ban and say they do not fear competing with Chinese canned or frozen chickens.

"We believe in free and open trade and we feel our industry has a lot more to lose by being an obstructionist in trade than in supporting China's position," said James H. Sumner, president of the U.S.A. Poultry and Egg Export Council. "If the product is fully cooked, then that would destroy any possible pathogens plus the product would be subject to further inspection when it enters the United States."

Two weeks ago, Mr. Sumner's group and the National Chicken Council joined other American food organizations in sending a letter to Ron Kirk, the United State trade representative, cautioning that action against Chinese tires could lead to retaliation. "For some, the Chinese market is the difference between profitability and possible bankruptcy," the letter warned.

Now that the Chinese are threatening retaliation, industry officials say they can only hope Chinese taste buds outweigh protectionist impulses.

"It complicates the issue for the Chinese" because of their consumer demand for American chicken parts, said Daniel Griswold, a trade expert at the Cato Institute in Washington. On the other hand, he said the American poultry industry also has a lot to lose, adding, "If we are playing a game of chicken with China we are going to be big losers."

Trade disputes and trade negotiations: which one is harder?

For the past two weeks, I have been training developing country
officials in two different programs: the first is a week-long course
and simulation on dispute settlement in Singapore, the second is
another week-long course in Bangkok on trade negotiation simulation as
part of an APEC-sponsored project. Comparing the two, I found that the
performance is better in the dispute settlement simulation. This is
not because the first group is better qualified than the second group.
Indeed, the background and knowledge of the two groups are quite
comparable. Instead, the difference would be mainly due to the
different nature of the two activities: with dispute settlement, the
participants are only asked to apply pre-existing rules; while with
negotiations, they have to design new rules that reflect their
national interests. While the dispute settlement capacities of many
developing countries have seen considerable improvement over the
years, most of them still lags behind in rule-making activities. I
think one important lesson developing countries have to keep in mind
is that WTO rules are not carved in stone, they are only the way they
are because the countries agreed that way. Any country, including
developing countries, can always change the rule if they can muster
sufficient support.

Getting tired of the lies on tires?

中方就轮胎特保案要求与美方在WTO争端解决机制下进行磋商

2009-09-14 18:05 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14日，中方就美方对中国输美轮胎产品采取的特殊保障措施要求与美方进行WTO争端解决项下的磋商。 　　商务部新闻发言人姚坚就此发表谈话指出，美方对中国输美轮胎采取特保措施，是违背WTO规则，滥用贸易救济措施的错误做法，中方要求与美方磋商，是行使WTO成员权利的正当举动，是维护自身利益的切实行动。中方希望各方能够体会到中方坚定反对贸易保护主义的决心，共同维护多边贸易体制，尊重多边贸易规则，共克时艰，推动全球经济尽快复苏。

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary
_________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release April 2, 2009

NEWS CONFERENCE
BY PRESIDENT OBAMA

ExCel Center
London, United Kingdom

6:44 P.M. (Local)

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Earlier today, we finished a very productive summit that will be, I believe, a turning point in our pursuit of global economic recovery.

We've also rejected the protectionism that could deepen this crisis. History tells us that turning inward can help turn a downturn into a depression. And this cooperation between the world's leading economies signals our support for open markets, as does our multilateral commitment to trade finance that will grow our exports and create new jobs.

Q What concrete items that you got out of this G20 can you tell the American people back home who are hurting, the family struggling, seeing their retirement go down, or worrying about losing their job -- what happened here today that helps that family back home in the heartland?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, as I said before, we've got a global economy, and if we're taking actions in isolation in the United States, but those actions are contradicted overseas, then we're only going to be halfway effective -- maybe not even half.

You've seen, for example, a drastic decline in U.S. exports over the last several months. You look at a company like Caterpillar, in my home state of Illinois, which up until last year was doing extraordinarily well; in fact, export growth was what had sustained it even after the recession had begun. As a consequence of the world recession, as a consequence of the contagion from the financial markets debilitating the economies elsewhere, Caterpillar is now in very bad shape. So if we want to get Caterpillar back on its feet, if we want to get all those export companies back on their feet, so that they are hiring, putting people back to work, putting money in people's pockets, we've got to make sure that the global economy as a whole is successful.

And this document, which affirms the need for all countries to take fiscal responses that increase demand, that encourages the openness of markets, those are all going to be helpful in us being able to fix what ails the economy back home.

Time for Commercials

The WTO has just released a nicely-made commercial called "The Routes of Trade". This will provide nice instructional material to the students.

What are the main messages? 1. Trade has been around for a long time; 2. Trade is good; 3. WTO is good.

Interesting points in the video: 1. Developing countries are conspicuously featured; 2. The last few lines in the video seems to hint a bigger role for the WTO.  

Another WTO case in the making?

Elizabeth Lynch

Attorney and Editor of chinalawandpolicy.com

Posted: September 7, 2009 12:24 PM

The U.S. Climate Change Bill: International Trade Implications & China

diggstumbleredditdel.ico.us

Read More: American Clean Energy And Security Act Of 2009, Boarder Adjustment Measures, China-Tariffs, Climate Change,Climate Change Bill, Congress, Copenhagen 2009, Jake Caldwell, Senate, Special Interests, Tariffs, Wto, Green News

Health care will not be the only divisive issue on the Senate's calendar when it returns to Congress on September 8. This past June, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (the "Climate Change Bill"). Far-reaching in its impact on the U.S. economy and particularly detrimental to certain energy-intensive sectors, debate in the Senate will become increasingly cantankerous as special interests and certain states lobby for protection.

And while the Bill, through a series of complicated cap-and trade equations and a plethora of subsidies to renewable energy, has the potential to completely alter the domestic market, debate thus far has been about its global impact. With fear that countries like China will not pass legislation to cap their domestic industries' carbon output, the House added two provisions to protect U.S. industries from companies in countries that are not similarly restrained. Out of a 1,400 page bill, these two provisions have become the center of the debate, some calling these provisions much needed protection and others calling them tariffs.

But conspicuously absent from these discussions is an analysis of what is really going on here. How exactly do these provisions work? Will they have the intended effect of maintaining the competitiveness of U.S. industries or are they attempts by certain industries to protect their profits? Will these provisions bring countries like China to the table in Copenhagen or will they ultimately produce a tariff war? Can they withstand a challenge under global trade rules?

To answer these questions, I sat down with Jake Caldwell, director of Policy for Agriculture, Trade & Energy at the Center for American Progress. You can listen to the interview here.

The Trade Provisions

Applicable Only to Energy-Intensive and Trade-Sensitive Industries
In our interview, Jake stressed that the two trade provisions in the Climate Change Bill will only apply to those U.S. industries that are both energy-intensive and trade-sensitive, making these provisions applicable in fact to only about five U.S. industries: ferrous metals (iron and steel), nonferrous metals (aluminum and copper), non-metal minerals (cement and glass), paper and pulp, and basic chemicals (World Resources Institute (WRI) report, p. xvi).

Under the Bill, these industries will initially be given a two-year waiver from compliance to the Bill's cap-and-trade regulations. However, after the two years, these industries can seek protection from foreign competition through the following two trade provisions. 

Provision 1: Recovery of Some Cost of Compliance
The first of these provisions is less controversial. Found in Title IV, Part F, subpart 1 of the Bill, it establishes an emissions allowance rebate program. As Jake explained, this will allow companies in energy-intensive, trade-sensitive manufacturing industries to be compensated in other ways for the cost of complying with the Bill's cap-and-trade program. The rebate program will reduce the threat that these companies will lose business to companies from countries that do not impose equally as rigorous caps on greenhouse gas emissions. The rebate program will be phased out by 2035.

Provision 2: Border Adjustment Measures (a.k.a. Tariffs)
It is the second trade provision, found in Title VI, Part F, subpart 2, that is the most contentious; this is the provision that establishes unilateral border adjustment measures -- a.k.a. tariffs -- on imports from countries that do not have similar emissions reduction policies. Under this provision, if by 2018 there is no international climate change treaty in force, the President, starting in 2020, is required to impose a border adjustment measure on imports from sectors in countries that have not capped their emissions or reduced their energy-intensity to comparable levels. The U.S. importer of the competing foreign product will have to purchase an "international reserve allowance" through a carbon market. This in effect establishes a tariff on imports from that foreign country.

As Jake pointed out, the President can grant a waiver to certain countries if he or she deems that there is an important national economic or environmental reason that takes precedence. But the Presidential waiver is subject to Congressional approval through a joint resolution of Congress. In effect, Congress has to "second" the President's decision, making for a cumbersome procedure. If either house of Congress does not agree with the President's reasoning, the waiver is denied. Given the already politically-sensitive as well as politically-expedient nature of the U.S.-China relationship, it is difficult to imagine that any waiver to a Chinese industry could make its way through Congress without a fight.

Effectiveness of the Trade Provisions

As Jake explained in our interview, the trade provisions were adopted for three reasons: (1) to prevent carbon leakage (the transfer of production and jobs from industries in the U.S. subject to cap-and-trade rules to companies in foreign countries that do not have such rules in place), (2) to keep U.S. manufacturing industries competitive in a potentially unequal carbon-restricted world, and (3) to be used as leverage against other countries that have yet to set emission reduction targets. But will these provisions achieve their stated goals? Or are they protectionist responses to pressure from a few select industries?

Carbon Leakage
If a goal is to prevent carbon leakage and promote emission caps in other countries, the trade provisions, especially the border adjustment provisions, are not tailored narrowly enough to achieve these goals. Congress was largely targeting China with the trade provisions. However, out of the five U.S. industries that would be able to use the tariff provisions (steel, aluminum, chemicals, paper and cement), only one industry imports more than 10% of its product from China: the cement sector (WRI report, p. xviii). For the other industries, the majority of foreign imports are from Canada and other developed nations, many of which already have emissions standards that surpass the U.S'. While there will inevitably be some carbon leakage, it's questionable just how dramatic it will be. Currently, the majority of U.S. imports in these sectors come from countries with less-carbon intense production methods than China or even the U.S. Just because U.S. companies will bare the cost of meeting more rigorous emission standards does not necessarily mean that production will be shifted to countries with less rigorous standards. Currently, China's production of aluminum is carbon-intensive and uses a tremendous amount of energy. However, China's production is more expensive than Canada's or the U.S.' and can barely remain competitive in the global market. Thus, lower carbon emissions and greater energy efficiency do not always equate with higher costs.

Furthermore, if the goal is to prevent carbon leakage, the trade provisions offer no recourse to individual companies from foreign, carbon-heavy countries that are meeting their own private emission caps. For example, Baosteel, China's largest steel producer, is relatively energy-efficient (WRI report, p. 35). However, under the current Climate Change Bill, even though Baosteel may voluntarily subject itself to carbon targets similar to those that will be imposed on steelmakers in the U.S., Baosteel will still be penalized. The Bill's trade provisions evaluate imports on a sector-wide basis and not an individual company one. Arguably, if the goal is to prevent carbon leakage, the U.S. has a better chance of influencing a Chinese company's behavior than an entire sector in China. Thus, the trade provisions should establish a secondary track where certain companies, if they are able to show that they are compliant with U.S. standards, are exempted from the border provisions applied to their country and sector.

Finally, the question remains -- how do you measure the carbon footprint of an imported product? These provisions rely heavily upon the assumptions that monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions from the country of origin is (a) an easy task and (b) accurate. While these assumptions might hold true in countries like Canada or Japan, for China, where implementation and enforcement on the local level is a perpetual struggle, any form of data collection is a challenge and results are often less than reliable. Thus, in a world where carbon measurement is problematic, the actual ability to implement the trade provisions remains questionable.

Competitiveness
As mentioned above, imports from China in the energy-intensive, trade-sensitive industries are very small (14% of cement, 7 % of steel, 3% of aluminum, 4% of paper, and less than 1% of chemicals). These five industries also make up a small portion of the U.S. economy, accounting for 3% of economic output and less than 2% of U.S. employment. While these industries will inevitability be negatively affected by the Climate Change Bill, the impact on the greater U.S. economy is relatively small. Additionally, over-protection of these industries loses sight of the broader U.S. economy and the other goal of the Climate Change Bill: to shift production and jobs to energy-efficient or renewable energy industries.

Furthermore, while the border adjustment measures protect these raw material industries, it potentially could hurt those industries that use the raw materials for production of "downstream" products. For example, the border adjustment measures are only applicable to the importation of sheet steel, and not to products that are made out of steel, like cars or appliances (WRI report, p. 52). U.S. car makers will still have to compete against foreign car manufacturers whose products could contain steel from countries without carbon regulations. Without the benefit of border adjustment measures on cars, U.S. car makers would become less competitive.

Similarly, U.S. chemical manufacturing companies are fairly competitive globally. These companies refine the carbon-intensive, raw material chemicals to make downstream, specialty concoctions (WRI report, p. 52). However, by imposing a border adjustment measure on the raw material chemicals, any of these chemical manufacturing companies who import raw materials, would experience an increase in the cost of production, making their products less competitive abroad. While the border adjustment measures will protect the five energy-intensive, trade-sensitive industries' profits, they could likely hinder the competitiveness of industries that use these raw materials to manufacture downstream products.

Leverage
The jury is still out on whether border adjustment provisions do in fact bring countries to the table to discuss climate change. The general assumption is that tariff threats rarely cause countries to act, especially countries as large as China. However, after the U.S. backed out of the Kyoto Protocol, the European countries threatened similar types of tariffs, targeted precisely at energy-intensive U.S. industries. Perhaps a mere coincidence, but it's interesting to note that today, the U.S. is now close to passing climate change legislation. Recently, South Korea voluntarily set a 2020 emissions reduction target; the South Korean government cited the fear of border tariffs as a reason to set targets.

But it is still questionable how far the threat of tariffs can go. China has certainly taken notice of the border adjustment provisions in the U.S. Climate Change Bill, but that does not mean it will agree to carbon caps. China's exports to the U.S. that would likely be subject to the tariff provisions accounted for less than 0.2% of economic output in 2005, thus making the U.S.' tariff threats of little consequence to China (WRI report, p. 57). However, of greater consequence to the U.S. and to the rest of the world is if China, the largest emitter of greenhouse gases, walks away from climate change negotiations because it feels as though it needs to "act tough" for its domestic audience. In looking at the current border adjustment provisions in the Bill and the tepid success they have had thus far, the Senate might want to ask itself if the risk is worth it.

Legality of the Trade Provisions

As Jake mentioned, World Trade Organization (WTO) rules require that countries pass nondiscriminatory trade provisions - that the provisions do not discriminate against foreign products in favor of domestic ones. Arguably, the current Bill does discriminate. As discussed earlier, individual companies that could be meeting similar carbon caps will be discriminated against if their home country has not agreed to carbon caps. Without some sort of procedure that exempts foreign firms which individually meet carbon caps from the border tariffs, the current trade provisions may not withstand a WTO challenge.

There will certainly be a Senate showdown over the Climate Change Bill. Already ten Democratic Senators have stated that the trade provisions need to be stronger. But do they really? If your singular goal is to protect 3% of the nation's economic output and 2% of its jobs, then yes, the trade provisions will maintain the status quo, at least for the time being. But if your goal is to increase innovation in new sectors like renewable energy, create clean jobs and limit global climate change, then the trade provisions, as they stand now do not achieve that goal. There is a need to maintain U.S. competitiveness in the five effected industries, but in the current tariff provision, what is being maintained are corporate profits in a few select, and powerful, industries. The Senate needs to take a good hard look at the current trade provisions and question if it is worth it. Perhaps it is time to move away from defensive measures against China and begin to better engage China in agreeing to a climate change treaty. Without China's agreement, any legislation the Senate passes will have negligible effect in limiting climate change.