WTO AND CHINA 世贸组织与中国

My research featured in Economist and Financial Times

2012-12-12T21:41:00.000+08:00

My research on China and WTO was featured in an article in the Economist today. This article discusses both the economic and political impacts of China's WTO accession. An interesting quote in the article is from former Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji, who notes 4 months after China had joined the WTO that "[w]estern hostile forces are continuing to promote their strategy of Westernising and breaking up our country". In the eyes of some Chinese officials, the WTO is a key part of such Westernising conspiracy. Fortunately, the CCP officials can take comfort in the fact that the WTO has not been able to bring about any meaningful political change in China. As I have argued in my paper on the Audio-Visual Case, it is naive to think that the WTO can effect political changes in China.

As I said in another article that was recently featured in the famed Lex Column of the Financial Times, China has been "shaking" existing rules and even started "making" new rules in the WTO since its accession. However, it seems that the WTO has not been able to "shake" loose the current political system in China.

China’s economy and the WTO

All change

In two articles, we examine how China has been altered by its entry into the WTO ten years ago. First, the economy. Second, the political impact

Dec 10th 2011 | HONG KONG | from the print edition

THE World Trade Organisation (WTO), like many clubs, denies patrons the right of automatic readmission. Having quit the organisation’s predecessor shortly after the Communist revolution of 1949, China had to wait 15 long years to gain entry after reapplying in the 1980s. The doors finally opened on December 11th 2001, ten years ago this week.

The price of re-entry was as steep as the wait was long. China had to relax over 7,000 tariffs, quotas and other trade barriers. Some feared that foreign competition would uproot farmers and upend rusty state-owned enterprises (SOEs), as to some extent it did. But China, overall, has enjoyed one of the best decades in global economic history. Its dollar GDP has quadrupled, its exports almost quintupled.

Many foreigners also prospered. American foreign direct investment reaps returns of 13.5% in China, compared with 9.7% worldwide, according to K.C. Fung of the University of California, Santa Cruz. China imposes lower tariffs on average than Brazil or India. The gap between what it can charge, under WTO rules, and what it does charge is also unusually small. So unlike its peers, China could not raise tariffs much even if it wanted to (see chart).

Yet in America, China’s single biggest trading partner, sentiment towards the country has turned starkly negative. In a recent poll, 61% of Americans said that China’s recent economic expansion had been bad for America; just 15% thought it had been good. This partly reflects China’s controversial currency regime. By keeping the exchange rate down, China’s critics allege, it has gained a substitute for the mercantilist measures it gave up to join the WTO.

Foreign frustration is partly a sign of China’s success. As its economy has grown and matured, the stakes have risen. Foreign firms lament losing trade battles they might not bother to wage in a less lucrative market. They also face competition from local upstarts in markets where no such rivals previously existed.

Electronic payments are one example. China’s first ever payment card was issued in 1986 by MasterCard. Foreign brands remained dominant at the time of China’s WTO entry. But shortly afterwards, China’s central bank established a domestic competitor, China UnionPay, and gave it a de facto monopoly over the handling of local-currency payments between merchants and banks. This setback might have been easier to take for foreign companies had the market not since grown tenfold, to $1.6 trillion, according to The Nilson Report, an industry newsletter.

China’s economy has evolved faster than anyone hoped. But its economic philosophy has not. Long Yongtu, who helped China win admission to the WTO, recently said that China is now moving further away from the organisation’s principles. To modernise its economy, it has remained wedded to industrial policies, state-owned enterprises, and a “techno-nationalism” that protects and promotes home-grown technologies.

Many foreign companies feel they must compete not with Chinese firms but with the Chinese state. Between them, China’s central and local governments own over 100,000 companies and implicitly favour many more. Thanks to the WTO, foreign firms are no longer required to hand over technology in exchange for entry to China’s market. But many still feel an informal pressure to do so. China is also keen to promote its own firms by enforcing its own technological standards, such as for 3G mobile phones.

Many of these interventions violate the spirit, if not always the letter of WTO rules. In response, America often pushes back bilaterally rather than in Geneva, according to a former American trade negotiator. This is partly because companies worry they will face retribution from China’s government if they provide evidence against it in a trade case. It is also because much of what China does falls into a grey area that is not easy for the WTO to police.

China, on the other hand, is growing more comfortable with the WTO machinery. In its early years as a member, it shied away from confrontation, points out Henry Gao of Singapore Management University. In 2006, for example, America threatened to file a complaint over China’s duties on kraft linerboard. China lifted the duties the next working day. But now the Chinese have learned the ropes, they have also become more proactive. “Now they defend themselves,” says Nicholas Lardy of the Peterson Institute, a Washington think-tank. “They initiate cases. And when they lose, they comply.”

In some cases the discrimination is no worse than before, it is simply more visible. As part of its WTO agreement, China now circulates draft laws and regulations for 30 days to collect comments. That has made it easier for foreigners to spot foul play. America recently complained that China had failed to notify the WTO of nearly 200 subsidy programmes, such as those supporting green-energy technology. It knew this in part because China, following its newly transparent practice, had disclosed many such programmes online, the former negotiator said: “Similar policy announcements wereneibu (for limited distribution) in the past.”

China’s trade policies may look a little uglier than WTO members had hoped when they opened the club’s doors ten years ago. But that is partly because the lights have been turned on.

2011年09月19日 06:09 AM

Lex_China and the WTO: a good thing

Lex

字号

背景

中文评论[18条]打印电邮收藏腾讯微博新浪微博

It is exactly 10 years since China concluded negotiations to join the World Trade Organisation, after a decade and a half of demurring. Commerce minister Chen Deming chaired a celebratory forum in Xiamen this week entitled “Openness, co-operation and win-win”.

Not quite. Yes, China is co-operating. After a diffident start, it has evolved from a passive taker of the existing rules to a member that will “shake” the rules for its own interests or even make new ones, notes Henry Gao of Singapore Management University. That is a good thing. And if “openness” implies compliance with the commitments China made in its accession package, here, too, the record is broadly positive.

Granted, China is better at complying with rules that require a specific action, such as scrapping or reducing tariffs, than those that require adherence to principles, such as not favouring domestic enterprises, or treating all WTO members equally. No nation has entered into bilateral trade agreements over the past 10 years quite as enthusiastically as China.

As for “win-win”, well, China is certainly winning. In 2000 it was the world’s seventh largest exporter and eighth largest importer of merchandise; in 2010 it was number one and two, respectively. (It has leapt to four and three in services, from 10 and 12.) As ING points out, accession to the WTO marked an acceleration of real annual gross domestic product growth from 9 per cent (1992-2001) to 11 per cent (2002-2008). Two-way trade for most nations in China’s orbit has also risen dramatically. But, as America’s increasingly critical assessments of China’s WTO compliance suggests, those trading partners do not always feel like winners. During its relatively brief membership, the world’s second-largest economy has responded to 22 complaints – more than the next three put together.

AFP: China's reality lost in translation, Davos told

2012-01-28T21:53:00.000+08:00

AFP: China's reality lost in translation, Davos told:

'via Blog this'

Another paper in Top Ten on SSRN

2012-01-24T21:39:00.000+08:00

In addition to my paper on China and global trade governance, which has stayed in the Top Ten list of SSRN for more than a month in a row, my paper on Google's possible WTO case against China has also been listed in the Top Ten. As I mentioned in my earlier post, my paper on the Google case was written long before the recent USTR request for info from China. The recent USTR move has made the case different from the previous one, but many of the arguments in my paper still holds. Enjoy the paper!

Google's China Problem is now USTR's China problem

2011-12-25T21:26:00.001+08:00

I just posted on SSRN my recently published paper on a possible WTO case against China's internet censorship regime. I first wrote this article in 2010 in the wake of the Google controversy when I was invited to speak at the World Trade Forum 2010.My conclusion in the article was that a WTO case is unlikely to succeed if we only consider Google's problems. That's probably why the USTR reportedly turned down Google's request for a WTO case against China last year. However, the USTR has changed strategy by shifting its focus to some wider issues, which seems to have higher chance of success.

Will we see an "internet freedom" case in WTO against China next year?

My Paper Makes SSRN Top Ten List

2011-12-24T23:57:00.001+08:00

I was informed that my paper on China's Ascent in Global Trade Governance: From Rule Taker to Rule Shaker, and Maybe Rule Maker? just made SSRN Top Ten List. Interested readers can download the paper here.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: management@ssrn.com <management@ssrn.com>
Date: Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 11:38 PM
Subject: Your Paper Makes SSRN Top Ten List
To: gaohenry@gmail.com

Dear Henry S. Gao:

Your paper, "CHINA'S ASCENT IN GLOBAL TRADE GOVERNANCE: FROM RULE TAKER TO RULE SHAKER, AND MAYBE RULE MAKER?", was recently listed on SSRN's Top Ten download list for Asian Law eJournal. As of 12/24/2011, your paper has been downloaded 42 times. You may view the abstract and download statistics at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1941771.

Top Ten Lists are updated on a daily basis. Click on the following link to view the Top Ten list for the journal Asian Law eJournal Top Ten.

Click on the following link to view all the papers in the journal Asian Law eJournal All Papers.

To view any of the Top Downloaded lists, click the "i" information icon on any network, subnetwork, journal or topic in the Browse list reachable through the following link: http://www.ssrn.com/Browse

Your paper may be listed in the Top Ten for other networks or journals and, if so, you will receive additional notices at that time.

If you have any questions regarding this notification or any other matter, please email AuthorSupport@SSRN.com or call 877-SSRNHelp (877 777 6435 toll free). Outside of the United States, call +1 585 442 8170.

SSRN Announcement:
SSRN has again been named the Number 1 Open Access Repository in the World (for January, 2011) by the Ranking Web of World Repositories (http://repositories.webometrics.info/toprep.asp). Our thanks to all of the SSRN authors who helped make this happen.

Sincerely,

Michael C. Jensen
Chairman
Social Science Research Network

Search the SSRN eLibrary | Browse SSRN | Top Papers

China: A Decade in the WTO

2011-12-18T23:35:00.000+08:00

A Decade in the WTO

China's White Paper on Foreign Trade Policy

2011-12-10T23:05:00.001+08:00

The Chinese government issued its first White Paper on Foreign Trade Policy. There are some interesting paragraphs on China's trade balance and its partition in the WTO.

四、促进对外贸易基本平衡增长

一个国家对外贸易是顺差还是逆差，主要由其经济结构以及产品或服务的国际竞争力决定。中国并不刻意追求对外贸易的顺差。中国服务贸易长期以来一直存在一定逆差。中国货物贸易在１９９０年以前多数年份都是逆差。１９９０年以后，随着大规模承接国际产业转移，工业制成品竞争力增强，出口增长速度超过进口，中国的货物贸易由总体逆差转变为总体顺差。２００５年中国货物贸易顺差首次突破１０００亿美元，并持续４年大幅攀升。２００８年中国货物贸易顺差达到２９８１亿美元历史高点，此后逐渐收窄。２００９年和２０１０年，中国货物贸易顺差分别为１９５７亿美元和１８１６亿美元，比上年分别下降３４．４％和７．２％。２０１０年，中国货物贸易顺差占进出口总额的６．１％，占国内生产总值的３．１％。在全球贸易差额（顺差或逆差）最大的９个国家中，中国的这两个比值并不处在偏高水平。

图表：表2.2010年货物贸易差额最大的9个国家比较新华社发

中国的货物贸易顺差反映了现阶段中国的国际分工地位。中国目前在工业制成品加工组装环节具有较大优势，是最大的工业品生产国和出口国。美国、欧盟等是最主要的终端消费市场。由于大量劳动密集型加工组装环节由日本、韩国、新加坡、中国台湾、中国香港等转移到中国，这些国家和地区原来对美、欧的顺差也转移到中国。其结果是，目前中国货物贸易顺差主要存在于中美贸易、中欧贸易之间，而中国与日本、韩国、东盟等工业中间品主要生产国则长期存在贸易逆差。２０１０年，中国对美国、欧盟的货物贸易顺差分别为１８１３亿美元和１４２８亿美元，对日本、韩国及东盟的货物贸易逆差共计１４１６亿美元；中国大陆对台湾地区货物贸易逆差８６０亿美元。中国生产和出口工业制成品需要大量进口初级产品，因此与一些初级产品出口国的货物贸易呈现逆差。正是现阶段中国制造业和服务业参与国际分工的水平和地位不同，所以中国货物贸易存在着大量顺差，而服务贸易则长期逆差。

图表：图5.2006-2010年中国对主要贸易伙伴顺差及逆差情况新华社发

中国的货物贸易顺差主要来源于外商投资企业和加工贸易。在经济全球化不断深化过程中，由于分工的细化和规模经济的要求，越来越多的国际贸易由跨国公司主导，是基于价值链分工的产业内贸易或加工贸易。改革开放以来，中国吸收外商直接投资迅速增长。在相当长的时间里，外商投资企业进出口和主要由外商投资企业经营的加工贸易在中国货物贸易中的比重都保持在50％左右。外商投资企业进出口和加工贸易是中国货物贸易顺差的主要来源。2009年和2010年，外商投资企业货物贸易顺差分别为1270亿美元和1243亿美元，占同期中国货物贸易顺差总额的64.8％和68.4％，加工贸易顺差分别高达2646亿美元和3229亿美元，大大高于同期中国顺差总额。在外商投资企业进出口和加工贸易存在大量顺差的同时，国有企业进出口、一般贸易和其他贸易方式则存在逆差。

发达国家对部分高新技术贸易设限也影响中国与一些贸易伙伴的贸易平衡。中国正处在工业化加速发展时期，对发达国家的先进设备和高新技术有着较大的进口需求。但是一些发达国家却仍然坚持旧有思维，对向中国出口高端装备和高新技术产品设置了诸多限制，导致其相关产品对中国出口增长缓慢。这在一定程度上阻碍了中国自这些国家的进口，不利于双边贸易的平衡。

中国货物贸易由逆差转变为顺差改善了中国的国际收支状况，增强了中国抵御外部风险的能力。但是顺差急剧扩大也给中国经济带来困扰。出口结汇人民币大量投放增加了宏观经济调控的难度和复杂性。货物贸易顺差急剧扩大还使得中国与一些贸易伙伴摩擦增多，对人民币形成了持续和较大的升值压力。

中国政府高度重视对外贸易发展中的不平衡问题，采取了一系列政策措施抑制顺差过快增长。第一，积极调整经济结构，努力扩大内需，尤其是增加改善民生投资，刺激居民消费增长。第二，出台一系列扩大进口政策，简化进口管理和进口付汇手续，降低部分商品进口暂定税率，完善进口促进体系，提高进口便利化程度。第三，调整出口退税政策，先后降低或取消部分高耗能、高污染和资源性商品的出口退税。第四，修改加工贸易禁止类和限制类目录，扩大禁止类的范围，促进加工贸易转型升级。第五，改变自亚洲金融危机以后人民币兑美元变动区间收窄的状况，从2005年7月21日起实行以市场供求为基础、参考一篮子货币进行调节、有管理的浮动汇率制度。自2005年7月汇率机制改革至2011年8月末，人民币兑美元名义汇率升值了约30％。

中国促进对外贸易平衡增长的措施取得了明显成效。货物贸易顺差自2009年以来持续减少，顺差与进出口总值和国内生产总值之比自2008年起逐渐下降，对外贸易正在趋于平衡。中国的这些努力既是中国自身经济发展的需要，也是推动世界经济结构调整和再平衡的具体行动。

五、构建全方位互利合作经贸关系

中国的对外贸易是全方位发展的对外贸易。中国坚持不分大小、贫富，与所有贸易伙伴发展务实合作和互利共赢的经贸关系。

中国与发达国家贸易持续稳定增长，实现了优势互补和互惠互利。中国与欧盟贸易近年来稳步发展。欧盟对中国出口商品主要是工业制成品，其中技术领先的机械、电子产品、运输车辆、成套设备、核心零部件和精密元器件等在中国市场颇具竞争力。中国与美国贸易有着坚实的发展基础。中国出口丰富多样的消费品适应了美国消费者的需求，同时不断扩大自美国的电子、航空、生物、医药、农产品以及服务贸易进口，也满足了中国自身发展的需要。中国与日本贸易具有地缘相近的有利条件。中日贸易促进了两国产业的持续合作和进步，也带动了东亚区域经济分工与合作的深入发展。中国与加拿大、澳大利亚、瑞士、新西兰等发达国家的贸易及投资合作均保持良好发展势头。

中国与新兴市场和发展中国家贸易增长强劲，发展潜力巨大。2010年，中国与东盟自由贸易协定全面实施，90％的商品实现零关税，有力地推动了中国东盟双边贸易迅速增长。中国与东盟各自有特色和竞争力的商品自由进入对方市场，适应了双方多方面的需求。中国与韩国贸易保持持续稳定增长，两国相互投资和经济合作领域十分宽广。中国与其他金砖国家的贸易近年来快速增长，带动了各自优势产业的强劲发展，显示了新兴经济市场具有广阔的发展前景。近年来，中国与其他发展中国家贸易也以较快速度增长，与阿拉伯国家源远流长的贸易进一步发展，与拉美国家经济贸易合作领域不断拓宽，与非洲国家的贸易充分发挥双方资源条件和经济结构的互补性优势，促进了各自发展。

中国十分重视双边和区域经贸合作的机制化建设。目前与中国签订双边贸易协定或经济合作协定的国家和地区已超过150个。中国与美、欧、日、英、俄等主要经济体均建立和保持着经济高层对话机制。中国积极参与亚太经济合作组织、东盟与中日韩(10＋3)领导人会议、东亚峰会、中非合作论坛、大湄公河次区域经济合作、中亚区域经济合作、“大图们倡议”等区域和次区域经济合作机制。中国坚持“与邻为善、以邻为伴”方针，与周边国家和地区建立和发展多种形式的边境经济贸易合作。

中国积极主动参与并推动区域经济一体化进程。截至2010年底，中国已经与五大洲28个国家和地区进行了15个自由贸易安排或紧密经贸关系安排谈判，签订和实施了10个自由贸易协定或紧密经贸关系安排。正在进行的自由贸易协定谈判5个。中国倡议建立东亚自由贸易区。2010年，中国与10个自由贸易协定或紧密经贸关系安排伙伴(东盟、巴基斯坦、智利、新加坡、新西兰、秘鲁、哥斯达黎加、中国香港、中国澳门、中国台湾)的双边货物贸易总额达到7826亿美元，超过了中国进出口总额的四分之一。

中国深入参与和推动世界贸易组织多哈回合谈判，努力维护多边贸易体制的权威性。中国强调谈判要有利于贯彻落实多边贸易体制的公平、公正原则，体现多哈回合作为发展回合的目标。中国全面参与了多哈回合的农业、非农产品、服务、规则等议题的谈判，独立提交谈判案文40多份，联合其他成员提交案文100多份。为推进多哈回合谈判，中国多次表示愿意为谈判作出建设性的、与自身发展水平相适应的贡献。

中国在解决与贸易伙伴的争议时兼顾各方利益，求同存异。加入世界贸易组织以来，随着进出口持续增长，中国与贸易伙伴的争端和摩擦有所增多。涉案产品主要集中在纺织品、鞋类、轮胎、汽车零部件、钢铁和化工产品，争议问题主要涉及知识产权、贸易平衡、公平贸易、食品安全、环境保护等领域。中国始终认为对话比对抗好，合作比施压好，应当努力通过协商谈判解决贸易伙伴之间的争议。中国坚持兼顾和平衡各方利益，在世界贸易组织规则和体制内，利用多双边渠道，通过对话、协商和谈判来解决争议。近年来，中国在扩大市场开放、保护知识产权、促进贸易平衡、改革人民币汇率形成机制、规范进出口经营秩序等方面采取了许多措施，充分照顾到贸易伙伴的关切。在协商不能解决争端的情况下，中国通过世界贸易组织争端解决机制，妥善处理与贸易伙伴的贸易争端，维护了多边贸易体制的稳定。

If you don't believe in the 2012 myth, do you believe in the 2016 myth?

2011-11-30T18:53:00.001+08:00

I've been asked by a colleague to comment on this post by Bernard O'Connor at VoxEU. In the post, he claims that the view that China will automatically get market economy status (MES) after 2016 is "an urban myth that seems to have gone global. It has gone viral even in a world were the underlying agreements are freely available to all on the Internet."

His key message is this:

"The 2016 myth seems to have been born in paragraph (d) of Article 15. This paragraph provides that China must establish whether it is a market economy according to the law of the importing WTO member. If it can establish that it is a market economy then some of the transitional provisions on comparison methodologies will terminate. However, there are no dates in relation to China establishing that it is a market economy.

The paragraph further provides that one specific comparison methodology set out in one subparagraph of the Article will expire, in any event, fifteen years after Chinese accession. China became a WTO member in Doha in December 2001. Add fifteen years and you get 2016.

This provision does not say that China will get market-economy status. It just says that a very specific provision of Article 15 will cease to apply. The other parts of Article 15 continue to apply. And to interpret the expiry of one subparagraph as a deadline for the granting of market-economy status is not only to read into the Article something that is not there, but it is also to negate all the other provisions, something that international treaty interpretation simply does not allow. The expiry of one subparagraph does not change the rest of the law."

This is what Art 15 of China's Accession Protocol says:

"Article VI of the GATT 1994, the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 ("Anti-Dumping Agreement") and the SCM Agreement shall apply in proceedings involving imports of Chinese origin into a WTO Member consistent with the following:

(a) In determining price comparability under Article VI of the GATT 1994 and the Anti Dumping Agreement, the importing WTO Member shall use either Chinese prices or costs for the industry under investigation or a methodology that is not based on a strict comparison with domestic prices or costs in China based on the following rules:

(i) If the producers under investigation can clearly show that market economy conditions prevail in the industry producing the like product with regard to the manufacture, production and sale of that product, the importing WTO Member shall use Chinese prices or costs for the industry under investigation in determining price comparability;

(ii) The importing WTO Member may use a methodology that is not based on a strict comparison with domestic prices or costs in China if the producers under investigation cannot clearly show that market economy conditions prevail in the industry producing the like product with regard to manufacture, production and sale of that product.

(b) In proceedings under Parts II, III and V of the SCM Agreement, when addressing subsidies described in Articles 14(a), 14(b), 14(c) and 14(d), relevant provisions of the SCM Agreement shall apply; however, if there are special difficulties in that application, the importing WTO Member may then use methodologies for identifying and measuring the subsidy benefit which take into account the possibility that prevailing terms and conditions in China may not always be available as appropriate benchmarks. In applying such methodologies, where practicable, the importing WTO Member should adjust such prevailing terms and conditions before considering the use of terms and conditions prevailing outside China.

(c) The importing WTO Member shall notify methodologies used in accordance with subparagraph (a) to the Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices and shall notify methodologies used in accordance with subparagraph (b) to the Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.

(d) Once China has established, under the national law of the importing WTO Member, that it is a market economy, the provisions of subparagraph (a) shall be terminated provided that the importing Member's national law contains market economy criteria as of the date of accession. In any event, the provisions of subparagraph (a)(ii) shall expire 15 years after the date of accession. In addition, should China establish, pursuant to the national law of the importing WTO Member, that market economy conditions prevail in a particular industry or sector, the non market economy provisions of subparagraph (a) shall no longer apply to that industry or sector."

Basically, para (a) contains 2 scenarios:
i. if producers can prove market economy conditions, then the importing country has to use China's own costs;
ii. if the producers cannot prove market economy conditions, then the investigating authority may use a surrogate price, say price in India or Singapore.

By stating that "the provisions of subparagraph (a)(ii) shall expire 15 years after the date of accession", para (d) basically states that (a.ii) will not apply after 2016. Instead, only (a.i) will apply, which means that the investigating authorities have to use China;s own costs NO MATTER WHETHER the producers can prove market economy conditions. THIS MEANS CHINA WILL GET MARKET ECONOMY STATUS POST 2016.

Of course, O'Connor is technically correct as Art 15 NEVER EXPLICITLY state that WTO Members have to GRANT China market economy status. Instead, it only states that they MAY NOT CONTINUE TO APPLY THE NON-MARKET ECONOMY METHODOLOGY post 2016. O'Connor's theory could be correct is there are 3 possibilities, i.e., ME, NME, & something else. Is there a "something else" category? No. Because para (a) only list 2 scenarios, i.e, (i) & (ii). Furthermore, para (a) starts by stating that the importing WTO Member shall use "either Chinese prices OR [the NME] methodology". Thus, there are ONLY TWO scenarios. By excluding the NME scenario through para (d), the only conclusion we can draw is that China will be treated as a ME post 2016.

O'Connor further states that "to interpret the expiry of one subparagraph as a deadline for the granting of market-economy status is not only to read into the Article something that is not there, but it is also to negate all the other provisions, something that international treaty interpretation simply does not allow. The expiry of one subparagraph does not change the rest of the law." My responses are:

1. Technically speaking, the EU can still refuse to grant China MES post 2016. However, doing that would be in violation of EU's WTO obligations, as Art 15(d) has expired, and the EU cannot continue to use it as justification for refusal to grant China MES.

2. The EU might cite to the 2nd supplementary provision to para 1 of GATT Art. VI as the basis for its denial of MES to China, but this provision requires the exporting country to have "a COMPLETE or substantial complete monopoly of its trade AND where ALL domestic prices are fixed by the State". This has not been the case in China since the mid-90s, and it is unlikely that it will be the case in 2016. Thus EU cannot cite this article.

3. In essence, while I agree with O'Connor that the expiry of this provision doesn't mandate the granting of MES to China by the EU, I do not agree that this means that China shall not be treated as a ME post 2016. The truth is that, whether the EU grants MES or not post 2016, the EU IS OBLIGED to treat China as a ME, otherwise it will be found in violation of its WTO obligation. While O'Connor is technically correct by stating that "to interpret the expiry of one subparagraph as a deadline for the granting of market-economy status is ... to read into the Article something that is not there", by refusing to acknowledge the de facto (and de jure as well) automatic MES China is entitled to post 2016, he made an even bigger mistake by "omitting something which is there" or failing to interpret the treaty language in its ordinary meaning and proper context.

4. O'Conner also claims that the interpretation of automatic MES post 2016 "negates all the other provisions" and attempts to "change the rest of the law". Again this claim is flawed because the other paras in Art 15 DO NOT MENTION the NME issue and thus are IRRELEVANT TO THE QUESTION. For example, if I say:

I. The sun has different temperatures in a day:
a. it is hot in the daytime
b. it is cold in the nighttime
II. The sun is big
III. The sun is round.

If we discover that I.b is wrong because the sun is hot even in the night, how can you say that II and III has also been negated by the discovery of this mistake?

RTAs: do they matter?

2011-03-27T21:57:00.001+08:00

Theresa Carpenter & Andreas Lendle posted an interesting article on preferential trade agreements (PTAs) at VoxEU. The question they are trying to answer is: we all know that PTAs are annoying for the multilateral trading system, but do they matter in reality?

The answers are:

1. They don't matter for the big guys. According to them, for the top 20 importers in 2008, which accounts for almost 90% of world trade, only 16% of the trade is conducted on a preferential basis. Personally I don't think this to be a surprising result for the following reasons:

A. Much of world trade is already trading at very low or zero tariff rates (noted in their paper);

B. There're typically no PTAs among the big players (with the exception of NAFTA and intra-EU trade).

2. They matter a lot for the small players. According to their study, the 25 countries that receive the highest preferential margins on their exports are mostly African, Caribbean and Pacific countries who export items with high MFN tariffs duty-free to the EU (and to a lesser extent to the US).

Tow lessons we can draw from the study:

1. For smaller countries, multilateral trade negotiation at the WTO doesn't mean much, at least with regard to market access;

2. For big countries, their optimal strategy should be multilateralism rather than regionalism. But why do we still see all these aggressive PTA pushes from the big players? Mainly due to the lobbying from industries which are A. particularly affected by high tariffs in a few sectors (textiles, etc); B. more concerned with rules/regulatory issues rather than MA issues (IPR, etc).

New book: WTO Dispute Settlement and Developing Countries

2011-01-19T13:49:00.004+08:00

Dispute Settlement at the WTO:

The Developing Country Experience

edited by

Gregory C. Shaffer and Ricardo Meléndez Ortiz

The book provides a bottom-up assessment of the strategies that individual developing countries have developed to enhance their ability to make use of WTO dispute settlement. The nine country studies cover Brazil, Argentina, China, India, Thailand, Bangladesh, Egypt, South Africa and Kenya. The publication concludes with a comprehensive list of recommendations.

Excerpts, reviews and a video interview are available here

To purchase a book please click here

For further information please contact Marie Wilke at mwilke@ictsd.ch

Chinese Professor - from Citizens Against Government Waste

2010-10-22T15:54:00.001+08:00

This is really impressive! It would be interesting to see a similar commercial on China in trade negotiations.

Another WTO dispute looming against China?

2010-10-08T20:26:00.000+08:00

While foreign companies have long complained against China's indigenous innovation strategy, the USTR has tried to be patient on the issue. However, the wind might be changing with this new article in the Foreign Affairs.

STRATEGI CHINA DALAM FREE TRADE AGREEMENT: PERTARUNGAN POLITIS ATAS NAMA PERDAGANGAN

2010-09-20T22:14:00.001+08:00

My article on China's FTA strategy has been translated into Indonesian. Interested readers can find the Indonesian version here.

How difficult is it to get Visa into China?

2010-09-17T23:09:00.001+08:00

The USTR has just announced two cases filed against China in the WTO. One of them concerns the long-standing dispute between Visa and Union Pay. Another interesting case to watch.

Chinese version of the USTR established

2010-08-19T21:38:00.001+08:00

The MOFCOM has established a new post: China International Trade Representative, which will be responsible for conducting bilateral and multilateral trade negotiations. The rank of the post is at full ministerial level, and will be held by a Vice Minister of MOFCOM. The current Representative is Vice Minister Gao Hucheng.

中央批准设立国际贸易谈判代表明确为正部长级

2010年08月16日16:31 来源：中国共产党新闻网

　　中国共产党新闻网北京8月16日电（记者董宇）今日，记者从商务部网站上获悉，经中央批准，商务部设立国际贸易谈判代表（正部长级，兼任商务部副部长）1名、副部长级国际贸易谈判副代表2名（其中1名由商务部副部长兼任）。日前，国务院任命高虎城为商务部国际贸易谈判代表（正部长级），钟山兼任商务部国际贸易谈判副代表，崇泉为商务部国际贸易谈判副代表（副部长级）。

　　根据中央机构编制委员会办公室的有关批复，国际贸易谈判代表（“China International Trade Representative”）主要职责是：根据国务院授权，负责对外经济贸易领域的重大多、双边谈判工作，协调国内谈判立场并签署有关文件。国际贸易谈判副代表协助国际贸易谈判代表工作。

　　根据《国务院办公厅关于印发商务部主要职责内设机构和人员编制规定的通知》（国办发[2008]77号）有关“商务部在对外谈判和国内协调时使用国际贸易谈判代表办公室名义”及中央编办相关规定，商务部将同时启用“国际贸易谈判代表办公室”名义，对外开展工作。

　　据商务部网站上刊登的简历显示，高虎城于2003年11月任商务部副部长、党组成员，2009年4月至2010年7月任商务部副部长、党组副书记，今7月起任商务部国际贸易谈判代表（正部长级）兼副部长、党组副书记。钟山和崇泉两位商务部国际贸易谈判副代表（副部长级）此前分别担任任商务部副部长和部长助理职务。

Minister Chen in FT

2010-07-28T21:48:00.001+08:00

Minister Chen Deming of MOFCOM recently published an op-ed piece in the FT. This is apparently in response to the earlier criticisms against China's indigenous innovation policies (which has been changed) and its offer in the GPA accession negotiation, which has been perceived as insufficient.

商务部部长陈德铭在英国《金融时报》上发表署名文章：繁荣的中国将更加开放

2010-07-28 15:21 文章来源：商务部新闻办公室
文章类型：原创内容分类：新闻

　　近日，商务部部长陈德铭在英国《金融时报》上发表署名文章《繁荣的中国将更加开放》（英文标题为"Thriving China is ever more open for business"），全文如下：

Thriving China is ever more open for business

　　For the last year, China has expanded domestic demand and worked to attract foreign investment, contributing to the global recovery. However, concerns have recently been floated, not least among foreign businesses, that China is now less welcoming of foreign investment. In fact, China will open wider in the future.

　　China has kept its market open throughout the financial crisis. In late 2008, we adopted a Rmb4,000bn stimulus package, along with readjustment programs in sectors such as information communication technology, logistics and equipment manufacturing. Companies have followed strict tender rules to ensure a level playing field for all businesses – Chinese or foreign. In 2009, of 12,439 tenders for procurement of electromechanical products, 55 per cent went to foreign investment enterprises.

　　Over the last three decades, foreign direct investment has brought capital, advanced technologies and business know-how to China. We understand that FDI fosters innovation. That is why, in April, we held a public consultation to review the criteria we use to accredit "innovation products". The results emphasized that all foreign enterprises are given equal treatment and that all their products are considered to be "made in China", while the same rules of origin are applied to them as to Chinese products.

　　Since joining the World Trade Organization, China has continually lowered the entry threshold for foreign investment. We have revised our catalogue for the guidance of foreign investment industries – the official list of industries in which FDI is encouraged or restricted – four times since 1997. Each time we have provided greater market access. Writers such as Thomas Friedman, author of The World Is Flat, and Robert Shapiro, former US undersecretary of commerce under President Bill Clinton, have spoken highly of our efforts to open up.

　　China remains a top destination for investment by multinational companies, particularly in services and outsourcing. In 2009, global FDI dropped by nearly 40 per cent, but investment into China fell by only 2.6 per cent. Reacting to worries in the west, China has also strengthened intellectual property protection with new laws and a "double-track" system of administrative and criminal enforcement.

Crisis-hit multinationals have found new sources of profit growth in China. In 2009, General Motors filed for bankruptcy in the US, but its sales in China grew by 67 per cent. It sold more than 1m vehicles in China in the first five months of this year, meeting half of its 2010 target of 2m ahead of schedule. Siemens will invest €1bn ($1.29bn, £843m) in the next three years, with Volkswagen adding €1.6bn by 2011. In 2010, there were 690,000 registered foreign companies in China, investing more than $1,000bn.

　　These companies drive growth abroad through their Chinese operations. They create valuable trade surpluses for neighbouring countries by importing intermediate goods, and create jobs in developed countries by buying capital goods and services.

　　Such growth will continue as China expands its internal market. Sales of consumer goods rose in 2009 to Rmb12,530bn, contributing more than half of gross domestic product. This year China's domestic market will grow by Rmb2,000bn ($295bn, £193bn, €229bn), outstripping exports. The US is set to gain in particular. The independent American Chamber of Commerce in China recently published a report arguing that in the next 30 years the US can achieve "three trillion-dollar goals": $1,000bn for annual US exports to China, $1,000bn for revenues of US businesses in China producing goods and services for the Chinese market, and $1,000bn for cumulative Chinese FDI in the US.

　　Coming out of crisis, China must now work to upgrade its own industries in areas such as high-end manufacturing and environmental goods and services. To do this, China wants to make better use of the knowledge and expertise of multinationals. German carmaker Daimler's success in forming a joint venture in China to develop next-generation electric vehicles is only one example of how more foreign investment can help.

　　The world economy is at a crucial stage of restructuring. As China works with others to push the global recovery, tremendous opportunities will open up for foreign companies. China remains open for business, and the rest of the world can benefit.

繁荣的中国将更加开放

　　过去一年多来，中国政府努力扩大国内消费，积极吸收外商来华投资，为世界经济复苏做出了贡献。然而，近来出现了一些担忧，特别是在外企中间，认为中国不再像以前那样重视和欢迎外资了。事实上，中国今后将更加开放，中国市场的大门始终对外资敞开。

　　在金融危机期间，中国政府坚持对外开放政策不动摇。2008年末，我们推出了规模为4万亿的一揽子刺激方案，同时启动了电子信息业、物流、装备制造等产业的调整和振兴规划。在一些重点领域投资和建设项目招标过程中，我们为所有企业（不管是中国企业还是外国企业）创造公平的竞争环境。例如，在2009年中国开展的12439个机电产品国际招标采购项目中，外资企业中标数占项目总数的55.4%。

　　30多年来，外商直接投资的引入不仅带来了资金，更带来了先进的技术设备、管理和经营理念，有力地促进了中国经济制度、技术和管理创新。正因如此，我们在今年4月公开征求意见，对"自主创新"产品的认定标准进行了调整，上述结果说明，所有外国企业都得到了一视同仁的对待，他们的产品被视为"中国制造"，和中国企业的产品适用同样的原产地规则。

　　自从加入世界贸易组织以来，中国不断降低外资准入门槛。1997年以来，我们4次修订《外商投资产业指导目录》——该目录是鼓励或限制外国直接投资进入的行业的官方名录，每次修订我们都会进一步扩大市场准入范围。《世界是平的》一书的作者托马斯•弗里德曼，以及曾在美国总统比尔•克林顿时期担任商务部副部长的罗伯特•夏皮罗等众多专家均高度肯定中国的对外开放。

　　目前，中国仍是跨国公司投资的首选目的地，特别是在服务业和外包行业。2009年，全球外国直接投资下降近40%，但对华投资仅下降2.6%。作为对西方担忧的回应，中国不断加大保护知识产权力度，制定了一系列比较完整、在世界上也比较先进的保护知识产权法律体系和行政执法、刑事执法双轨的执法机制。

　　在危机中遭遇巨大冲击的跨国公司，在中国找到了新的发展空间和增长点。2009年，通用汽车在美国申请破产，但该公司在华销售却增长了67%。今年头5个月，该公司在华销量超过100万辆，提前完成了今年目标（200万辆）的一半。西门子计划未来三年在华投资10亿欧元（合12.9亿美元)，而2011年之前，大众将在华追加16亿欧元的投资。截至今年5月底，在华注册外资企业数量累计近69万家，实际利用外资总额超过了1万亿美元。

　　这些跨国公司通过在华经营带动了其海外发展，同时也通过大量的中间品进口为周边国家和地区创造了贸易顺差，通过资本品、奢侈品和服务贸易进口为发达国家创造了大量的就业机会。

　　随着中国扩大其国内市场，这种增长势头仍将继续。中国2009年实现社会消费品零售总额12.53万亿元人民币，对国内生产总值的贡献率达到50%以上。今年，预计今年国内市场规模将超过2万亿美元，远远超出中国的出口总额。美国将肯定从中获益。中国美国商会日前发布报告称，在未来30年的中美关系中，美国可以实现"三个1万亿"目标，即美国对华商品和服务年出口额1万亿美元、美国企业在华产值1万亿美元和中国对美累计投资1万亿美元。

　　在走出危机的同时，中国必须致力于自身的产业结构调整和升级，积极发展高端制造业以及环境产品和服务等领域。中国政府希望继续发挥跨国公司在这些领域的人才、技术、管理优势，促进中国加快转变经济发展方式。近日德国戴姆勒公司在华设立合资企业开发新一代电动汽车，这是外国投资将在中国发挥更大作用的一个很好例证。

　　世界经济正处在结构深化调整的关键时期。随着中国与其它国家共同推动全球复苏，将会给外国企业带来巨大的商机。中国将继续坚持对外开放，全球其它国家将因此受益。

In Remembrance of Mr. S. Tiwari, 20 Dec 1945 – 26 Jul 2010

2010-07-28T16:02:00.000+08:00

Mr Sivakant Tiwari, a former senior official in the Singapore government, passed away on July 26. He had a long and interesting career, which included drafting the TRIPS Agreement during the Uruguay Round (hammering our details on difficult issues such as compulsory licensing and parallel imports), working on the establishment of diplomatic relations with PRC (trying to find language that is acceptable to both China and Taiwan, a long-time friend of Singapore), negotiating the Singapore-US FTA (again IPR issues became key), working on the Pedra Branca case at the ICJ, and last but certainly not least, working as a Panelist in the China - IPR case.

More info about Mr. Tiwari, including tributes to Mr. Tiwari by Senior Minister Prof. S. Jayakumar and Prof Tommy Koh, can be found at the website of the Centre for International Law of NUS.

MOFCOM statement on WTO Honor Day at Shanghai Expo

2010-07-23T16:03:00.002+08:00

On the occasion of the "WTO Honor Day" at the Shanghai Expo 2010, MOFCOM issued a statement on "China and WTO: Retrospect and Prospect". Part 3 includes some interesting info on China's participation in the DDA:

三、中国积极推动多哈谈判，全面参与WTO各项活动

　　多哈回合谈判是WTO发起的第九轮多边贸易谈判，是迄今涉及范围最广、参加成员最多的一轮谈判，其成功将有助于创造更加开放、公平的国际贸易环境、推动世界经济的复苏和可持续增长。

　　中国始终积极推动多哈谈判，与世贸组织所有成员一道，密切合作，推动谈判取得公平、平衡的结果，实现发展目标。中国积极参与了世界贸易组织部长级和高官级的谈判和磋商，举办了2005年大连WTO小型部长会，在同年12月香港举行的WTO第六届部长会上发挥了桥梁作用。在2008年7月小型部长会上，中国受邀参与"七方"（G7）部长小范围磋商，首次进入多边贸易谈判核心决策圈。中国从大局出发，努力弥合各方分歧，始终不放弃推动谈判达成共识的努力。虽然谈判最终破裂，但中国所发挥的作用有目共睹。2009年，为打破僵局，推动谈判。中国及时提出"尊重授权，锁定成果，多边谈判为基础"的三项谈判原则，得到了大多数成员的认可和支持，并体现在二十国集团峰会宣言中。2009年底的WTO第七届部长级会议上，中国呼吁改善和加强以世界贸易组织为代表的多边贸易体制，推动成员共同向世界发出"开放、前行、改革"的积极信号。

　　中国全面参与各个领域的谈判，提交了100多份提案，在技术层面为推动谈判做出了实质性贡献，并做出了实质性的关税削减承诺，按照目前谈判达成的结果，中国的农业和工业品的关税将削减30%左右；中国的服务业部门也做出了一些新的开放承诺。

　　在贸易政策审议方面，中国加入WTO九年来，分别于2006、2008和2010年接受了WTO的三次贸易政策审议，回答了60余个成员提出的近3700个问题。通过审议，展示了中国坚定实行开放的经贸政策，参与多边贸易体制的负责大国形象。

　　在发展方面，中国积极响应WTO"促贸援助"倡议，多次向促贸援助框架下的多哈发展议程全球信托基金进行捐助，帮助其他发展中成员，特别是最不发达成员，从多边贸易体制中全面获益，并更好地融入世界经济。

　　中国一贯遵守WTO规则和加入WTO承诺，并积极通过WTO争端解决机制化解与成员间的贸易争端。按照事项统计，中国加入世贸组织以来，起诉案件有7起，被诉案件有8起。中方愿意与其他WTO成员一道，维护多边贸易体制的严肃性和权威性。

　　中国还积极支持WTO机制建设，先后向WTO推荐了上诉机构成员人选以及相关委员会主席人选，支持WTO能力建设活动，多次为促贸援助捐款，支持最不发达国家提高参与多边贸易体制的能力，还为越南、老挝、白俄罗斯等正在加入WTO的国家提供了官员培训等。

　　加入WTO九年的历程再次证明加入世贸组织决策是符合中国国情的，是高瞻远瞩的历史性决策。中国有效利用世贸组织这个多边舞台，抓住经济全球化的历史机遇，成为发展中国家积极融入全球化进程的一个典范。中国负责守信地履行承诺，积极为加强多边贸易体制做贡献，不仅为自身的经济社会发展注入了强大的活力，也赢得了世贸组织成员和国际社会的广泛肯定和赞赏。

The WTO gets lyrical

2010-07-23T15:42:00.002+08:00

The WTO has just posted an invitation to take part in the poetry competition "The WTO: A Vision in Verse". I'm not sure how many young poetic minds end up in the WTO Secretariat or trade ministries, but many anti-WTO protesters are certainly masters in creating slogans, poems, posters and live shows. Now it's the time for the aspiring poets at Centre William Rappard to fight back.

Pro-tradians of all countries, unite!

The WTO Speaks (in Double Speak)

2010-06-04T00:33:00.001+08:00

In a keynote speech to the World Input-Output Database Conference in Vienna on 26 May 2010, DDG Alejandro Jara spoke in defense of China. Here are a few punch lines from his interesting speech:

Nowadays, in international trade of manufactures, what you see is no longer what you get: the label "made in ... " can be misleading. Let's take for example the new gadget launched by Apple, the iPad. According to a recent report, the imported cost of a mid-range iPad imported from China into the US is about US$ 290. But the Chinese content is only 5 per cent of the commercial value registered by customs, while most of the electronic content actually comes from South Korea, Japan and the US while batteries are manufactured in Honk Kong, China, by a Japanese company.

......

Trade in tasks calls for a new measurement of international trade: The Value Added Content, or domestic content of trade. To take one of my examples, if we want to assign to each country of origin the value added imbedded in an iPad imported by the U.S. we must be able to measure how much comes from China, Japan or Korea, and, of course, from the US.

......

To illustrate the usefulness of the new global statistics that can be derived from interconnecting national productive and financial accounts, let me mention one of the most heated debated issues among economists nowadays: the rebalancing of the global economy.

The large imbalances accumulated during the 2000s are often blamed for the 2008-2009 crisis. And most analysts highlight the large bilateral imbalance between the existing super-power, the US, and the new world manufacturer, China.

But relying on conventional trade statistics gives a distorted picture of trade imbalances between countries. As we saw when looking at the Chinese content of the iPad, what counts is not the imbalances as measured by gross values of exports and imports, but how much valued added is embedded in these flows. The WTO estimate, based on IDE-Jetro data, estimates that 80 per cent of the value of the goods exported by the US had a domestic content. The comparable figure was 77 per cent in the case of Japan, 56 per cent for Korea. It was about 50 per cent for Malaysia and Chinese Taipei, meaning that half the value exported by these countries originated from other countries.

Using conventional trade statistics would overestimate the US bilateral deficit vis-à-vis China by around 30 per cent as compared to measuring in value added content based on input-out matrices. The official figures for the bilateral deficit would be cut by 50 per cent when the activity of export processing zones in China and Hong Kong, China, re-exports are fully taken into account. By the same token, measured in domestic value added content, the bilateral deficit of the US with Korea or Japan, the main providers of electronic parts in our iPad example, would increase in proportion to the reduction of the US — China deficit.
This implies also that traditional exchange rate policies won't fully help in rebalancing apparent bilateral imbalances. If the Chinese value added in US imports from China is just half its commercial value, a revaluation of the Chinese Yuan will increase the costs of Chinese goods by only half the rate of the revaluation. In the case of consumer electronics, the impact will be even less than that, and only 20 per cent of the variation in the exchange rate will pass through the price paid by importers.

This shows that, as DG Pascal Lamy said recently at the Paris School of Economics, it is time to start measuring trade in value added rather than on gross value as is the case today!

I guess DDG Jara must be holding a copy of the joint US-China Report on Statistical Discrepancy during the speech. At the same time, in its TPR Report issued on Monday, the Secretariat criticized China for its export restrictions on raw materials, an extremely rare move as the Secretariat has in general avoided commenting on on-going DS cases before the WTO.

Which one is the true voice of the WTO?

New article in the JWT on the Chinese Section 301

2010-05-30T21:01:00.000+08:00

The abstract is provided below. Interested readers can find the article at http://www.kluwerlawonline.com/document.php?id=TRAD2010023

Henry Gao, 'Taking Justice into Your Own Hand: The TBI Mechanism in China' (2010) 44 Journal of World Trade pp. 633–659

Summary:
To protect the trade interests of their firms in foreign markets, several countries have established various institutional arrangements. For example, the United States has the section 301 procedure, while the EU has the Trade Barrier Regulation (TBR). Learning from their experiences, China also established its own Foreign Trade Barrier Investigation (TBI) mechanism in 2002. This article starts with a discussion on the background for its establishment as well as the substantive and procedural requirements for investigations under TBI. In the next part, the article discusses how TBI has worked in practice by reviewing the Japan – Quantitative Restrictions on Laver case (hereinafter 'Japan–Laver case'), the only case that has ever been brought under the mechanism. Drawing from the lessons learnt from the Japan–Laver case, the article then offers suggestions on how the TBI might be improved in the future. The article concludes with observations on the possible implications of the TBI on China's trade partners and the multilateral trading system as a whole.

Official Launch of the WTO Chairs Program in Geneva

2010-05-30T20:57:00.001+08:00

I was in Geneva last week for the launch of the WTO Chairs Program at the WTO Secretariat. Among the 14 institutions selected, three are from Asia countries, i.e., China, Indonesia and Viet Nam. Below is the speech by Lamy at the opening ceremony.

Lamy congratulates the 14 institutions selected for the WTO Chairs Programme

At the formal launch of the WTO Chairs Programme for developing countries, held at the WTO on 25 May 2010, Director-General Pascal Lamy welcomed the chairholders from 14 universities from around the world selected to participate in the first phase of the programme. "The award of a Chair is an acknowledgement of the competence of the selected institutions and the dedication of its scholars," said Mr Lamy, as he wished them every success in developing their partnership with the WTO. This is what he said:

Good morning. I would like to extend a warm welcome to all of you on the occasion of this formal launch of the WTO Chairs Programme. I should particularly like to welcome those of you from out of town, both the Chairholders from 14 universities around the world, and those members of the Advisory Board who were able to find the time to come to Geneva. It is also good to see some of the Geneva trade community here in support of their national WTO Chairholders.

As many of you know, the WTO Secretariat has been entrusted by the WTO membership to cooperate with governments in developing countries to enhance knowledge and understanding of the multilateral trading system and to facilitate more effective participation in its work. This is the raison d'être of our technical cooperation programme. Our efforts in this area have expanded considerably since the beginning of the Doha Round in 2001. We take this mandate very seriously and we are always on the lookout for ways of improving our game. We care about this because we believe that trade is an essential accompaniment of growth and development, and in order to benefit fully from the opportunities offered by trade, countries must be expert in identifying their trade interests, articulating them, and negotiating with trading partners for mutually beneficial outcomes.

For some time now, starting with our regional trade policy courses with which some of you may be familiar, we have sought partnerships with academic communities in developing countries. Since our mandate is to support governments, one might ask why, then, do we seek to work with universities? The answer is simple. We believe that the scholarly community is a source of valuable knowledge in any country. It brings to the table insights, understanding and a legitimacy that outside specialists can only partly hope to offer.

The WTO Chairs Programme, then, is an important plank of the Secretariat's strategy for academic support on capacity building, as reflected in our Technical Assistance and Training Plan. We believe in the particular contribution of national universities and research centres to the discussion and analysis of issues of public interest, including trade policy. Most governments around the world rely on those contributions and analytical capacities to formulate sound policies.

I should like to congratulate the 14 institutions that have been selected in this first phase of the programme. The award of a Chair is an acknowledgment of the competence of the selected institutions and the dedication of its scholars. It is also an encouragement to your researchers and students to take an interest in multilateral trade matters, a cornerstone of international global governance.

As you well know, trade issues by nature require a framework that takes a holistic view of the world economy. This is not only because of inter-linkages among the various sectors in any economy, but also because of the relationships between sectors in one economy and the economies of the rest of the world. Through your analytical contribution, you can help explain the workings, benefits and challenges of the trading system. Academics can help citizens understand and cope with the complexities of international business and globalization. They can also foster greater awareness and informed debate on international trade issues.

The ultimate objective of the WTO Chairs Programme is to strengthen the human and institutional capacities of universities from developing countries to support governments in the formulation of sound trade policies. The programme also seeks, through the Chairs, to support and facilitate the involvement in the process of other relevant stakeholders, such as the private sector, non-state actors and civil society. Policies that are understood and supported by the public at large are far more likely to succeed than those that are simply imposed, whether by internal or external decision-makers.

Each one of the universities selected for the programme has put forward its own work plan, specifying the intended output. I understand that you will be discussing these projects amongst yourselves over the next couple of days. The projects generally comprise a mixture of elements — increased course offerings on trade, policy-relevant research, and outreach activities aimed at raising awareness of trade-related policy issues. These are your proposals, and your projects. You own them. We are here to help, not to lead.

It is in this spirit that we have designated counterparts from the Secretariat to work with the Chairholders. It is for you, the Chairholders, to indicate what you need from us. As I have said, we stand ready to help in whatever way we can, obviously bearing in mind our own resource constraints.

We look forward to seeing progress. I believe that the first two years of the programme are crucial in terms of demonstrating to the WTO membership, and in particular the contributors to the Global Trust Fund, that this is a good way to use their resources. Some concrete output early on in the programme will serve to demonstrate the relevance of this approach, and that will be essential if we are to continue with, and expand, the programme.

Let me, finally, thank the Secretariat staff for their hard work on this programme, which was efficiently steered by Deputy Directors-General Valentine Rugwabiza and Alejandro Jara.

I wish you every success in your endeavours. Thank you for your attention.

Minsiter Chen spoke again on currency & protectionism

2010-03-31T22:19:00.000+08:00

The emphases are added by me.

陈德铭接受《华盛顿邮报》专访

2010-03-30 15:53 文章来源：商务部新闻办公室
文章类型：原创内容分类：新闻

　　3月21日，商务部长陈德铭在京接受了《华盛顿邮报》记者专访，回答了关于如何看待美国贸易保护主义抬头、人民币汇率与中美经贸关系等问题，答问主要内容摘编如下：

　　《华盛顿邮报》记者：谢谢您接受我的采访，因为时间有限，我只能提出几个主要问题。现在贸易保护主义趋势好像在美国要浓一些，你对这些贸易保护主义有什么样的看法，怎么解释中国的立场给国外的伙伴？
　　
　　陈德铭：美国到底有没有贸易保护主义?是否趋于严重?有些不同看法。美国政府的一些官员，坚持认为美国没有贸易保护主义。但是美国有些人也承认他们有一点保护主义。有一个得过诺贝尔奖的美国经济学家说,美国现在实行温和的保护主义，但还不够，要实行更强有力的保护主义。我个人认为，美国在金融危机后期是有保护主义倾向的，比如对中国发起轮胎特保案。尽管就全球来讲，国际贸易中的保护主义还大体处于一个可控的阶段，但是美国国内一些人近期在一些问题上不断制造声势，可能会使保护主义愈演愈烈，这对美国、对中国，对全球都是很不利的。

　　我们理解，当前美国经济复苏非常需要扩大就业、扩大出口，只有这样储蓄率才会提高，人们的信心才会增加。但从这个角度讲，保护主义无济于事，甚至有害。美国提出未来五年出口翻一番，那么这些出口产品卖给谁呢？如果在进口上采取贸易保护主义，出口肯定也会受到别人的制约。因此，美国有战略眼光、有远见的政治家，应该反对保护主义，应该更加坚定推行贸易自由化、便利化，这样才能使美国的复苏快一点。

　　《华盛顿邮报》记者：最近在美国，很多智库和评论家，包括国会也开始谈人民币汇率的问题，对人民币汇率的情况，能否给我们解释一下中方是什么样的立场。

　　陈德铭：我想首先说明，一国的汇率是国家主权内的问题，不是由双边讨论决定的。在金融危机还没有完全过去，世界经济甚至有二次触底危险的时候，各国货币保持基本稳定有利于经济复苏，这是我的基本看法。

　　人民币汇率最近在美国被炒得比较厉害，国会议员也有一些言论。我看了美国媒体的报道说，美国总是在碰到困难的时候，总是在选举的时候，会找一个替代国。上世纪80年代、90年代曾经是德国、日本，现在是否就该轮到中国了？
最近10年左右，美国一直在说中国人民币汇率低估，那么用什么标准来判定汇率低估呢？汇率是多方面因素形成的，用“购买力评价法”看汇率，中美两个国家之间是没法比较的。中国人均GDP只有3000美元，美国要超过4万美元。我在学经济学的时候看了很多美国人的教科书，按照他们的说法，综合比较法要比简单的购买力评价更科学。

　　评估一国汇率问题，另一个重要因素是看实际的国际收支状况，特别是在一般项目下即贸易项下的平衡状况。中国的对外贸易有一定顺差，2008年有2900亿美元，但2009年下降到1900亿美元，今年1-2月份再次下降50%，3月份我们甚至可能会遇到逆差。也就是说，中国的国际收支平衡状况正在改善，贸易顺差逐步减少。

客观分析中美贸易不平衡

　　中美贸易中，中方确实有较大的顺差。对此，我们应该全面地讨论和分析。

　　第一，从国别情况看，中国去年的顺差中73%是来自美国，但中国对周边国家有1200多亿美元的逆差，对拉美国家、对世界上58个最不发达国家总体也是逆差。

　　第二，中国对美国的贸易顺差，和美国公布的数字有很大差距。中美两国商务部就这些数字进行多年的研究，今年3月4日两国商务部的主管副部长签署发表了一个共同研究报告。以2006年贸易情况为例，美国公布的逆差统计数字应减少26%，而中方的贸易顺差统计则大概低估了2%左右。为什么会有这么大的差别呢？这些差异中约有52%来自中国经第三方到美国的转口贸易，在转口过程中的增值部分计入了中国的出口；还有48%左右的差异是在中美直接贸易中产生的，这些产品在中国海关报关的时候是一个较低的价格，到美国海关进口时价格提高了。因为这些产品主要是加工贸易产品，所以美国企业把设计、研发、物流、利润全部加进去了。

　　第三，我们要分析中国对美国的贸易顺差是怎么来的。

　　从贸易方式看，中国与美国在一般贸易上是基本平衡的，顺差主要是加工贸易造成的。从企业主体看，2009年，中国对美有1400多亿美元的顺差，其中约有76%是外资企业造成的，而这些外资企业，主要又是美国在华投资的企业。从产品来讲，中国对美国的贸易顺差最主要是来自电子信息技术和机电设备类，这些产品占了67%，大部分是在华加工装配的。

　　造成中美贸易顺差的根本原因是在全球化过程中，产业结构发生调整变化。很多对美出口的企业，看到中国劳动力成本的优势，把最终装配转移到中国，比如日本、韩国、台湾的企业，也包括一些美国企业。这种产业转移导致中国对美顺差增加，但是从美国统计看，美国对亚洲的逆差占其贸易逆差的比重并没有明显变化，只是在亚洲国家和地区之间发生了转移。

　　导致中美贸易不平衡的第二个重要原因是美国对中国采取非常严格的出口管制措施。这一做法已延续多年，2007年，美国还将中国单列，专门针对中国一国增加出口管制项目，包括纤维材料、数字机床、一些集成电路设备等，一共47项。我举过一个例子，中国汶川地震的时候，我们希望买几台美国黑鹰直升飞机的发动机用于抗震救灾。尽管这个发动机厂在加拿大，美国GE公司只有25%的股份，但美国政府还是没有同意。如果美国不愿卖这类高技术产品，我们只好自己花力气来研发，或者从其他国家购买。

　　如果美国继续对中国采取非常严格的出口管制，不仅对中国不利，而且对美国人民、美国企业也非常不公平。现在，美国企业遇到这么多困难，美国失业率这么高，美国也有优势产品可以卖给中国，但美国企业却不能自由地开展贸易。美国可以把黑鹰直升飞机卖给台湾，但不能卖给大陆，那么我们只好和欧洲国家联合来研发直升飞机，同样的例子还有卫星。我不知道是不是个别人还有冷战思想，所以要坚持对中国实行严格的出口管制。这样的制度和做法对美国非常不利，中国也会受到损失，美国人民要知道真相，国会和议员要知道真相。

　　半年多前，奥巴马总统已经表示要放宽出口限制，我们希望看到美方的实际行动。美国提出出口五年要翻一番。现在美国有1万多亿美元的出口，翻一番要达到2万多亿美元，这些出口产品要卖给谁呢？最有潜力的是应当中国这样的新兴市场，2008年中国占美总出口的比重是5.5%，去年增加到6.7%。2001年的时候，中国自美的高技术产品进口占中国同期进口的18%，到2008年这一占比下降到不足7%。这意味着美国损失300多亿美元的贸易机会，这对美国来讲是很可惜的。在贸易受到限制，我们想买的产品买不到的情况下，讨论汇率问题是不公平的，也没法得出正确的结果。

　　第四，关于美国的逆差，如果从经济学的角度说得更深一些，存在一个所谓的“特里芬难题”，这是美国耶鲁大学的一位教授提出的。美元作为国际货币，要满足世界各国在贸易结算、债务清偿和国际储备的需要，必然会通过国际收支逆差使美元流出。随着国际贸易和投资的扩大，全球对美元的需求增多，这需要更多的美元流出，但长期逆差又威胁美元币值的稳定。在布雷顿森林体系中，正是由于“特里芬难题”的出现，美元最后与黄金脱钩。所以从总体上看，美国的巨大逆差还与当前国际货币体制有关。

贸易争端对中美均无益处

　　中美双方应该认真落实胡锦涛主席和奥巴马总统关于建设21世纪积极合作全面的中美关系的共识。遇到问题，大家都要冷静。中美互相依存，谁也离不开谁，我们不希望因为这些问题影响两国关系。如果某些美国议员坚持要给中国强加一个操纵汇率的名义，而且在这个名义下，真的对中国实行惩罚性进口关税，中国政府对此不可能不做出反应。

　　我们希望不发生这种事，如果真的发生这种事，对全球都没有好处，OECD有一个报告指出，中国汇率稳定对大部分不发达国家和新兴国家的经济发展非常重要。经过多年的努力，中国现在的出口结构和那些不发达国家已经错位了，中国的进口对他们很重要。您可以参考OECD的这个报告。

　　如果真的因为汇率问题挑起一场“贸易战”，其实我不想用“贸易战”这个词，但是最近在美国媒体上我们确实看到了类似的表述，当然中国会受损失，但美国企业受损失最大。中国的出口企业中有大量是美资企业，一旦两国贸易环境有变化，他们首先会受影响。

　　我还想进一步举例说明这个问题。中国对美国出口量最大的产品是笔记本电脑，一年有1.47亿台，里面绝大部分芯片使用的都是Intel或者AMD，大量的零部件也来自进口。一台在美国零售价1200美元的电脑，中国企业只能拿到35美元的加工费。如果人民币升值，中国出口不了这些产品，那么相关零部件也进口不了。这样不仅在华美资企业受影响，美国本土企业对中国的出口也会受到巨大的影响。

　　2008年在华美资企业约有3万家，总销售额为2286亿美元，其中1500多亿美元是在中国市场销售的，剩余700多亿美元全部出口，大量返销美国。我最近请美国在华的一批世界500强企业来座谈，听取他们的意见。所有企业都认为，他们在中国的业务是全球增长最快的，利润增长最大的，要继续在中国投资，这些公司从巨额利润里返回一部分帮助美国母公司，或者其他分公司渡过困难。

　　此外，在服务贸易方面，中国有很大的逆差，美国的四大会计事务所，保险公司等各类金融机构在中国都有大量的业务，中国每年也有大量人员到美留学、旅游。现在我们之间没有完整的服务贸易统计数字，我们估计中方的逆差最少在130亿-150亿美元之间，

　　中美经贸关系如此紧密，我们不愿意看到双方发生所谓的贸易战，大家都应理智地坐下来讨论，不要轻易给别人扣帽子，中国也不可能因为被扣上帽子就换个说法。

　　我想美国应该有所调整。我不知道一些议员这么强硬，最后想得到什么东西，是为了政治上的选举？还是出于经济考虑？从经济上讲，是想限制自中国的进口，还是想扩大美国的出口？如果是限制进口，那么中国产品即使进不了，美国也会转从其他发展中国家进口。因为，中国主要出口中低附加值产品，美国的长处是高端制造业和服务业。劳动密集型的产品要回到美国本土生产是很难的。试想一下，如果没有美国进口商订货，中国企业也不会开工生产，一定是美国国内有需求才会从中国进口。把中国这个重要的新兴市场打伤了，对美国扩大出口不会有帮助。

　　我曾在哈佛大学短期学习，记得哈佛有一个讲台，上面写着拉丁文“VERITAS”，意思是“真相”。今天和您交流，我也希望把真实情况传递给美国人民。中美之间的各种问题，我们都可以讨论，但是千万别做损人不利已的事，这对中国，对美国都没有好处。

　　华盛顿邮报记者：假如人民币升值会不会在中国产生一些失业问题？

　　陈德铭：温总理已经说过中国的人民币汇率没有低估，应当基本保持稳定，这对世界经济也有利。

　　2005年以来，人民币升值了21%，实际有效汇率也升值了17%左右。中国为此付出了代价，有些企业因此破产，也有一些企业调整结构，往更高端的产品发展。更重要的是，在金融危机之前，全球经济过热，美国市场需求旺盛，人民币升值后，出口商可以把相当一部分压力通过价格转移出去。但现在金融危机还没有过去，国际市场疲软，许多商品的价格尚未恢复到2008年以前的水平。最近我们做过测算，中国出口企业的平均利润只有1.77%左右。在这种情况下，中国企业难以承受贸易条件出现大的变化，毕竟中国也有自身不容忽视的就业问题和经济稳定问题。如果形成人民币升值的强烈预期，还会严重扰乱世界金融市场的稳定。

　　不少人都感觉到，在美国媒体上，不太能听到中国的声音，希望通过您的采访，也多传递一些中国的声音，让美国人民更多地知道方方面面的情况，能够更好地作出判断。在过去的几年里，美国85%的州对中国出口都快速增长，当我在美国各州访问的时候，州长和企业家对我们都很热情，希望我们去那里投资，扩大贸易。我们也欢迎美国的议员多听听选区人民的意见，到中国来看一看。有些人总是认为美国现在面临的一些问题是因中国而起的，这不符合事实。中国和美国是两个重要的贸易伙伴，中国的发展对美国是一个机会，我们应当一起向前努力，让不断发展的中美贸易为两国人民带来更大的利益。

HK's first FTA

2010-03-31T21:57:00.001+08:00

HK has just signed its first FTA with a foreign country, the Hong Kong - New Zealand Closer Economic Partnership Agreement. More to come?

China Fights Back on Trade Imbalances and Currency Issue

2010-03-20T16:20:00.000+08:00

This time it is indirect warning only, but a lot of interesting info is revealed at the press conference.

“中美货物贸易统计差异研究报告暨中美经贸关系”专题新闻发布会

2010-03-19 14:19 文章来源：商务部新闻办公室

文章类型：原创内容分类：新闻

　　3月19日，商务部召开“中美货物贸易统计差异研究报告暨中美经贸关系”专题新闻发布会，新闻发言人姚坚主持发布会，商务部综合司司长刘海泉、美大司司长何宁出席并回答记者提问。实录如下：

　　姚坚：新闻界的各位朋友，欢迎各位再次来商务部参加专题新闻发布会。在前两天的例行发布会上，我向大家报告了商务部近期的工作情况，今天我们将就中美货物贸易统计差异研究结果及中美双方的经贸关系情况向大家做一个通报。今天我们邀请到了商务部综合司刘海泉司长和美大司何宁司长。

　　刘海泉：各位记者朋友大家上午好。今天我想主要给各位介绍一下中美货物贸易统计差异研究报告。这个报告是中美双方共同研究出来的一个成果，并且已经在中国商务部和美国商务部的官方网站上公布，美国商务部已经就此成果举行了新闻发布会。

　　首先给各位介绍一下报告的主要内容。大家知道，中美贸易是中国对外贸易当中很重要的一部分，是双边经贸关系中很重要的一部分。长期以来双边贸易的统计存在很大差异，由于运输、保险等方面的因素，各国统计当中是存在或大或小的差异，但中美统计之间的差异多一些，大一些，因此双方成立了联合小组对此进行研究。

　　1994年第8届中美商贸联委会时成立了统计小组，决定对双边统计差异问题进行联合研究，当时得出的结论是中国出口货物经香港等地转口运输是造成双边贸易统计差异的主要原因。但随着中美经贸关系的不断深化，双边贸易快速增长，贸易统计的差异在连年增多，因此引起了社会各界的广泛关注。2004年第十五届中美商贸联委会时，双方决定成立贸易统计工作组，对双边贸易的统计差异问题进行再次研究。

　　中方统计小组成员包括商务部和海关总署；美方统计小组成员包括美国商务部和贸易代表办公室。这项研究历时5年，期间召开过六次工作会议，双方成员以实事求是、认真负责的态度，创新研究方法，仔细核对了双边贸易的统计数据，在核对范围、研究结果、报告框架等方面达成高度共识，经过双方共同努力，研究取得了积极成果，不但在统计方法差异、第三地转运增值等一些问题上取得了新的突破，而且就直接贸易统计差异的问题进行了研究，找出了主要原因，进行了量化调整，大大缩减了双边贸易总体差异的规模。

　　2009年10月在杭州召开的第20届中美商贸联委会上，两国政府签署了《中美货物贸易统计差异研究报告》，今年3月4日两国商务部又在各自网站上公布了该报告全文。按照双方商定的研究范围和研究方法，中方小组选取了2000年、2004年和2006年中美贸易统计数据，按照“东向贸易”和“西向贸易”分组进行了比对。“东向贸易”指中国对美国出口及美国统计的美国从中国进口，“西向贸易”指美国对中国的出口及中国统计的中国自美国的进口。通过数据比对发现：“西向贸易”差异很小，2006年仅为40亿美元，“东向贸易”差异很大，双边统计的差异高达843亿美元，这种差异用一般的统计因素很难解释。我们对“东向贸易”使用了转口增值、大宗商品跟单比对、核对所有商品编码等方法，我们研究结论如下：

　　一是中国出口的货物经第三地转运仍然是导致统计差异的一个重要原因。大家知道，中国对美出口的货物中，有一大部分先被运到香港、韩国釜山、中国的台湾、墨西哥等这些地方，在经过分装，分船之后再运到美国的，在这个过程中有的商品会被重新包装，有的经过了简单的再加工，中国进口商品被加价，从而产生一部分增值；另外，部分货物在中国报关时，中国的出口商不知道这个商品是出口到美国，以为这个商品是出口到香港、台湾、韩国，实际上最后的出口目的地是美国，中国根据进口商的报关认为是出口到韩国、香港的，而美国按原产地原则将这些出口统计都归于自中国进口，这也是差异的原因，这两种情形造成的差异，在2006年是441亿美元，占“东向贸易”差异的52%。

　　二是直接贸易当中的差异日益显著，是由于双方报价不同造成的。随着中美贸易的快速发展，两国间直接贸易的比重在双边贸易中所占比重越来越高。2006年这一部分占到90%左右，直接贸易统计造成的差异，数目也越来越大，2006年是402亿美元，占总体差异的48%。

　　大家可能会问，从中国直接出口到美国，为什么价值上存在差异？主要原因在于加工贸易。中国出口到美国的商品中60%多是加工贸易产品，这些产品在中国出口报关与美国进口商在入关报价时存在很大差异，中国的出口商是不掌握这个差异的，因为中国的出口商只负责接单生产，不掌握设计、销售的环节；进口商的加价过程，中方没有研究之前也是不掌握的。基于此原因，导致美方统计自中国的进口额大于中方统计的对美出口额。

　　除了上述两个主要原因，在海关统计当中有一些数据加工处理的的方法上，双方也不完全一致。比如在统计辖区上，美国将波多黎各和美属维尔京群岛作为美国的海关关境，对华的贸易统计中包含了这两个地区的数据，而中国将上述两个地区视为单独行政区，与他们之间的贸易额不计入对美的贸易额，由此也造成了一定差距。另一个原因是中美之间相距遥远，跨年度运输也会造成统计数据在记录的时间上产生差异。比如在本年度内从中国海关已经出关的货物，运输船经过10天、20天的航行，到达美国时可能已经跨年度了，也会造成差异。但是这些因素造成的差异在双方统计数据中互有增减，并且是一个延续的过程，所以对总体的统计差异影响不大。

　　我们对这几个方面的统计差异因素经过量化调整，最后得出的结论是美方自华的进口规模下降了很多，中方统计出口的规模也调减了一些。以2006年为例，中方统计的出口从原来2035亿美元，经过比对调整之后调整为2005亿美元，比原来减少2%。美方统计自中国进口从原来的2878亿美元调减为2247亿美元，减少22%；双方统计差异相应由843亿美元调为242亿美元，242亿美元的原因还没有完全量化出来。根据这样可以估算出美方在2006年对华贸易的逆差就由原来美方统计的2326亿美元调减为1734亿美元，减少26%。

　　这就是我们双方统计小组经过五年研究得出的基本结论。大家知道这样一个结论是中美双方统计人员共同认可的，也是双方商务部共同认可的结果，是一个共识。按照中美双方的约定，这项研究主要是为了找出双方贸易统计产生差异的原因，而不表示对任何一方已经公布的海关统计数据进行修订或更正。我们都希望这个结果能够使社会各界，包括新闻界的朋友更加客观全面的了解中美贸易发展的真实状况，并且中美双方在研究结束的时候，也一致同意继续丰富现有的工作机制，不断深化双边贸易领域的合作，为双方的经贸合作大局服务好。谢谢各位。

　　姚坚：刚才刘海泉司长跟大家报告了中美对于双边贸易统计联合研究的结果，下面我们请商务部美大司何宁司长介绍中美经贸关系的一些情况。

　　何宁：刚才刘海泉司长给大家介绍了中美货物贸易统计差异的研究结果。对于货物贸易统计差异，特别是中美双方贸易当中顺、逆差情况的研究结果体现了中美两国都高度重视双边经贸关系的发展。在发展过程当中出现的一些问题，双方只要能够在相互尊重的基础上，通过平等的协商，都可以找到妥善处理这些问题的方法。

　　中美经贸关系的发展经过30年的迅速发展，两国经贸合作早从单纯的货物贸易扩展到经济的各个领域。同时，货物贸易的这些统计数字只能体现货物的流向，并不真正反映在货物贸易过程当中双方获利的情况。我们注意到，在中美经贸发展过程中，部分民众和媒体所提出的一些看法并不能客观全面地反映两国经贸关系发展的实际。所以，我在此向各位媒体朋友介绍一下中美经贸关系的总体情况。

　　第一，中美经贸关系的发展是中美关系当中最重要、最具活力的组成部分。中美经贸关系是维系两国关系的稳定器，也是两国关系发展的重要推动力，作为世界上最大的发展中国家和最大的发达国家，中美两国在经济结构和经济发展水平方面具有明显的互补性，双方的经贸合作潜力巨大。中美两国在贸易、投资、科技、能源、环境等领域开展了全方位的合作。经贸合作的规模迅速扩大、领域不断拓宽、内容更加丰富、形式也更加多样。

　　从货物贸易方面来看，中美双边的贸易迅猛增长，两国建交30多年以来，中美的贸易额从1979年的不足25亿美元迅速增长到2009年的2982.6亿美元，增长了近120倍。按照中方的统计，在过去的五年当中，中美的贸易额年均增长9%，目前，美国是中国的第二大贸易伙伴，第二大出口市场，第六大进口来源地。中国是美国的第二大贸易伙伴，第三大出口市场，第一大进口来源。

　　中美在投资领域多年来也进行了卓有成效的合作。到2010年2月底，美国对华投资项目累计达到58362个，美方实际投入达到了628.2亿美元。到目前为止，美国仍然是中国外资最大的来源地之一。同时，中国在美国兴办的贸易型和非贸易型公司也呈现增长的趋势。到今年1月底中国企业在美国的各类投资超过45亿美元，投资范围广泛。

　　第二，互利互惠是中国经贸合作的基本特征。中美经贸关系的迅速发展为两国人民带来实实在在的好处。对中方而言，中美经贸合作不仅带来了经济建设所需要的资金、技术和先进的管理经验，还创造了大量的就业、税收等收益。这方面信息很多，大家都已经比较清楚了。为从客观角度评价中美经贸关系，今天重点谈谈美方在中美经贸关系发展当中的获益情况。

　　一方面，美国对华的货物贸易出口实现高速增长。中国加入世贸组织以来，已经从2001年的中国作为美国的第九大出口市场跃升为08年美国第三大出口市场。2001年到2009年美国对华货物的出口总额增长262.8%，年均增长达到15.4%，而同期美国的货物出口总额的增长是45.5%，年均增长4.3%。美国对华出口的增长率是同期美国总体出口增长率的5.8倍。美国对华出口年均增幅远远高于美国对其他主要出口市场的年均增幅，美国对华出口额占美国对外出口的比重从2001年2.7%增长到2009年的6.7%。另外，中国已经成为美国许多产品的重要海外市场，中国是美国大豆、棉花最大的单一的海外市场，是美国汽车、飞机的重要出口市场。根据中方的统计，2009年美国对华农业的出口额为140亿美元，为2001年的5倍，美国对华出口农业的农产品占中国农产品总进口额的27%。

　　另一方面，美国企业获得从中国进口产品的绝大部分增加值。美国的《经济学家》杂志曾经指出，标有“中国制造”的美国苹果公司的ipod播放器在发达国家市场的零售额是299美元，其中160美元为美国设计营销和零售企业获得，中国组装厂仅赚取每台4美元加工费，美国在华投资企业也通过中国国内市场销售和对美国市场的出口获得利益。这种获益的差异不仅仅体现在这一种产品上，中国货物出口当中百分之四、五十都是由外商投资企业来完成的。这也说明了货物贸易的数据统计掩盖了实际的利益分配情况。

　　除了货物贸易，在服务贸易方面，美国企业也获得丰厚的收益。

　　在会计业，2008年美国的四大国际会计师事务所在华收入合计超过100亿人民币，占中国全行业收入的34%。

　　在银行业，到2009年底，美国在华设立法人银行3家，下设分行15家。6家美国银行在华设立了8家分行，2009年实现的营业收入达到28亿多人民币，净利润达到8.65亿人民币。

　　在保险业，2009年底美国保险在华设立的保险公司有12家，2009年原保险保费的收入达到200多亿人民币。

　　在证券业，截至2009年底美资的金融机构在华参股设立的合资证券公司有2家，合资基金管理公司有9家。

　　在旅游业，2007年中国的旅游游客访美人数是39.7万人次，同比增长24%；2008年中国的游客访美人次达到49.3万人次，同比增长24%。中国游客在美支出也连年增长，2006年是20.7亿美元；2007年是26.99亿美元；2008年是36.14亿美元。

　　在教育服务业，2009年中国赴美留学生人数达到98253人，占各国赴美留学人数的14.6%，继印度之后排名第二。比2008年增长21%。

　　在法律服务业，截至2010年2月底，美国律师事务所共设立驻华代表处98家，占各国家（地区）律师事务所在华设立代表处总数的33.3%，2008年业务收入为23.14亿元，占各国（地区）律师事务所在华代表机构收入总额的49.68%。

　　在航空运输业，2009年美国各航空公司在华运送旅客达到161.12万人，在华运货邮件62万吨，人数比2008年同比略有下降，但是货物的邮件的运送增长了30%。

　　在版权转让领域，2008年中国引进了出版物版权一共有16979种，其中从美国引进图书版权有4000多种，中方在双方的图书版权贸易方面有很大的逆差，2008年我们从美国引进的图书种类与向美国输出的图书总类之比33：1。

　　在投资方面，美国对华投资已经成为美国对华经贸利益的主要手段。

　　首先，美国对华投资的领域广泛。目前美国在对华投资国家和地区中居第四位，中国制造业的29个大类和中国承诺的100个服务部门均有美国投资。

　　第二，美国企业在华的投资回报丰厚。中国美国商会对会员公司的调查显示，2008年74%的会员企业实现了盈利，或者盈利颇丰。

　　第三，美国跨国公司对在华发展的前景高度乐观。中国美国商会、美中贸易全国委员会、上海美国商会等美资企业商协会组织的调查显示，绝大多数美资企业对在华发展前景表示乐观，并且将中国作为其全球投资的首要市场或者最重要的市场之一。超过半数的企业表示要继续扩大对华投资，绝大多数企业表示其在华经营的目标是进入或服务于中国市场，而不是在中国寻求出口平台。

　　另外，中国市场还成为美国制造业企业在金融危机的中的亮点。中国已成为美国某家汽车公司全球第二大市场，2009年其在华销量达182.91万辆，同比增长67%（在欧洲销量同比下降18%）。目前，以销量计算，该公司亚太地区业务的84%集中在中国。另一家美国电气公司2009年在华营业额同比增长14%，为该公司2006年以来在华营业额增长最快的一年。

　　美方从中美经贸合作当中获得的宏观经济利益也相当可观。

　　一方面，中美经贸合作有助于保持经济稳定。美国从中国进口大量质优价廉的产品，使美国在巨额“双赤字”的压力下，得以维持比较低的通胀力，提高了美国民众的实际消费能力，扩大了消费需求，为美国经济保持增长提供了动力。据摩根史丹利公司测算，1998年到2003年仅童装一项，美国年轻的父母因为购买中国货而节省4亿美元，英国的经济学家所做的统计显示，如果没有中国消费品，美国的物价指数将每年上升2个百分点。

　　另一方面，中国购买美国的国债也有利于美稳定金融市场。据美国财政部的统计，截至2009年12月底，中国是第二大持有美国国债的持有国，持有美国国债余额达到了7554亿美元，占美国国债余额的6.3%，占美国对外销售国债余额17.2%。

　　此外，双边的经贸关系的互补性也为美国产业升级提供了便利。美国处在全球产业链的高端，将劳动密集型产品转移到包括中国在内亚洲新兴市场，为自身产业向高附加值领域转移创造了条件。根据国际劳工组织的数据，2008年中国人均小时工资仅相当于美国的十分之一，中国有220万人在美资企业工作，质高价优的劳动力资源美国企业的资金、技术及管理优势相结合，使“美国品牌、中国制造”的产品拥有较强的国际竞争力，从而扩大美国企业在国际市场的占有率。以计算机制造业为例，2008年中国生产各类计算机达到1.47亿台，所使用的中央处理器芯片几乎都是从美国的英特尔、超微半导体等公司进口。

　　对华贸易的投资还为美国体了大量的就业机会。对华贸易投资加快了美国就业从制造业向服务业转移的步伐。美方统计数据显示，2000-2007年之间美国制造业减少338.4万个工作岗位，而同期服务业增加了823万个工作岗位，总计多创造就业岗位484.6万个，其中贸易和与贸易相关的港口、运输、分销、零售等领域是就业的重要渠道。以沃尔玛公司为例，该公司通过销售中国产品，在全球雇佣工作人员超过200万人，其中大部分在美国本土就业。

　　我们认为中美贸易潜力巨大，前景广阔。在互惠互利平等的贸易关系基础上，随着美国经济走向复苏，中国经济继续保持稳定增长，中美贸易也会进入一个新的增长期，双方应该共同努力抓住这个机遇，挖掘潜力，进一步扩大两国的共同利益。2003年温家宝总理访美的时候，两国领导人曾就如何平衡中美贸易达成共识，即实现贸易平衡，应该从扩大美国对华出口入手，而不是限制中国对美的出口，应该从积极的方面妥善处理这个问题。在这方面扩大美国高技术对华出口大有可为。根据中方的海关统计，2001年中国自美进口的高技术产品占中国高技术产品进口总额的18.3%，到了2008年美国高技术产品出口所占的比重下降到6.9%。如果2008年美方仍然保持18.3%的比重的话，美国当年对华产品的出口可以增加387亿美元。这充分说明，美国放松出口管制有助于中美贸易向更加平衡的方向发展。

　　随着中美经贸合作不断深入和发展，两国在经贸往来中出现一些问题和摩擦是正常的。正如温家宝总理在“两会”记者招待会指出的那样，中美两国“合则两利、斗则两伤”，双方应该以高瞻远瞩的战略眼光，充分加强合作，冷静、妥善地处理双边经贸问题。经贸问题只有在遵守经济规律的基础上才能比较准确的把握和处理，因此我们要尽一切努力避免将经贸问题政治化，确保中美经贸关系稳定发展的大局。

　　我就说这些。谢谢。

　　姚坚：下面我们留一点时间给大家进行提问。

　　人民日报记者：第一个问题：研究报告主要是针对货物贸易的统计差异进行了解释，不知道服务贸易方面是否也存在类似的情况？第二个问题：刚才何司长介绍的数据比较多，有一点不知道是否能介绍一下：2009年我们在货物贸易和服务贸易两方面，中美之间的数额大概是多少？中美贸易整体之间的顺差情况从中国来讲情况是怎样的？谢谢。

刘海泉：你说的服务贸易是否存在类似情况，因为我们没有进行研究，所以还不能够下一个结论，但是方法上我可以给大家做一个简要说明。大家知道货物贸易的统计全球在方法上、制度上是高度一致的，也是比较成熟的，商品出关、入关都是随单登记，是一个货物流程的真实记录。所以双方进行这方面的比较有比较可靠的数据，但是对于服务贸易，目前从全球来讲，在统计制度上应该说不是非常成熟，不是每一单的服务贸易都要做这种记录，很多时候是采取抽取样本的方法。比如商业存在、自然人移动包括各个方面，选取一些样本，跟货物贸易统计方法不一致。因此对服务贸易进行双边的比较会更复杂，并且比较的结果与货物贸易相比误差也不是很准。服务贸易的统计没有货物贸易统计的全面、准确，没有哪个国家做过这种比较，现在没有看到结果。

货物贸易方面，2009年中方统计对美出口2208亿美元，从美国进口774亿美元；根据美方的统计，美方对中国出口695亿美元，自中国进口2964亿美元。

　　中新社记者：近期中美两国摩擦特别频繁，而且两国关系出现了一种紧张，商务部这方面有没有什么打算去改善？谢谢。

　　何宁：刚才我在前面已经讲到，中方对于中美经贸关系基本的评价是互惠互利，只要我们在平等的基础上能够就一些问题进行磋商，避免政治化、避免情绪化，很多问题都可以得到妥善的处理。实际上中美双方对于中美经贸关系的发展都是很重视的，为了保持中美经贸关系的稳定，双方也建立了一些沟通渠道。比如中美之间2006年建立的中美战略对话，奥巴马总统上台之后，去年我们又开始了中美战略和经济对话，再加上中美之间的商贸联委会，这些都是双方对话的渠道，通过这些对话和沟通交流，都能够探讨如何妥善处理这些问题。中方实际上也采取了其他一些措施，比如在过去几年里，每一年都有一些经贸促进团到美国去，开展大量的经贸活动。在2007、2008、2009年，由商协会组织的经贸促进团签署了总数达700多亿美元的协议或合同，对促进中美经贸关系的发展，实现更加平衡的中美贸易起到了积极的推动作用。谢谢。

　　中国国际广播电台记者：请问何司长，您在讲话中提到避免中美经贸过程当中的出现的一些问题政治化，实际上政治因素一直在困扰着中美经贸关系。比如说最近美国议员提出要强迫人民币升值，不知道您怎么看这个问题？中方会就这样的问题怎么样与美方进行沟通？另外还有一个细节的问题您刚才提到中国现在已经是美国大豆最大的单一出口市场，而国内业界人士已经对中国大豆产业安全表示担忧，不知道您怎么看这个问题，会不会采取一些措施？谢谢。

　　何宁：第一，温总理和美国总统在中美经贸关系问题的有关磋商中曾达成五项原则，其中就讲到不要政治化。我的理解是，我们提出某一项倡议、某一项原则，这个倡议、原则和实际情况肯定是不一致的。这说明实际情况中出现了政治化的情况，不然就不会提不要政治化的原则。中美经贸问题政治化的现象由来已久，这在中美多年来的经贸关系发展中也起了一些消极的作用，所以我们一直坚持和美方讲不要过多在双边经贸关系发展中加入政治因素。但是这个现象在很多情况下往往又是不可避免的，我们要采取措施，通过双方的沟通避免经贸问题政治化的现象扩大，也要避免双方在一些问题上的争论情绪化，尽可能减少政治因素对于两国经贸关系的负面影响，确保中美经贸关系大局的稳定发展，这对两国政府、人民的长远根本利益都是有好处的。

　　第二，在世贸规则的大框架下，中美双方的贸易都是一种平等的贸易，不存在某一方要将产品强卖给另一方，或者某一方强买另一方的产品，都是根据双方的需求，在互有利益的基础上进行的。所以中国进口美国大豆的数量是多是少，可能大家的看法不一样。我个人认为，只要符合买卖双方的基本利益，这个贸易就是健康的、正常的。谢谢。

　　路透社记者：刚才您讲到经贸问题也可以找到一些妥善的方法来解决这些问题，现在大家所关注的人民币汇率的问题，您觉得有什么样的渠道和办法缓解这个问题呢？刚才您讲到对话的渠道，您觉得这些渠道可以来讨论这些问题吗？谢谢。

　　何宁：中美双方沟通的渠道是畅通的，所有双方关注的问题都可以通过这些渠道来讨论。但是这些讨论应该是在科学的基础上，在理性的基础上进行，而不是通过这个渠道由一方给另外一方施压。人民币汇率的问题比较复杂，我不是权威人士，不敢妄加评论。但是，我认为按照我们现在讲的原则，按照平等、互利、互相尊重的原则，任何问题通过正常的渠道加以解决都是我们最佳的期待。如果有一些政治因素加进来，像刚才有的记者提到美国100多个议员提出某一项要求，这样会使整个的形势复杂化，使我们的沟通对话就变得受到外界的干扰，这种发展态势不是我们所愿意见到的。谢谢。

　　凤凰卫视记者：第一，昨天我们去采访美国大使，他说在4月15号财政部出报告之前跟中国政府有谈判，我们想问商务部会不会有参加，如果4月15号的报告，把中国列为货币操纵国，商务部有什么对策。第二，听说商务部和贸促会已经向12个行业、1000多个企业征询意见问问他们是否能够承受人民币升值的压力，我们想请问美大司司长，从您的经验来看他们能承受多少的幅度？谢谢。

　　何宁：其实汇率的问题，国务院领导，我们的发言人，已经在不少的场合，都做了表示，我们也没有什么其他更多可补充的。

　　凤凰卫视记者：这些企业能接受多少升值的压力呢？

　　何宁：在整个研究结果出来之前我们不便加以评论。

　　姚坚：商务部并没有牵头做过这样的测试，只是商业协会在征求这方面的意见。

　　何宁：我今天讲到的美国从中美经贸关系中获益的情况，只是我们了解到情况的一部分。我们今天讲的意思是让大家客观地来评论中美经贸关系，不要总是认为这其中一方吃亏了，另一方得了利益。从双方贸易基本的逻辑来看，双方都是要获得利润的，没有自己的利益，是不可能看到贸易的持久发展。从这个角度来看，双方的利益肯定是差不多的，不可能是绝对一致，完全对等的，但不会有很大差异，不然贸易无法发展，贸易也不可能具有可持续性。

　　刘海泉：我上午给大家介绍的报告是一个内容比较专业、枯燥的内容，大家如果有兴趣还可以在我们的网站上下载这个报告的全文，中英文都有。我们也非常感谢大家对于中美贸易统计问题的关心。谢谢。

　　姚坚：谢谢各位。

How to get rid of a trade deficit/surplus?

2010-03-10T17:01:00.001+08:00

The answer is simple: bring in a new set of bean-counters (sometimes from a different country). This is essentially what the MOFCOM of China and DOC of US did in their new "Report on the Statistical Discrepancy of Merchandise Trade Between the United States and China", which was issued on March 4^th(English version here; Chinese version here). After accounting for the differences created by transshipment through HK and other intermediaries, mark-ups, and customs valuation, the discrepancy in the statistics have shrunken from a whopping 84.3 billion USD to a (still large but not so extreme) 24.2 billion USD.

While this report adds nothing new to the intellectual debate as it has largely confirmed the works by KC Fung and Larry Lau (see this and this) on the topic, this is probably the first time that the US government openly admits that part of the growing deficit with China might simply be statistical rather than substantive.

Now the question is: Does this mean that the US government will soften its stand on the currency issue?

2010 Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law: China and East Asia on the World Stage

2010-03-04T23:01:00.000+08:00

On March 27th, I will speak at the 2010 Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law in the Panel on "China and East Asia on the World Stage". My paper is "From Rule Takers, Shakers to Makers: How Japan, China and Korea Shaped New Norms in International Economic Law", which I will present together with my co-author Prof. Saadia Pekkanen, Job & Gertrud Tamaki Professor at the University of Washington. Below is the Introduction part to the paper.

While the rise of Asia in the international economy has been widely noted, much less appreciated is the way in which that rise has interacted with the forces of international economic law (IEL). Perhaps the most dominant perception among both legal scholars and social scientists is still that formal law does not play much of a role in the East Asian region – that its institutions are weak, that it has a preference for non-legalistic methods and non-binding commitments which also extend to dispute settlement mechanisms, and that in contrast to highly legal systems as, for example in Europe, far more weight should be given to the competition of national economies and ethnic groups in growing markets than legal dimensions in the case of Asia even today.

This very conceptualization that goes within and across Asian countries has also been extended to their behavior at the multilateral and international levels. Yet even those holding to the contrast between high levels of legalization in Europe and North America and low ones in the case of Asia in the early 2000s had also begun to note the increasing role of formal law in Asia. This shift towards legalism has been most prominent at the global multilateral level as a number of works have stressed the importance of law and legal processes by and for Asian countries in contexts such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) as well as through burgeoning Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) and Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs). In this paper we go further and take the first systematic steps towards a comparison of the activities of the dominant players in contemporary Asia, namely China, Japan, and Korea (CJK) with the goal of bringing them into mainstream debates and controversies in IEL.

Using an interdisciplinary approach combining political economy approaches with legal scholarship, we aim to show how legalization has become a force to contend within Asia. By legalization we mean specifically that, in significant contrast to the past, Asian countries have begun to stress the dimensions of precision (unambiguous rules to require, authorize, or proscribe action), obligation (rules or commitments to bind action), and delegation (third parties to implement, interpret, and apply the rules for disputes or further rule-making) in a wide range of their economic relations. To be clear, we are not stressing that by doing so they are moving toward legal integration, where like the European and Andean cases, formal or informal moves help create a seamless rule of law affecting domestic actors and international tribunals. Rather, driven by their activities at the global, multilateral and now increasingly regional levels, the moves toward legalization should be seen as an evolutionary move toward the creation of the rule of law across borders. Thus as Asian states have begun to stress the dimensions of precision, obligation, and delegation in their economic relationships at present, the sum total of their moves may well go on to have significant implications for the creation of such rule of law systems in the future particularly in their foreign economic diplomacy.

Put simply, then, our main contention in this paper is that Asian states are no longer merely passive rule-takers in a system of IEL still widely thought to be dominated by Western countries, principally the United States and European Communities. Rather, as their economic clout has risen at both the global and regional level, key Asia states such as CJK have become aggressive users of the dispute settlement system of the WTO with novel directions in their domestic institutional landscapes; and they have also moved well beyond the narrow confines of the WTO-centered system to shape even regional and cross-regional legal frameworks to their advantage. How and why did things come to this? What exactly are the legal consequences both for IEL and these countries' domestic legal systems? What does the sum total of these sequential changes portend for the rule of law in CJK and other Asian countries more broadly?

The remainder of the paper is in three parts. The first part provides an analytical framework that stresses the rise and significance of commercial interests operating across borders, irrespective of whether the source is public or private in nature. Thus we are less concerned with whether a government or a business is responsible for economic flows across borders than with the fact that those flows are taking place. It also provides a brief statistical background, placing Asia's economic weight in global and regional context. Although we look at East Asia more broadly in the paper, we focus on the relative weight of dominant regional players, namely CJK which also go on to form the bulk of the analysis in this paper. The second part turns to the empirical evidence, focusing on substantial changes at both the international and domestic levels over the past twenty years that deserve close attention. At the international level, in breaking with their own tradition of being reluctant litigants, CJK along with other East Asian states have started to "shake" the existing power structure by actively using the existing legal rules to advance and defend their own interests in a policy shift to "aggressive legalism." This ongoing policy shift is one of the core elements for fortifying the "rule-based" WTO system, as well as strengthening the trend toward regional interaction on the basis of rules. But these same states have also moved well beyond the WTO-centered system in the 2000s more visibly, as they have actually started to "make" new norms by proposing new rules at the multilateral level and creating a web of legal agreements at the inter-regional and intra-regional level that aim to reflect their own interests. These instruments span trade, investment, and finance, and are a harbinger of the continued legalization of Asian economic relations. The third part concludes, focusing on the implications of the analytical and empirical evidence for the future of the rule of law in the multilateral and regional system more broadly.

IELPO 2010

2010-03-04T15:03:00.000+08:00

I will be teaching at the IELPO program in Barcelona again on March 18 and 19. While the program is only two years old, it has quickly built up its reputation as one of the best programs on trade law and policy world wide. More details about the program can be found here. Interested students shall act quickly as the application deadline is March 31st.

Teaching trade law in ASEAN

2010-03-02T16:09:00.001+08:00

At the invitation of the ASEAN Secretariat and the South East Asia Trade Policy Training Network (SEATRANET), I taught a 3-day workshop on trade policy to government officials and other stakeholders from the ASEAN member countries. More info about the workshop can be found here.

Another case by China in the WTO

2010-02-05T23:32:00.000+08:00

商务部新闻发言人就中国政府在WTO诉欧皮鞋反倾销案发表谈话

2010-02-04 16:49 文章来源：商务部新闻办公室
文章类型：原创内容分类：新闻

　　2010年2月4日，中国常驻WTO代表团致函欧盟WTO代表团，就欧盟对华皮鞋采取的反倾销措施提起WTO争端解决机制下的磋商请求，正式启动WTO争端解决程序。

　　商务部新闻发言人姚坚表示，欧盟对中国皮鞋的反倾销调查和裁决，违反了WTO相关规则，损害了中国企业的合法权益。中国政府在多双边场合多次交涉，中国业界也表示强烈反对，但这些多双边对话始终没有解决中方的关注。中方就此提出WTO争端解决机制下的磋商请求，希望欧盟能够重视中方的强烈关注，在WTO争端解决机制下早日妥善解决问题。

　　1995年至2005年，欧盟曾对中国出口皮鞋实施长达十年的配额限制。欧盟虽根据其在中国加入WTO时所作出的承诺取消了配额限制，但又于2005年在未经客观、公正审查的情况下，对中国皮鞋发起反倾销调查，并于2006年10月作出了裁定，实施为期两年的反倾销措施。2008年10月，在该反倾销措施即将期满之际，欧盟不顾广大消费者的利益和中方的反对，又发起期终复审，并于2009年12月22日决定将反倾销措施再延长15个月。

New Article in the Hong Kong Economic Journal Monthly

2010-01-27T13:59:00.001+08:00

I have published a paper on The Economic Crisis, Protectionism and China's New Trade Policy in the Hong Kong Economic Journal Monthly, one of the leading policy journals in Greater China. Below is the capsule summary of the article. Interested readers can get the journal from all major news-stands in HK or the Journal directly.

經濟危機、保護主義和中國的外貿新政

中國在入世至今，走過了一條從被動的接受國際規則，到善於利用現有規則維護本國利益的道路。能夠在短短八年間從一個門外漢變成熟練運用世貿規則的高手，中國的成就相當可觀。但是，擺在中國還有一個更重要的挑戰，那就是學會利用WTO這個平台制定反映中國自身利益的規則。

Interview with Zhou Xiaoyan

2010-01-19T19:35:00.000+08:00

Mdm Zhou Xiaoyan, Director General of the Bureau of Fair Trade, was recently featured in an online interview on MOFCOM's website. There are some some interesting info from her interview. The full interview is available here.

1. So far, 79 countries have recognized China's market economy status. Assuming almost all (apparently Russia is not) are WTO Members, this is more than half of the 153 Members of the WTO. This will build up the pressure on other WTO Members to recognize the MES of China.

承认中国的市场经济地位，既符合WTO公平贸易的原则，也有助于拓展中国与其他贸易伙伴间的双边贸易，实现互利双赢。截至目前，已有新西兰、俄罗斯、南非、巴西、澳大利亚、韩国、埃及等79个国家承认中国完全市场经济地位，加拿大也推定中国所有行业为市场导向行业。中国希望有关国家能够客观公正地认识中国市场经济体制建设所取得的成就，积极考虑并尽早承认中国的市场经济地位。

2. Up to end of 2009, China has initiated 62 ADP investigations, 3 SCV investigation, and 1 safeguard investigations.

从1997年我首起反倾销案至2009年底，应国内产业申请，我国调查机关对共进口产品发起反倾销调查62起，反补贴调查3起，保障措施调查1起。特别是2009年6月，经严格的法律程序和实体审核，商务部对美国进口的取向电工钢发起“双反”调查，这也是我国首例反补贴调查。开启反补贴调查使我挤身少数能运用WTO规则允许的反倾销、反补贴和保障措施全部三种贸易救济措施的成员之列，丰富了我国贸易救济调查的实践，增强了我们全面运用WTO贸易救济措施维护产业安全的能力。

First sermon in the new year from Pastor Lamy

2010-01-14T01:30:00.000+08:00

Here are some more interesting thoughts from the "Dalai Lamy", sorry, should be Pascal Lamy. I'm sure some people will get excited if you have the patience to finish this long speech, but the trader lawyer inside me (as many other trade lawyers probably will) has already started asking: "Is that possible? Aren't the WTO DSB supposed to decide cases on the basis of 'covered agreements', which, no matter how desirable it might sound, do not include the UDHR, ICCPR or the ICESCR? Can you really use trade rules to strengthen human rights? Aren't the two regimes supposed to be parallel universes like Pandora and Earth, where human rights is respected on one but not the other?"

On a separate note, I bet 100 THB that, with speeches like this keep flowing during the rest of his DG term, Lamy has a pretty decent chance of getting nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize after his term.

The full text of the latest "Lamon" is reproduced below, with emphases added by me, and my own comments in italicized font in brackets.

"Towards Shared Responsibility and Greater Coherence: Human Rights, Trade and Macroeconomic Policy"
Colloquium on Human Rights in the Global Economy, Co-organized by the International Council on Human Rights and Realizing Rights, Geneva, 13 January 2010

The last time we discussed this issue was in the cathedral of Geneva with Desmond Tutu. Putting together the issues of trade and human rights may seem odd. For many, trade is the villain. It is a symbol of mercantilism, capitalism, the tool through which powerful multinational corporations impose their law over human beings, impairing their social, economic and cultural rights. The history of the relationship between trade and human rights is a history of suspicion, and to some extent of deliberate reciprocal ignorance.

Yet, trade goes hand in hand with human rights. Trade presupposes human interaction, respect and understanding. If conducted with respect, "trade polishes and softens the most barbarous mores", to quote Montesquieu and his theory of "doux commerce".

One too often forgets that human rights and trade rules, including WTO rules, are based on the same values: individual freedom and responsibility, non-discrimination, rule of law, and welfare through peaceful cooperation among individuals. Not only are they based on the same fundamental values; they are also the result of common concerns. Both human rights and global trade rules were considered a key element of the post-World War II order, a rampart against totalitarianism. It is no coincidence that the seeds of the multilateral trading system were planted at the same time as the Universal Declaration on Human Rights was being drafted in the mid-1940s. Both were seen as indispensable to world peace. In spite of these common underpinnings, for decades the interaction between the trade and human rights communities seemed to be governed by distrust.

And yet, human rights and trade are mutually supportive. Human rights are essential to the good functioning of the multilateral trading system, and trade and WTO rules contribute to the realization of human rights.

What role do human rights play in trade? First, civil and political rights are a key ingredient of good governance, which in turn is essential to the proper conduct of trade relations. Freedom of expression, for example, brings transparency, one of the core principles of the world trading system. Secondly, social, economic and cultural rights, often seen as the main victims of globalization and of the opening of markets, are important ingredients for successful trade liberalization. I will come back to this point in a few minutes.

How can trade help promote human rights? I would start by noting that trade measures are the most commonly used instrument in developed countries to put pressure on states violating human rights. (Does this mean that the WTO sanctions such blatant violations of trade rules? Does this mean that trade rules have to be ignored or even breached so that human rights can be restored? Wouldn't this point to inherent conflict rather than complementarity between the two?)

But more importantly, trade is a means to an end; and the end is raising the standards and conditions of living of all. The objective of sustainable development features prominently as one of the objectives of the WTO. Trade negotiators chose to include it in the preamble of the WTO Agreement (yes the preamble rather than the main text, which means it is not enforceable). How is this goal achieved? The opening of markets creates efficiency, stimulates growth and helps spur development, thereby contributing to the implementation of the fundamental human rights that are social and economic rights. One could almost claim that trade is human rights in practice!

The reduction of trade barriers in agriculture, enhanced market access for agricultural products and the gradual decrease in subsidies provided by rich countries to their farmers, for example, all contribute to the same objective: the implementation of the right to food for all.

But let me immediately discard a misconception that is unfortunately too widely spread. The primary vocation of the WTO is to regulate, not to deregulate trade as is often thought. By putting in place rules to regulate trade flows and remove trade distortions, the WTO aims to create a global level playing field, where fairness is the rule and where the rights of individual members are safeguarded.

I would note, in this regard, that the case law of the WTO dispute settlement mechanism acknowledged that international trade law could not be interpreted "in clinical isolation" from international law in general. And, incidentally, how could the WTO &mdash created in 1994 by an international legal instrument — be immune to the rules of the general international law from which it derives its mission and its very existence?

Of course, trade rules are not perfect. They may, in some cases, have unintended consequences on human rights. Some claimed so, for example, with respect to intellectual property rights. I sense, however, a growing awareness among trade experts of the importance of human rights and of the role trade can play in promoting and anchoring such rights. The concerns sparked by certain provisions of the TRIPS [Trade-related Intellectual Property Rights] Agreement led trade negotiators to agree, in 2005, to amend the TRIPS Agreement to facilitate access of developing countries deprived of domestic pharmaceutical production capability to affordable medicines. Similarly, discussions are underway about the possible protection of folklore and traditional knowledge.

But let me go back to the question of trade, development, and human rights. While trade can promote development and contribute to the reinforcement of human rights, it is not a panacea. Trade liberalization can entail social costs. To be successful, the opening of markets requires solid social policies to redistribute wealth or provide safeguards to the men and women whose living conditions have been disrupted by evolving trade rules and trade patterns.

This is what I have called the "Geneva consensus", under which the opening of markets is necessary to our collective well-being, but does not suffice in itself.

It does not suffice unless strong safety nets help correct the imbalances between winners and losers at the national level. It does not suffice unless the countries which do not enjoy sufficient human, technical, and financial resources to build the necessary infrastructure or to put in place such safety nets domestically are assisted by the international community. Hence the importance of the WTO mandate of Aid for Trade.

For trade to act as a positive vector for the reinforcement of human rights, a coordinated international effort is needed. A coherent approach, which integrates trade and human rights policy goals, should be developed. Progress can no longer be achieved by acting in an isolated manner. Coherence should become our guiding principle in fostering development and human rights: coherence between the local and the global, between the world of trade and the world of human rights, between the WTO as an institution and the various organizations active in the field of human rights.

Today's world may be flat, to paraphrase Thomas Friedman, but it is not united. It is, on the contrary, more fragmented than ever. The wind of globalization, which has been blowing during the past few decades, has dispersed our energies. We now need to bring them together and act in a coordinated way.

This responsibility lies with all of us. It is the responsibility of the members of the WTO, which are practically all party to either the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, to uphold their human rights obligations together with the obligations to which they have subscribed within the WTO Agreement. But it is also the responsibility of the WTO, of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights — which is the custodian of human rights treaties — and of organizations such as the International Council on Human Rights and Realizing Rights to work to institutionalize the relations between the trade and human rights communities. It is our responsibility to coordinate our actions in a meaningful and efficient manner to ensure that trade does not impair human rights, but rather strengthens them. I am aware of the challenge this represents, of the change in mindset this requires.

By having invited me to this event today, a first step has been crossed, and I thank you for having taken this initiative. My hope, as Sir Winston Churchill said, is that "this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."

Thank you for your attention.

Shaffer and Pollack, When Cooperation Fails: The International Law and Politics of Genetically Modified Foods

2010-01-06T16:34:00.001+08:00

Opinio Juris has hosted a discussion on the interesting new book by Gregory Shaffer and Mark Pollack, When Cooperation Fails: The International Law and Politics of Genetically Modified Foods (Oxford, 2009). Joining in with guest commentaries are Sungjoon Cho and Rebecca Bratspies. While the book focuses mainly on the GMO dispute between the US and EU, I find many of the key points explored in the book (see below) well worthy of further exploring. These include topics such as regulatory conflicts between different jurisdictions, interactions between interest groups and policy makers, roles of international regimes in handling such conflicts.

One thing that immediately came to my mind was the tainted milk scandal in China in 2008. The way the Chinese government handled the case is in marked contrast to the approach taken by either the US or the EU on the GMO issue. Among the three, the Chinese approach is probably the least desirable approach. That is why I have arguedthat, at least for a case of such magnitude, international intervention is justified.

On the GMO issue itself, I feel that it has not received the attention it deserves in China. With billions of Chinese eating something that is grown on a technology of which the full implications are far from clear, I think the average Chinese must at least be given the right to get more information, even if they might not have the right to more choices.

Below are the detailed summary by Shaffer and Pollack on their new book, with emphases added by me:

The Interaction of International and Domestic Law: Lessons from the Conflict over Genetically Modified Foods

by Greg Shaffer and Mark Pollack

As its title suggests, When Cooperation Fails has two distinct aims. The specific empirical aim is to provide a definitive and theoretically informed account of one of the most bitter and politically charged international disputes of the past two decades, between the United States and the European Union over the regulation of genetically modified foods and crops. Our theoretical aim, however, goes far beyond the specifics of the GMO case: indeed, we seek to contribute to literatures in international law and international relations that identify the sources of international regulatory and trade disputes, the obstacles to successful cooperation, the interaction of hard- and soft-law international regimes, and the role of WTO dispute settlement in managing conflict.

Our approach is interdisciplinary, drawing from international law and political science, and multi-level, examining the recursive interaction of domestic and international law and politics over time. We start by inquiring why the US and EU systems for risk regulation are so different in this area, then examine failed efforts to bridge these differences through transgovernmental networks and various multilateral regimes, and finally investigate how international law developments in these fragmented regimes have fed back into domestic legal systems in the US and EU as well as in emerging economies such as China, India and Brazil, affecting the future of genetically modified crops and foods. Our central arguments can be boiled down to five key points.

First, on the domestic law front, we apply theories of comparative law and politics that attribute differences in domestic risk regulation to differences in organized interests, political institutions, culture and ideas, and contingent events. We find that the best explanation for the differences lies not in "essentialist" forms of culture or regulatory approaches (such as US and European attitudes toward food, risk, technology or the precautionary principle), nor in institutions alone (such as US specialized agencies compared to European political processes), but in the ability of interest groups to capitalize on pre-existing cultural and institutional differences, with an important role played by contingent events such as the European food-safety scandals of the 1990s. We contend that the stark differences in the US and EU regulatory systems were not preordained by interest-group, institutional or cultural configurations of the two sides, but were the result of multiple and, to some extent, contingent causes. Nonetheless, we show that the differences have become entrenched over time and are now strongly path-dependent and resistant to change.

Second, turning to the international level, we draw upon a growing body of international relations and international legal scholarship that focuses on the promise of regulation through transnational networks, with a particular emphasis on the prospect of "deliberation" as a form of decision-making in which governmental and non-governmental actors put aside fixed positions and negotiating tactics in favor of a collective search for better understanding and better policy. We find, however, that the record of transatlantic deliberation on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) has largely been one of failure. Deliberation, we argue, is a hothouse flower that flourishes only under restrictive conditions. The sharp disagreements, intense politicization, and distributive conflicts that characterize agricultural biotechnology have all prevented US and EU policymakers from engaging in a joint deliberative search for the best policy in this area.

Third, we contend that the record of multilateral cooperation (undertaken within overlapping regimes such as the WTO, the Convention on Biodiversity, the OECD, and the Codex Alimentarius Commission), has been similarly limited, characterized largely by strategic maneuvering by both sides to "export" their own standards and their own principles for risk regulation, and to "forum shop" among the regimes most likely to produce each side's favored outcomes, imposing most of the costs of adapting to new global norms on others. We argue that cooperation has been frustrated in practice by the existence of severe distributive conflict between the two sides, which has given rise to overlapping and (sometimes purposefully) inconsistent regimes for trade, the environment, and food safety. Furthermore, while a growing amount of scholarship has addressed the roles of "soft" law (which is formally non-binding) and "hard" law (which is formally binding and enforceable) as complementary and mutually reinforcing means for international problem-solving, we find that hard and soft law regimes can interact antagonistically. More specifically, we argue, the interaction of overlapping regimes can serve to "harden" soft-law regimes like the Codex Alimentarius (which become intensely politicized rather than deliberative and technocratic), as well as "softening" hard-law regimes like the WTO and its dispute settlement mechanism (where judicial interpretation is potentially complicated by links to neighboring regimes). The interaction of hard- and soft-law regimes, rather than progressively moving toward a new consensus, may instead perpetuate substantive deadlock over regulatory approaches, especially where conflicts involve powerful states.

Fourth, we suggest that, despite considerable risks, the United States' complaint before the WTO Dispute Settlement Body has offered the prospect of some clarification and mutual accommodation that had hitherto eluded the two sides in other bilateral and multilateral fora. More specifically, we apply a comparative institutional analytic framework to examine the radically different institutional implications of the interpretive choices that the WTO judicial panel faced in the EU-Biotech case. We demonstrate how interpretive choices by a WTO judicial body can attempt to allocate decision-making to different institutional processes in which constituencies of different countries, with varying priorities, perceptions, and abilities to be heard, participate to varying and always imperfect degrees. We find that the WTO panel largely took a procedural approach in its decision, refusing to articulate a single substantive standard on GMO regulation, but instead insisting on certain procedural requirements that all states must observe in adopting their own domestic regulations. In the process, we contend, the WTO has empowered domestic political actors (such as the European Commission) with an interest in complying with WTO law, and, as a result, has encouraged regulators on both sides of the Atlantic to operate more transparently, taking into greater account the effects of their actions on third parties.

Fifth and finally, we return to the domestic level to assess whether several decades of discussion, negotiation, and litigation have resulted in significant reform and/or convergence of the two regulatory systems. We demonstrate that, despite some domestic changes on each side, the US and EU regulatory systems for agricultural biotechnology show few signs of real convergence toward a common regulatory model. There has, nonetheless, been some domestic change on both sides of the Atlantic, due at least in part to external pressures from international markets and international regimes. In the EU, the Commission and biotech companies have been somewhat empowered by international developments to resume approvals of new GM varieties after a long moratorium and to challenge member state bans against those already formally approved. On the US side, meanwhile, regulators have increased requirements for trials before the commercial release of many GM seeds so that these varieties, in fact, are treated distinctly from more conventional ones, despite official US proclamations to the contrary. Even in the absence of tightened regulation, moreover, US farmers have demonstrated a reluctance to adopt new GM foods and crops which they fear will be rejected in the EU and other large export markets. The overall picture, we argue, is one in which the two regulatory systems for GM foods and crops remain essentially polarized, but where key actors on both sides struggle to minimize the economic impacts and political tensions of persistent regulatory differences.

In sum, the story of the transatlantic GMO conflict is largely one of failed attempts at bilateral and multilateral cooperation. Yet our story is not a counsel of despair, for in addition to examining how and why cooperation fails, we address ways in which states and regimes can facilitate the ongoing management of regulatory conflict, and, over time, together with transnational market forces, influence national regulatory and commercial practices in a (somewhat) more accommodating manner. System friction between two entrenched regulatory systems is unlikely to be decisively settled in the near future, but the dispute can be managed, with key roles for international law and international institutions.

What happened in Copenhagen: The Chinese version

2010-01-04T00:16:00.000+08:00

青山遮不住，毕竟东流去―温家宝总理出席哥本哈根气候变化会议纪实

新华社记者赵承　田帆　人民日报记者韦冬泽

2009/12/25

　　12月19日，在经历了复杂曲折的协商后，哥本哈根气候变化会议取得了重大积极成果，发表了《哥本哈根协议》，坚定维护了《联合国气候变化框架公约》及其《京都议定书》所确立的基本框架和一系列原则，进一步明确了发达国家和发展中国家根据"共同但有区别的责任"原则及分别应当承担的义务和采取的行动，表达了国际社会在应对气候变化长期目标、资金、技术和行动透明度等问题上的共识。

　　从12月16日至12月18日，国务院总理温家宝在出席哥本哈根气候变化会议的近60个小时内，与有关国家领导人展开了密集的会谈和协商，力推谈判进程不断向前。随行采访的记者耳闻目睹了哥本哈根气候变化会议进程的跌宕起伏、协商谈判的艰辛曲折，更见证了温家宝总理以诚意、信心、决心和卓有成效的努力，充分展示中国谋发展、促合作、负责任的大国形象。

　　在哥本哈根气候变化会议领导人会议上，温家宝总理发表了重要演讲，宣示了中国政府的一贯主张，呼吁各方凝聚共识、加强合作，共同推进应对气候变化的历史进程；在会场内外错综复杂的形势下，温家宝总理迎难而上，积极行动，以最大的政治意愿和耐心，在与会各方中穿梭斡旋，沟通协调，尤其在会议面临可能无果而终的关键时刻，亲自出面与有关方面做了大量艰苦细致的工作，最终推动了《哥本哈根协议》的达成。

　　历史将铭记，中国政府为哥本哈根气候变化会议成功作出了重要贡献。

　　"慎重者，始若怯，终必勇"――在参加会议前，温家宝总理进行了周密的思考，为推动会议取得成果做了大量准备工作

　　近年来，围绕全球气候变暖问题，发展中国家同发达国家的交锋愈演愈烈。中国作为最大的发展中国家，在节能减排方面作出了巨大的努力，取得了显著成效。

　　11月26日，中国政府宣布控制温室气体排放的行动目标，到2020年单位国内生产总值二氧化碳排放比2005年下降40%至45%，受到国际舆论的广泛好评。同时宣布，温家宝总理出席哥本哈根气候变化会议。

　　自12月7日气候变化会议开幕以来，哥本哈根成为各国政府、各种利益集团及一些非政府组织和科研机构博弈的舞台。会场内外，各种观点交锋，无休止的谈判和磋商难以弥合巨大的歧见。随着大会闭幕时间的临近，一种悲观失望的情绪在与会者中蔓延。

　　12月16日下午3时，温家宝总理乘专机从北京飞往哥本哈根。

　　"这是一项艰巨的任务，我代表中国政府出席会议深感责任重大。"在飞机飞行途中，温总理对随行的记者说："在来机场的路上，我想起了两句古话，一是'慎重者，始若怯，终必勇'；二是'思其始而图其终'。这就是说，开始时周密思考，行事时必然英勇果敢。"

　　此前一段时间里，温总理考察了中国气象局，还与部分外国领导人密集通话。事实上，温总理的哥本哈根之行早已"启程"――

　　11月27日至28日，中国、印度、巴西和南非"基础四国"与77国集团主席国苏丹代表在北京举行磋商。温总理会见了与会的各国环境部长或代表。

　　在各政府气候变化代表团在一线艰苦谈判的同时，从12月8日起，温总理分别与联合国秘书长和英国、德国、印度、巴西、南非、丹麦、埃塞俄比亚等国领导人通电话，就会议涉及的一些重大问题坦诚、深入地交换意见。

　　12月11日，温家宝总理考察了中国气象局，并就应对气候变化召开了专家座谈会。他指出，要采取坚决有力措施，实现我国政府提出的减缓温室气体排放的行动目标。

　　哥本哈根气候变化会议开幕后，温总理一直密切关注会议的进展。当专机起飞后，温总理便招呼随行采访的记者到前舱，坦率地谈自己对哥本哈根之行的想法。

　　面对复杂的局势，温总理似乎早已深思熟虑："我坚信，这么多领导人齐聚哥本哈根，应该会取得成果的。但无论会议结局怎样，中国确立的行动方案不会改变，自主减排的目标不容谈判，实现这一目标的决心不会动摇。"

　　空中记者吹风会后，温总理又召集随行的部长们开会研究与会各方观点。当部长们散去后，总理望着舷窗外的云海，目光深邃，陷入沉思。看得出来，总理的心情并不轻松。如何使大会取得成果，有太多的问题需要思考。

　　当地时间16日17时45分，专机降落在哥本哈根机场。寒风呼啸，夹着鹅毛大雪，哥本哈根的冬夜并非那么宁静。

　　此时已接近北京时间凌晨近1时。经过7000多公里、10个小时的飞行，大家已十分疲惫。温总理不顾旅途劳顿，决定从机场直接赶往中国驻丹麦大使馆，听取关于大会的最新情况汇报，研究下一步工作。一个多小时后，温总理才前往下榻的雷迪森饭店。

　　12月18日，中国国务院总理温家宝在哥本哈根出席联合国气候变化大会领导人会议。这是温家宝在会上发表讲话。

　　"最重要的是迅速凝聚共识"――面对错综复杂的形势，温家宝总理以诚意、决心和信心穿梭斡旋，沟通协调，弥合分歧，扩大共识

　　17日早晨6时，温总理来到餐厅吃早餐。他一边吃饭，一边听取有关情况汇报。192个国家之间的谈判，情况瞬息万变。

　　8时30分，温总理精神抖擞地步入会见厅，开始投入当日紧张而密集的会晤中。第一位客人是东道国丹麦首相拉斯穆森。温总理首先肯定了丹麦为筹办会议作出的巨大努力，表示中国将全力支持东道主工作，推动哥本哈根会议取得成果。温总理的话令拉斯穆森感到些许宽慰。他提到，各方分歧巨大，至今还没有一个可供各方磋商的基础草案。话语间流露出对谈判进程的深深忧虑。

　　温总理十分理解东道主的压力，他把各方分歧归结为四个焦点问题，即基础案文、资金、长期目标和"三可"问题，并诚恳地建议采取务实态度，在两个工作组主席已经提出的案文基础上，按照"共同但有区别的责任"原则，把共识部分锁定下来，分歧部分留作以后讨论，这也许是唯一可行的办法。如果能形成这样的决议，也是会议的一个成果。

　　拉斯穆森非常感谢温总理的建设性意见，他说，如果其他领导人都能像中国总理这样积极努力，会议就会取得成果。

　　送走拉斯穆森，迎来了联合国秘书长潘基文。潘基文对会议进程停滞不前也很担忧，认为会议无果而终的结局是不能接受的。温总理说，要让近200个国家在剩下不到两天的时间里，弥合巨大分歧是不现实的。中国和世界人民都期待会议成功，目前最重要的是迅速凝聚共识。可以考虑搞一个反映各方共识的政治性文件，重在明确政治意愿，肯定会议成果，向世界传递信心和希望。

　　温总理特别强调，决议起草和磋商必须公开透明，听取各方意见，尤其要重视发展中国家的关切，希望联合国发挥重要作用。潘基文若有所思地点着头。

　　至此，温总理向东道主和联合国阐明了中国政府对这次会议成果的总体考虑和操作建议。后来发生的事情证明，温总理的意见是富有远见、切实可行的。

　　11时，温家宝总理前往巴西总统卢拉下榻的饭店。此前，卢拉曾提议"基础四国"领导人举行早餐会，但因印度和南非领导人方面存在技术困难而取消。温总理得知这一消息后，主动提出与卢拉总统举行双边会晤。两位老朋友握手拥抱，亲切交谈，一致认为中巴两国在应对气候变化问题上存在广泛共识，要坚定地同其他发展中国家站在一起，维护共同利益，同时与有关各方加强沟通协调，发挥应有的积极作用。

　　时至中午，温总理匆匆返回雷迪森饭店，他要集体会见小岛国代表马尔代夫总统纳希德和格林纳达总理托马斯、非洲国家代表埃塞俄比亚总理梅莱斯、欠发达国家代表孟加拉国总理哈西娜和77国集团代表苏丹总统助理纳菲阿。

　　中国是发展中国家，历史上同非洲国家、小岛国和欠发达国家有相同或相似的遭遇，双方感情相通、道义相合。温家宝总理与他们围坐一圈，倾心交谈。

　　资金问题是这些国家最关心的问题。某大国代表曾说不会把钱给中国。针对这种说法，温总理表示，中国一直呼吁发达国家切实履行资金承诺，但绝不同其他发展中国家争一分钱的资金，而且将一如既往地在南南合作和双边框架内向欠发达国家提供援助，包括应对气候变化的物质和能力支持。

　　温总理对一些小岛国脆弱的生存环境深表同情，理解他们在全球温控方面的特殊诉求，详细介绍了中国的减排努力和对哥本哈根谈判的考虑。温总理表示，为体现诚意，中国愿意在2050年全球升温不超过2摄氏度问题上照顾小岛国的关切。中国在会议进程中将切实维护所有发展中国家的权益。

　　随后，温总理热情地邀请他们共进午餐。宾主们围坐在饭桌上，边吃边谈。这是温总理在哥本哈根时间最长的一次会见，超过了两个小时。客人们认为，温总理的讲话入情入理，中国为应对气候变化作出了巨大努力，发达国家的指责是不公平的。中国同其他发展中国家一样，应对气候变化不能以牺牲发展为代价。发展中国家应该加强沟通和团结。

　　英国、德国、日本都是发达国家，在发展节能环保、绿色经济等方面具有成熟的技术，希望在推动气候变化国际合作上发挥领导作用，但对发展中国家的国情缺乏了解，提出的一些要求不切实际，有欠公允和平衡。

　　17日下午，温总理先后会见了英国首相布朗、德国总理默克尔和日本首相鸠山由纪夫，就有关问题做了耐心细致的工作。

　　温总理说，哥本哈根会议已到关键时刻，各方不能再继续相互指责，更不能讨价还价，这只会浪费宝贵的时间。要坚持"共同但有区别的责任"原则，从大局出发，迅速凝聚共识，搁置争议，共同为会议取得成果作出努力。

　　温总理强调，中国自主宣布的减缓行动目标不附加任何条件，也不同任何国家的减排目标挂钩，也不容谈判。我们言必信，行必果，一定要实现目标，甚至会做得更好，这符合中国人民和世界人民的利益。中国愿意就增加自主减缓行动的透明度开展磋商与合作，也愿意将全球升温不超过2摄氏度作为努力的方向，这一切体现了中国极大的诚意。

　　温总理强调，发展中国家的主要任务是消除贫困和发展经济，但也不能重走发达国家工业化的老路，不能以牺牲资源和环境为代价；发达国家应给予理解和支持，并在资金和技术问题上履行承诺。发展中国家与发达国家要密切沟通协作，争取会议取得最好结果。

　　虽然在一些问题上双方意见有分歧，但始终进行着坦诚、深入的对话，因为这是增进了解、扩大共识的唯一正确方法。

　　每一场会见都超过了预定时间。温总理在送走布朗后，对久候了的默克尔表示歉意："实在对不起，总理女士，让你久等了。"默克尔风趣地笑着说，刚才布朗从你这里离开时"撞"上我，也说了同样的话。会议室里发出了一阵轻松的笑声。

　　结束了一系列会晤后，温总理立即指示外交部副部长何亚非举行记者会，详细介绍温总理会见各方领导人的情况，讲明在哪些问题上中国是必须坚持的，哪些是愿意灵活处理的。200多名中外记者与会，迅速将中方最新立场和与各方接触情况向世界作了充分报道。中国以实际行动做到了公开和透明。

　　17日晚8时，温家宝总理出席了丹麦女王玛格丽特举行的晚宴，这标志着领导人集体活动日程拉开帷幕。

　　但是，在这个宴会上，发生了一件意想不到的事情。一位外国领导人无意中向温总理提起，某国将在宴会后召开小范围领导人会议，商议新的案文。这位领导人手中的与会国家名单上，赫然写着中国。这引起了温总理的警觉，既然中国也在其列，为何没有接到通知。他从一些相关国家领导人那里得到进一步证实，确有这个会议，但召集方一直未通知中国，十分蹊跷。

　　会议开幕以来，曾发生过个别或少数国家抛出案文，引发各方强烈不满的事件，因为这有悖于公开、透明的原则。温总理感到此事非同小可，立即离席赶回饭店，召开会议研究对策。

　　奉温总理指示，何亚非副部长立即赶到"会场"，对召集方这种别有用心的做法提出强烈不满，表示一定要公开透明，不能搞小圈子，不能强加于人，否则很有可能导致会议无果而终。

　　与此同时，各种传闻和谣言纷至沓来：一些发达国家暗中串通，准备加大力度向中国施压；新兴发展中大国竭力阻挠，很可能导致哥本哈根会议失败；发达国家因不满中国不接受"三可"，拒绝向小岛国提供更多资金；发展中国家阵营正在分裂；某某大国打算独自提出案文等等。种种迹象表明，情况越来越不容乐观。

　　当天夜里，风刮得更紧。各方都在做着最后的准备。

　　12月18日，中国国务院总理温家宝在哥本哈根出席联合国气候变化大会领导人会议。这是温家宝在会上发表讲话。

　　"向世界传递信心和希望"――全世界都在注视着哥本哈根，中国坚定地发出推动人类应对气候变化历史进程的声音和承诺

　　18日8时30分，温总理在出席领导人会议前，与刚刚抵达的印度总理辛格举行会晤。

　　中印是发展中大国，又是邻国。双方能否在关键时刻密切合作，不但关系到发展中国家的利益，也影响到会议的进程。

　　温总理与辛格是老朋友了，这是年内他们第二次见面。两国总理都深刻认识到，只有团结合作，才会有真正和谐、发展、繁荣的亚洲世纪。这需要政治家的高瞻远瞩、胆识和魄力。

　　温总理主动介绍了一天来会议进展的情况，并谈了对会议形势的看法，征求辛格的意见。辛格被温总理的诚挚言行所感动，他表示完全赞同温总理所谈，认为印中在应对气候变化问题上有着广泛共识和共同利益，对两国在推动会议谈判进程上的合作表示满意。两国总理确定，无论出现什么情况，中印都要密切保持沟通和协作，坚定地维护广大发展中国家的利益。

　　位于哥本哈根市南部的贝拉中心，是北欧最大的会展中心。这里是哥本哈根气候大会的主会场。

　　上午9时45分，温总理提前抵达会场，举世瞩目的领导人会议定于10时开幕。然而，时辰已到，东道主和联合国秘书长却踪影全无，主席台上空空如也。人们纷纷猜测到底发生了什么事情，但始终没有任何人出来说明。

　　一些外国领导人纷纷前来同温总理打招呼，温总理与他们友好地寒暄。时间一分一分地流逝，消磨着人们的热情和期待。

　　见此情形，温总理当机立断，提议"基础四国"领导人再次碰头。这时，工作人员已经来不及安排会议室了，四国领导人就在会场外的大厅里，围坐在一张茶几旁交换看法，决心在最后一刻努力争取会议有个成果。

　　时针指向11时30分，会议主席拉斯穆森终于宣布会议开始。拉斯穆森请温总理第一个发言。在掌声中，温总理健步走上讲台，表情从容、淡定、坚毅。他发表了题为《凝聚共识加强合作推进应对气候变化历史进程》的演讲，通篇只有2000多字，但是内容丰富、立意高远、充满感情。

　　"此时此刻，全世界几十亿人都在注视着哥本哈根。我们在此表达的意愿和做出的承诺，应当有利于推动人类应对气候变化的历史进程。站在这个讲坛上，我深感责任重大。"温总理的开场白道出了世界人民的心声，表达了中国政府高度负责的态度。温总理接着介绍了中国应对气候变化作出的贡献，提出了推进气候谈判的"四项主张"。最后，温总理提高了嗓音，向世界承诺："中国政府确定减缓温室气体排放的目标是中国根据国情采取的自主行动，是对中国人民和全人类负责的，不附加任何条件，不与任何国家的减排目标挂钩。我们言必信、行必果，无论本次会议达成什么成果，都将坚定不移地为实现、甚至超过这个目标而努力。"

　　温总理提出的上述主张反映了广大发展中国家的共同诉求，合情合理，既立足当前，又面向未来，同时兼顾各方，在会议面临何去何从的关键时刻，指明了方向，有力地维护和推进了谈判进程，赢得广泛赞同。

　　温总理的演讲赢得了会场内长时间的掌声。一些国家领导人主动起身，与温总理握手表示祝贺。

　　"有1%的希望就要尽100%的努力"――在会议面临可能无果而终的关键时刻，中国政府以卓有成效的努力推动了《哥本哈根协议》的达成

　　中国是最大的发展中国家，美国是最大的发达国家。两国领导人的会晤自然成为各界关注的焦点。

　　温总理与奥巴马的会晤安排在奥巴马的发言结束后，在会场后面一个用帷幕和钢架搭成的简易会议室里举行。

　　两国领导人就应对气候变化会议成果、长期目标、"三可"等焦点问题坦诚、深入、务实地交换意见，双方都表达了各自的观点，但同时表现出一定的灵活性。双方赞同大会要尽快达成一项政治协议，并保持合作。随后，两国领导人指示各自谈判代表进一步进行磋商，并约定当天晚些时候再次见面。

　　在与奥巴马会晤后，温总理立即指示中方谈判代表将中美会晤情况向"基础四国"和77国集团通报，推动发展中国家同发达国家一道，加快谈判进程。

　　此后，发达国家和发展中国家就会议最后文件进行磋商，但由于各方意见分歧，谈判难以取得进展。此时，已经大大超过了会议原定的闭幕时间。

　　这时，有的国家甚至准备了会议一旦失败的声明。少数国家领导人甚至发表了不负责任的言论，指责中国。

　　在贝拉中心，可以看到许多领导人行色匆匆，面色凝重。各记者开始收拾装备，地上随处可见丢弃的纸张。此时，人们更加关心丹麦政府将在什么时候，以什么方式，宣布这场联合国历史上规模最大、级别最高的峰会以失败告终。

　　在最后关头，温家宝总理再次发挥了关键作用。他召开中国代表团会议，冷静地分析形势，认为此时已不可能达成一份具有法律约束力的文件，但各方都清楚大会无果而终意味着什么，谁都不愿承担导致失败的责任。温总理说，只要有1%的希望，就要尽100%的努力，不能轻言放弃。他立即决定，约卢拉、辛格、祖马再次会晤，作最后的努力。此时，奥巴马也提出约温总理进行第二次会晤。温总理答应，在"基础四国"领异人会晤后，即同奥马会晤。

　　不一会，四国领导人先后来到中国代表团安排的会场。人家一致认为，现在会议有失败的危险。四国可先就关键问题形成共识，在坚持原则、维护发展中国家利益基础上，以最大的灵活性，再同美欧去谈，要尽一切努力争取会议有所成果。温家宝总理特别强调，要与非洲国家、77国集团、小岛国保持沟通，加强合作。

　　18时50分，"基础四国"领导人正在最后梳理共同立场，会场门外一阵骚动，美国总统奥巴马推开大门走了进来。虽然中美双方约定会晤的时间已过，但奥巴马此时此地出现，还是让大家感到意外。

　　奥巴马也感到有些唐突，一只脚跨入门内一只脚还在门外，他笑着问：温总理，我是不是来得早了一点，我是先到外面等着，还是进来加入你们一起讨论？温总理站起身来，礼貌地表示欢迎他"加入"。奥巴马颇为感动，他先绕会场一周，与所有的人一一握手。然后在卢拉的左边、温总理的对面坐下。

　　由于"基础四国"此前都分别同美方有过接触，彼此的立场已经很清楚了。温总理首先表示要努力争取会议通过一个决议，以肯定成果，凝聚共识。然后，就几个关键问题向奥巴马阐述了四国的立场。奥巴马也向四国介绍了美国的最新立场。奥巴马表示，双方在这几个问题上的措辞已经很接近了。接着，五国领导人继续进行严肃认真的磋商。

　　门外的记者们一直在注视着场内的情景，有的隔着玻璃在拍摄。不久场内传出一阵掌声，经过磋商，"基础四国"就协议表述的几个重要问题同美国达成一致。美方表示愿意出面征求欧盟方面的意见。

　　随后，美国和欧盟国家进行了磋商，"基础四国"也跟有关国家进行了磋商。然后，这个草案又在部分国家中进行了小范围磋商。

　　一个小时后传来消息，有关各方已经就一份决议案文达成一致，将马上提交大会表决。这时，离原定大会闭幕时间过去了9个小时。

　　因为接下来的是程序性工作，各国领导人纷纷飞离哥本哈根，他们已经超额完成了出席领导人会议的任务。

　　哥本哈根气候大会最后的结果，决不是由一个国家或两个国家说了算的，这是与会各国共同努力的结果。但是，从这些曲折而艰难的会议进程中，可以看出中国发挥了关键性作用。

　　近几天来，虽然一些国际媒体对哥本哈根会议的成果存在不同的解读，但有一点是肯定的，那就是：在国际社会的共同努力下，应对气候变化国际合作朝着正确的方向又前进了一步，向世界传递了信心和希望。中国为此表现出了最大的诚意，尽了最大的努力，发挥了重要的建设性作用。

　　近日，温总理在接受新华社记者采访时说，中国愿意同各方一道，以哥本哈根会议为新的起点，加强履行承诺，加强合作，尽早完成"巴厘路线图"谈判，推动气候变化国际合作不断取得新进展，为人类应对气候变化作出应有贡献。

　　历史又一次证明，人类最大的挑战是人类自己。团结才有力量，合作才有前途。哥本哈根会议使中国登上了更高、更广阔的世界舞台，中国有理由骄傲，中国一定会更加努力！

青山遮不住，毕竟东流去。哥本哈根会议是一个新的起点，从这里出发，国际社会应对气候变化的进程将不断向前。

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

2009-12-02T21:10:00.000+08:00

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

2009-12-02T21:04:00.000+08:00

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?

2009-11-24T01:40:00.000+08:00

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

2009-11-23T14:54:00.002+08:00

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)

2009-11-23T14:45:00.001+08:00

LHZB_20091122_GAO-APEC

Soros lectures

2009-11-19T16:14:00.001+08:00

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

Formal ECFA negotiations taking-off?

2009-11-09T01:30:00.001+08:00

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?)

2009-11-09T01:18:00.001+08:00

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

2009-11-06T23:18:00.002+08:00

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

2009-10-29T13:18:00.002+08:00

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

2009-10-18T22:34:00.000+08:00

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

2009-10-16T21:26:00.000+08:00

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

2009-10-07T01:11:00.000+08:00

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

2009-10-07T00:41:00.001+08:00

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"

2009-09-28T00:11:00.001+08:00

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

2009-09-27T23:28:00.001+08:00

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

2009-09-24T00:23:00.001+08:00

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?

2009-09-17T15:43:00.001+08:00

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.

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.

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?

2009-09-17T09:59:00.000+08:00

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?

2009-09-15T14:25:00.001+08:00

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

2009-09-10T22:41:00.001+08:00

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.

WTO AND CHINA 世贸组织与中国

My research featured in Economist and Financial Times

China’s economy and the WTO

All change

In two articles, we examine how China has been altered by its entry into the WTO ten years ago. First, the economy. Second, the political impact

Lex_China and the WTO: a good thing

AFP: China's reality lost in translation, Davos told

Another paper in Top Ten on SSRN

Google's China Problem is now USTR's China problem

My Paper Makes SSRN Top Ten List

China: A Decade in the WTO

China's White Paper on Foreign Trade Policy

If you don't believe in the 2012 myth, do you believe in the 2016 myth?

RTAs: do they matter?

New book: WTO Dispute Settlement and Developing Countries

Chinese Professor - from Citizens Against Government Waste

Another WTO dispute looming against China?

STRATEGI CHINA DALAM FREE TRADE AGREEMENT: PERTARUNGAN POLITIS ATAS NAMA PERDAGANGAN

How difficult is it to get Visa into China?

Chinese version of the USTR established

Minister Chen in FT

In Remembrance of Mr. S. Tiwari, 20 Dec 1945 – 26 Jul 2010

MOFCOM statement on WTO Honor Day at Shanghai Expo

The WTO gets lyrical

The WTO Speaks (in Double Speak)

New article in the JWT on the Chinese Section 301

Official Launch of the WTO Chairs Program in Geneva

Minsiter Chen spoke again on currency & protectionism

HK's first FTA

China Fights Back on Trade Imbalances and Currency Issue

How to get rid of a trade deficit/surplus?

2010 Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law: China and East Asia on the World Stage

IELPO 2010

Teaching trade law in ASEAN

Another case by China in the WTO

New Article in the Hong Kong Economic Journal Monthly

Interview with Zhou Xiaoyan

First sermon in the new year from Pastor Lamy

Shaffer and Pollack, When Cooperation Fails: The International Law and Politics of Genetically Modified Foods

What happened in Copenhagen: The Chinese version

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

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement

More Chinese and fewer Indians in the Secretariat?

Zaobao interview on the APEC

My Interview on APEC 2009 in Lianhe Zaobao (Singapore)

Soros lectures

Formal ECFA negotiations taking-off?

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

déjà vu: The case on coke and other raw materials

Two conferences

Recent MOFCOM statement on protectionism

The Monkey Business on Trade and Climate Change

中国驻东盟首任大使：与东盟合作,中国并非盯着能源

自由贸易区：深度开放进行时

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

Carbon and the other C word

Of chickens and crabs

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

Chewy Chicken Feet May Quash a Trade War

Related

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

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

Trade disputes and trade negotiations: which one is harder?

Getting tired of the lies on tires?

Time for Commercials