Taiwan's scorecard (nice GPA)

Taiwan scored two major diplomatic victories recently:

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

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

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

Seminar on China and WTO dispute settlement

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

Teaching WTO dispute settlement to Developing Country officials

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

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

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

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

http://www.asiansil-tokyo2009.com

Another election

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

New article in Journal of International Economic Law

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

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

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

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

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

Who Moved Our Milk?

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

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

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

Got milk, Mr. Mandelson?

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

Trade and everything

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

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

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

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

China Launched website for FTAs

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

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

"中国自由贸易区服务网"正式运行

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

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

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

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

WTO Movie

Finally there's a movie for the WTO.

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

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

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

 

Click here if you are unable to view this page.

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

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

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

The WTO in Difficult Times: New Challenges and New Prospects

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

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

Synopsis of Conference

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

Registration

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

A Different Type of Trade/Exchange

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

The "Evil" Organization in Geneva

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

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

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

WHO is the culprit of the DDA negotiation breakdown?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Sir or Madam,

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

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

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

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

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

We really expect you to join us.

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

Exmos. Senhores,

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

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

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

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

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

Agradecemos, desde já, a vossa colaboração.

Com os melhores cumprimentos,

A Organização da Reunião

Divisão de Relações Externas da DSRE

Reitoria da Universidade de Lisboa

Alameda da Universidade

1649-004 Lisboa

Telefone: + 351 217 939 193

New G-2?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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