海外網10月14日電 在當地時間10月13日舉行的世貿組織(WTO)總理事會上,中國大使張向晨與美國大使謝伊圍繞美國提交的兩份提案再次展開激辯。張向晨大使指出,中國始終十分克制地使用特殊與差別待遇條款,從未像美方所述的那樣,“要求與貝寧、利比里亞、肯尼亞或巴基斯坦享受一樣的優惠待遇”。相反,我們知道自己作為一個貿易大國所應承擔的責任,始終實事求是,根據自身實際能力作出貢獻。
張向晨大使中英文發言如下:
一、張向晨大使關於發展中國家特殊與差別待遇(議程第六項)的發言
感謝主席先生。
我多次講過,就發展中國家的分類標準進行辯論毫無意義,因為這本身就是系統性和方向性的錯誤。發展是世貿組織的一項重要目標,也是吸引如此多成員加入這個組織的一個重要原因。作為成員,我們應將精力集中在如何確保使發展這個理念落到實處。
具體而言,我們應共同探討如何使現有的特殊與差別待遇條款得到有效實施,並在漁業補貼等具體談判中向有需要的發展中成員提供有意義的特殊與差別待遇。對於現有的特殊與差別待遇條款,應確保有特殊需要的發展中成員真正從中受益並全面融入多邊貿易體制。
主席先生,我們做了一個初步統計,在現行16個WTO協定155個特殊與差別待遇條款中,至少有105條過於寬泛而不具可操作性,佔比高達67.7%;剩餘50條中,有至少25條為過渡期或技術援助條款。也就是説,現有協定中直接關乎成員權利和義務的特殊與差別待遇條款(25條)僅佔全部條款的16.1%。應當説絕大部分條款只能是畫餅充飢,但卻被一些成員描繪成無所不能的空白支票。
使特殊與差別待遇條款更加“精確、有效、可操作”是成員的長期共識,也是世貿組織一攬子協定的承諾。這也正是發展中國家要求討論200多項“執行議題”,以解決烏拉圭回合遺留的規則不平衡問題的初衷,G90成員基於此提交了提案。在這個問題上,我完全贊成南非大使剛剛的發言。事實上,回顧過去20年的歷史,G90成員已經做了很大的妥協,將多哈回合88項訴求減少到內羅畢的25項以及布宜諾斯艾利斯的10項,表明了推進談判的最大誠意和剋制態度。G90成員大幅縮減其訴求,不是因為他們的訴求不對,而是他們真誠希望所有成員真誠參與磋商。
在這10項要求中,有些是為了彌補原有條款存在的缺陷,如提案對啓用GATT第18條的程序性安排作出規定;有些是要求恢復多邊規則中一些好的做法,如對最不發達國家和有困難的發展中成員恢復《補貼與反補貼措施協定》第8條所規定的不可訴補貼。有些是要求給有需要的發展中成員更長的過渡期和評議期,如現行SPS措施發展中成員可爭取到90天評議期,G90提案提出能力缺失的成員可以有180天;有些是敦促發達成員履行已經承諾的義務,如在技術轉讓方面。G90成員耐心地以口頭和書面方式回答了成員提出的所有問題,但令人失望的是,有人卻執意拒絕參與討論,談判未能取得進展。
主席先生,世貿組織是基於規則的機構。要重振人們對這一組織的信心,最根本的是對既有規則的敬畏和對先前承諾的履行。確保特殊與差別待遇“更加精確、有效、可操作”是我們的明確承諾和尚未完成的使命,是我們在發展領域最亟需開展的工作。我呼籲所有成員都拿出誠意,實質性地參與G90提案的討論,認真回應發展中國家的關切,而不是把時間和精力花在沒有結果的爭論上。
主席先生,由於中國的問題被提及,我想就此做一評論。中國反對討論發展中國家分類問題,並不是因為我們想要享受與弱小國家和LDC一樣的特殊與差別待遇,而只是為了維護我們所享有的這一基本的制度性權利。
在實際操作層面,根據中國加入WTO協定,中國實際僅享受14個具體的S&DT條款,佔全部155條的9%。在這14個條款中,6個是傳統上發達國家應履行的“義務”,如應請求應提供WTO官方語言的文件,僅有8個是實實在在的所謂“權利”(如部分產品關税相對較高)。
即便如此,中國始終十分克制地使用特殊與差別待遇條款。顯然我們從未像美方所述的那樣,“要求與貝寧、利比里亞、肯尼亞或巴基斯坦享受一樣的優惠待遇”,相反,我們知道自己作為一個貿易大國所應承擔的責任,始終實事求是,根據自身實際能力作出貢獻。正如在《信息技術協定》擴圍談判中所做的,中國成為談判的最大貢獻者,我們在未來的談判中也將繼續儘自己最大的努力。
謝謝主席先生。
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have repeated many times that, the debate on criteria to differentiate developing members is totally meaningless, as it is a systematic and directional mistake. Development is one of the key objectives of the WTO, which is also an important attraction for many countries choosing to join in this Organization. As WTO members, our focus on development should be on how to translatethe concept of development into practice rather than anything else.
To be specific, our collective efforts should be focused on how to effectively enforce the existing special and differential treatment (S&DT) provisions, and negotiate meaningful S&DT for the developing members, for example in the fisheries subsidy negotiations. For the existing S&DT provisions, there should be assurance that developing members in need could truly benefit from and fully integrate into the multilateral trading system.
Mr. Chairman, we did a preliminary review on the current 155 S&DT provisions contained in the 16 WTO agreements, finding that at least 105 provisions are too vague to operate, accounting for 67.7%; for the remaining 50 provisions, at least half of them are related to transitional period or technical assistance. So, there are only 25 S&DT provisions in existing WTO agreements that are directly linked to individual Members’ rights and obligations, accounting for 16.1% of the total. It is therefore fair to say, the overwhelming majority of current S&DT provisions are only pie in the sky. There has never been an almighty blank check.
It is a long-standing consensus to make S&DT provisions more “precise, effective, and operational”, which is also a commitment across WTO Agreements. That is the very reason why developing members requested to discuss more than 200 “Implementation Issues” aiming at rebalancing the imbalanced rules from the Uruguay Round, and G90 put forward their written proposals. I fully endorse the statement made by the Ambassador of South Africa. Actually, recalling the past 20 years, G90 has been compromising by reducing their 88 original requests, to 25 in Nairobi, and to 10 in Buenos Aires, demonstrating their utmost sincerity and restraint. Such reduction is not because their request was wrong, rather it is because they do hope all Members could be engaged and thus show flexibility.
For the current 10 proposals, some are to fill the loopholes of existing provisions, such as proposing procedural arrangement to invoke Article 18 of GATT; some are to restore good practices in multilateral rules, such as treating subsidies granted by LDCs and developing members facing certain constraints as non-actionable subsidies according to Article 8 of ASCM; some are to allow developing members to have longer time-frames for transitions or comments, such as granting 180 days for members facing capacity constraints to make comments on SPS measures notified by developed members, whereas the current practice is 90 days; some are to urge developed members to honor their already-committed obligations, including technology transfer. G90 has made comprehensive responses both orally and in writing to all questions from members on their proposals. However, no progress has been made due to certain Members’ reluctance to engage.
Mr. Chairman, the WTO is a rule-based organization. If we want to win back people’s confidence in this organization, the most fundamental thing is to treat existing rules and implement promised commitments, with respect and awe. To make existing S&DT provisions “more precise, effective and operational” is the clear commitment and unfinished mission of all members, which is also the most urgent task in the area of development. I call upon all members to show our sincerity by meaningfully engaging in the discussion of the G90 proposal and carefully responding to practical concerns of developing members, rather than wasting time and resources on no outcome debates.
Mr. Chairman, since China was mentioned specifically, I would like to make a comment to respond. China standing against to the differentiation of developing members does not mean we want to enjoy the same favorable treatment as small economies and LDCs. What we want is only to safeguard our institutional right of S&DT.
In practice, according to our accession agreement, China has 14 specific S&DT provisions among all 155 articles, accounting only for 9%. Among the 14, 6 provisions are traditionally “obligations” of the developed members, such as providing translations of documents in WTO official languages upon request, only 8 provisions are so called meaningful “rights”, such as relatively higher tariffs for certain goods.
Even in such circumstances, China always shows restraint in invoking S&DT provisions. Obviously, China did not request to have the same S&DT as Benin, Liberia, Kenya or Pakistan, which was proclaimed by the United States. On the contrary, as a large trading nation, we recognize the responsibility China should bear. Our approach is to address different issues according to their specific situations and make contributions within our capability. As we did in the ITA expansion negotiations, China is the largest contributor among all the participants. We will continue to do that in the future.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
二、張向晨大使關於市場導向條件(議程第七項)的發言
主席先生,
毫無疑問,多邊貿易體制是建立在市場經濟基礎之上的,WTO的所有規則都反映了市場經濟的通行做法,是成員們所應遵循的準則。同樣毫無疑問的是,四十年來,中國的改革開放始終朝着市場化的方向前進,這正是我們加入WTO的基礎和堅定支持多邊貿易體制的原因。
我們現在面臨的挑戰不是《馬拉喀什宣言》説的什麼,而是一些成員正在做的。順便説一句,提到《馬拉喀什宣言》,當我們説到“開放和市場導向政策”時,我們不能忘記宣言第5段“部長們憶及談判結果包含給予發展中國家差別和更優惠待遇的規定,包括對最不發達國家的特殊情況所給予的特別關注”。這些話同等重要,遺憾的是現在有些成員選擇性地失憶了。
我不想重複我上次説過的“市場導向這樣的常識問題無需在總理事會上討論”的話。曾在伯爾尼工作過的科學家愛因斯坦説過,“成功=艱苦勞動+正確方法+少説空話”。中國人自古就相信“清談誤國”。我的問題是,這個提案想到達什麼目的,有什麼後續措施?更使我感到困惑的是,此時此刻,如果我們不能阻止一個成員政府以任意的方式,強迫外國企業把自己的股份和技術賣給本國企業,我們怎麼好意思坐在這裏堂而皇之地討論什麼市場導向的條件呢?
主席先生,三年多來,我們沒有能夠採取有效的措施,制止破壞市場規則的單邊保護主義措施在全球肆虐,我們所工作的這個組織為此廣受外界詬病,我們應當感到羞愧。但是,至少我們還可以爭辯,那不是因為我們不想,而是因為我們能力不夠。而現在,我們何必要通過空談市場導向條件而授人以柄,讓別人嘲笑我們這裏的人,不僅無能而且幼稚可笑呢?
當一項原則或一個體系失靈時,我們應該採取具體行動去修復它,而不能僅僅是在口頭上反覆強調規則的重要性和正確性,以展示那些破壞規則的人的無辜。
謝伊大使曾説過,“當國家將拇指甚至拳頭按在天平上扭曲競爭,以達到有利於部分國內主體的結果時,不公就出現了”。我完全贊同他的説法。但是,讓別人做到的事,首先要自己做到。
我想給大家舉的例子是,當一國動輒以國家安全為由加徵關税或剝奪外國企業服務准入時,不公就出現了;當一國以加徵關税為籌碼,逼迫他國在貿易談判中讓步時,市場就被扭曲了;當一國一邊違反規則,一邊阻撓多邊裁決時,公平競爭就不存在了。空喊“市場導向條件”,不如採取具體行動,解決上述破壞公平競爭和市場導向條件的錯誤做法。
Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
It is true that the multilateral trading system is built on the basis of market economy, and all the WTO rules reflect the prevailing practices of market economy and are binding on all Members. There is also no doubt that in the past 40 years, China persistently deepens its reform and opening up to the world in the direction of market economy, which is exactly the basis of our accession to the WTO and the reason for our firm support for the multilateral trading system.
However, the challenge we are facing is not what Marrakesh Declaration says, but what some Members are doing. By the way, with regard to Marrakesh Declaration, when we talk about open and market-oriented policies, we should not forget Article 5, which I quote “Ministers recall that the results of the negotiations embody provisions conferring differential and more favorable treatment for developing economies, including special attention to the particular situation of least-developed countries”. Those words are equally important. Unfortunately, now some Members have selective amnesia.
I have no intention to repeat what I have said at the previous meeting that “common sense issues like market orientation do not need to be discussed at the General Council”, and simply dismiss the whole discussion. Albert Einstein, a scientist who had worked in Bern, once said, “Success is equal to hard work plus correct method plus less empty talk”. Chinese people have also believed in “empty talks harm the country” since ancient times. So, my questions are: what is the purpose of this proposal? what are the follow-up measures to be taken in the next step? What puzzles me even more is that, at this moment, if we cannot prevent a Member’s government from forcing foreign companies to sell their equities and technology to its national companies in any way, how can we sit here comfortably and discuss and tell the world what the market orientated conditions are?
Mr. Chairman, we need to bear in mind that for more than three years, we have failed to take effective actions to stop unilateralist and protectionist measures that undermine the market rules from raging around the world, and this organization we work for has been widely criticized for falling short of such actions. We should feel ashamed. However, at least, we could still argue that it is not because we do not want to, but because we are not capable enough. But now, why should we talk empty about the market-oriented conditions to give more reasons for the international community to laugh at us, for being not only incapable, but also naive?
When a principle or a system is broken, what we should do is to take concrete actions to try to fix it rather than verbally repeating the importance and correctness of the rules to show the innocence of someone who broke the rules.
Ambassador Shea once said that “when the state puts its thumb – or even its fist – on the scale to distort competition and drive preferred outcomes to benefit certain domestic actors, that is unfair.” I couldn’t agree with him more about that. But it is a common sense that if you ask others to do something, you should do it first.
Let me give you some specific examples. When a country, on the grounds of national security, arbitrarily and frequently imposes tariffs on foreign goods or deprives foreign services of market access, that is unfair. When a country uses tariffs as a leverage to force its trading partners to concede in trade negotiations, the market is distorted. When a country blatantly violates fundamental trade rules and at the same time blocks the independent and neutral adjudications, the level playing field is gone. Instead of chanting the empty slogan of “market-oriented conditions”, it’s better for us to take concrete actions to address the above wrongful practices which undermine the fair competition and market-oriented conditions.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.