中英双语 | 中美世贸组织大使最后一次总理事会辩论- 大数跨境

首页

中英双语 | 中美世贸组织大使最后一次总理事会辩论

投资海南

2020-12-18

2020年12月17日，均即将离任的中国大使张向晨和美国大使谢伊在世贸组织今年第五次总理事会上就发展中成员特殊与差别待遇、市场导向条件等问题进行了双方的最后一次辩论。张向晨大使还在会上发表了临别感言。

临别感言

Farewell Intervention

主席先生，

亲爱的同事们，几天后我就要离任回国了，感谢大家的美好祝愿。离别总是匆匆。在过去的三年零八个月里，我和大家一起经历了多边贸易体制的艰难时刻。逆境中的执守是最为难得的，正因为如此，我非常珍视我们之间的情谊。天冷了，树叶都掉光了，但我在院子里栽下的那株玉兰却结着一簇簇绿绿的硕大的花苞，明年四月初就会盛开。我虽然看不到了，但我相信，日内瓦的下一个春天一定会很美。以后，我人在北京，心还在日内瓦。Ne m'oublie pas.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to take this opportunity to sincerely thank you all for your kind wishes. In a couple of days, I’ll be ending my term and returning to China. It’s always hard to part, especially after 3 years and 8 months, in which together, we pulled through the challenging times in the history of the multilateral trading system. I cherish greatly our friendship and hope that our paths will cross again in the future.

Dear friends, the days are getting colder and the leaves are gone from the trees. But the magnolia tree I planted in my garden is already full of green flower buds. Come April and the tree will be turned into a torch of blossoms. I will not be there to see it in person, but I do believe that the coming Spring in Geneva will be splendid. Though I’ll be thousands of miles away, my heart will always be with this lovely city and all the friends I’ve made over the past years. Ne m'oublie pas.

关于发展中成员特殊与差别待遇

Special and Differential Treatment of Developing Members

美国大使谢伊：

Ambassador Shea’s Statement：

美方非常乐意继续就这个重要的改革倡议展开讨论。疫情没能让我们在2020年与成员们就此展开深入讨论，而这种深度参与是推进世贸组织改革最为需要的。我们期待未来会更好，明年能重新对美方提案进行实质性讨论。

The United States is pleased to continue our discussion of this important reform initiative. The pandemic has not permitted us to have the kind of engagement with Members in 2020 that we know is needed to advance this reform. We look forward to better days ahead, and to returning to substantive discussions on our proposal next year.

这项改革倡议的核心是，对自称为发展中国家的成员缺乏分类，多年来损害了世贸组织的谈判功能，并将继续产生破坏作用，直至成员们能改变这种对最贫穷、融入多边贸易体制程度最低的成员极不公平的做法。

The issue at the heart of this reform effort - the lack of differentiation among self-declared developing country Members - has undermined the negotiating arm of the WTO for years, and it will continue do so until Members address a practice that is grossly unfair to the poorest, least-integrated Members of this institution.

我们对特殊与差别待遇改革倡议迄今所取得的进展感到欣慰。在我们2019年年初提出分析性文件并就此展开讨论之前，在日内瓦公开讨论这个问题还是一种禁忌，大家都讳莫如深。诚然，不同发展程度的成员认为，缺乏成员分类已是世贸组织多年面临的老大难问题。一个相对较穷的成员曾表示，缺乏分类正是多哈回合失败的主要原因之一。但是没有一个成员敢于打开麦克风，谈及或讨论如何解决该问题。

We are encouraged by the progress of our S&D reform initiative to date. Prior to the U.S. analytic paper that began our discussion in early 2019, an open discussion of this problem was taboo in Geneva.

It is true that Members from across the development spectrum thought that the lack of differentiation in the WTO was already a problem many years ago. One relatively poor Member cited the lack of differentiation as a major cause of the failure of the Doha Round. But no one dared to speak about this problem, or about how to solve it, with the microphones on.

现在情况已有所改变。正因为这种改变，我们看到了改革的萌芽。我们对分类问题的分析以及对世贸组织迫切需要与时俱进的坚定信念，已动员起世贸组织成员的广泛参与。成员们开始自发行动，表明他们不会在现在和未来的谈判中寻求特殊与差别待遇。在我们看来，他们有着共同的目标，那就是帮助世贸组织改善谈判功能，以便在这里开展并完成有意义的贸易谈判。

That has changed. As a result of that change, we are seeing the green shoots of reform.

Our analysis of the differentiation problem, and our conviction that the WTO urgently needs to adapt to a changed reality, gained traction with a wide swath of the Membership.

Members began to take action on their own initiative, stating they would not seek S&D in current and future negotiations. To our ears, they shared a common goal - to help improve the negotiating function of the WTO, so that Members can undertake and conclude meaningful trade negotiations here.

对我们而言，我们清楚地看到推进这项重要改革的诸多挑战，我们同样清楚地看到不寻求变革会带来怎样的困境。

For our part, we are clear-eyed about the challenges to advancing this important reform. We are also clear-eyed about the challenges of failing to reform.

我在2019年2月开启这场特殊与差别待遇改革的对话时就曾说过，世贸组织面临一项抉择，要么改革，要么就失去相关性。这是事实，但失去相关性将不会是终点，我们不会容忍这样的结果。

At the start of our conversation on S&D reform in February 2019, I said that the WTO faces a choice - reform or irrelevance. That remains true, but irrelevance would not be an endpoint. The resulting vacuum would not go unfilled.

我们已经看到其它的力量正在塑造国际体系。我们深深地担忧眼前的这一切——这个体系的基础和框架基于特权而非权利，来自强权而非规则。我们期盼未来有所改变，我们将与所有成员，无论其贫穷或者富有，齐心协力打造一个不同的未来。

Already, we see other forces taking shape in the international system. We are profoundly concerned with what we see - the foundations and scaffolding for a system based on privileges not rights; and power not rules.

We wish for a different future, and we will work hard with any Member, rich or poor, to achieve it.

中国大使张向晨：

Ambassador Zhang Xiangchen’s Statement：

主席先生，上次总理事会关于美国发展提案的辩论结束后，一位资深的秘书处官员一脸苦笑对我说，“这种辩论真是对外交官耐心的一种考验啊。”根据我的理解，这句话翻译成非外交语言就是，“你们这帮人就一个注定没有结果的问题争论不休，真是让人烦透了！”

Mr. Chair, after our debate at the last General Council on the US proposal, a senior Secretariat officer approached me and said half-jokingly and half with sympathy: “this kind of debate is really a test to the diplomats’ patience”. According to my understanding, to put this in a less diplomatic way, it means: “why are you guys keep fighting endlessly over something that is resultless, ça suffit!?”

我完全理解他的感受，我自己的耐心通常也只是针对女士和孩子们。但是，我不能阻止美方提出提案，我甚至引用过总理事会议事规则中有关不要重复讨论同一个问题的规定，也无济于事。而这个问题又涉及到中国，我不能不做出回应。

I completely understand how he felt, and I have to confess that my patience normally goes to ladies and children. However, it is not within my capacity to stop the US from coming back to this proposal. I recall that previously I have quoted the rules of procedures of the General Council, that members should refrain from repeatedly raising the same issue. As you can see, it didn’t work. And since this proposal obviously concerns China, I have no choice but to make another response. I hope to have your indulgence.

为了减轻我的那位秘书处朋友的焦虑，我今天不准备重复我讲过的观点，也不打算再罗列一大堆事实和数据。我只想给大家讲一个故事。

To make sure that it doesn’t get on the nerves of my friend of the Secretariat, I will not repeat what I have said in the past, or swarm you with data and facts. Let me just share with you a story.

这个故事是针对美国大使谢伊上次讲的一句话，“经济上更为发达一些的国家显然有能力通过谈判获得其所需要的灵活性，而不应再享受全面的特殊与差别待遇。”

This story pertains to what Ambassador Shea said in our previous meeting: “The more economically advanced of these countries are clearly capable of negotiating the flexibilities they need, rather than availing themselves of blanket S&D”.

那是2001年6月7日的晚上，亚太经合组织贸易部长会议在黄浦江畔的上海国际会议中心举行。忽然有人发现，作为主持人的中国部长石广生和美国贸易代表佐立克都不见了，而且他们再也没有回到会议大厅。他们去哪儿了？其实他们就在附近的一个房间里，就中国加入世贸组织的最后一个遗留问题—中国农业的补贴水平，是按照美国坚持的发达国家的标准（即农业总产值的5%），还是按照中国坚持的发展中国家的标准（即农业总产值的10%）进行谈判。我当时作为中国部长的助手一直在那间屋子里。

Let me begin the story. The time is 7th of June, 2001. In the evening, by the Huangpu River in Shanghai, the APEC trade ministers are gathered at the Shanghai International Convention Centre for the APEC Trade Ministers Meeting.

It was soon noticed that both Chinese Trade Minister Mr. Shi Guangsheng and US Trade Representative Robert Zoellick have disappeared from the meeting. Where did they go? The answer is in a small meeting room nearby, the two were having a long debate over the last remaining issue in China’s accession to the WTO, i.e. China’s agricultural subsidies. The US side insisted that China should make a commitment at the level of developed countries, that is 5% of the total value of production. China on the other hand, insisted at 10%, which is the level of developing countries. I was in that room, assisting my trade minister.

双方花了很长的时间解释各自立场，相持不下。此后，佐立克提出7.5%，称这是发达国家和发展中国家水平的中间点，而中间点是任何一场谈判都应该可以接受的标准。石广生部长回应，不接受美国所说的中间点的谈判标准，对10%这一发展中国家标准的哪怕一点点的偏离都是中方为谈判达成协议做出的让步。作为对美方灵活性的回应，中方可考虑接受9%。

Both sides had strong arguments and refused to compromise. After a long debate, Zoellick proposed 7.5%, saying that this is the mid-point between the levels of developed and developing countries, which is 5% and 10% respectively, and a mid-point should be an acceptable outcome in any negotiation. Mr. Shi nevertheless did not accept this mid-point approach. He said “any deviation from 10%, however small, is a compromise on the part of China. And for the sake of reaching an agreement and as a response to the flexibility shown by the US, China is prepared to accept 9%”.

请允许我补充一个背景。美国在谈判中之所以离开原来5%的立场，展现出一定的灵活性，与1995年3月13日美国贸易代表米基·坎特与时任中国外经贸部长吴仪女士发表关于中国加入世贸组织的一个联合声明有关。在声明第七段，美国承诺，“美国和中国将在一个灵活、务实的基础上进行中国加入世贸组织的谈判，并且同意在乌拉圭回合协议基础上实事求是地解决中国发展中国家的问题。”可以说，这个声明构成了中美世贸组织协议最终达成的重要政策基础。而为了就上面提到的那句话达成协议，双方进行了一场漫长而艰难的谈判，我本人全程参与了。

Allow me here to give you some background to this debate. The reason why the US was willing to go up from 5% to 7.5% was largely because of a joint communique issued on March 13, 1995, between then Chinese Minister of Foreign Trade Madame Wu Yi and US Trade Representative Mickey Kantor. In paragraph 7, the communique reads: “The United States and China will pursue China’s WTO accession talks on a flexible, pragmatic basis and agree to address realistically the issue of China’s developing country status on the basis of the Uruguay Round Agreement”.

This sentence was a result of a long and difficult negotiation, in which I personally participated, and this communique formed the fundamental policy basis for China and the US to reach the agreement on China’s accession to the WTO.

正是由于这个背景，虽然立场有差异，双方却并未就中国是否是发展中国家和该不该享受特殊与差别待遇进行争论。佐立克说，“我们承认中国的发展中国家地位已经是跨出了一大步，”但他仍然认为9%的数字太高了，理由是中国当时的实际补贴水平很低。石广生部长回应：“目前有多少补贴是我们的能力问题，我们要求的是这个权利。”

Because of this communique, back in that meeting room by the Huangpu River, even though both sides were locked in on their own numbers, none of them brought up the issue of whether China is a developing country or if China should enjoy special and differential treatment.

“Our recognition of China’s developing country status is already a big step forward”, Zoellick said. He insisted that 9% was too high because at that time, China only had limited subsidies in agriculture. “How much subsidies we give to farmers is a matter of our capacities. Whether or not we can do that is a matter of our right”. Minister Shi replied determinedly.

沉默、相持、休会、越洋电话……，

复会后，美国从7.5%提高到了8%，中国从9%降到了8.5%。

沉默、相持、休会、越洋电话……，

This was followed by a silence from both sides. The meeting was temporarily adjourned. Phone calls were made from Shanghai to Washington, while the drowsy-eyed delegates had minutes of sleep on the couches outside of the meeting room.

Soon the meeting was resumed. US raised its offer from 7.5% to 8%, China responded by going down from 9% to 8.5%. No side was willing to move further, so the meeting was again adjourned, resumed, more phone calls, more debates…

请让我把整个晚上的故事截短，双方最终同意8.5%，协议达成。此时，东方既白，江上驳船穿梭，汽笛长鸣。

Let me cut the story of that night short. By dawn of the next day, when the sky was showing pale blue, and the boats started shuffling on the Huangpu River, the two sides agreed on 8.5% and the deal was concluded.

8.5%与7.5%只差1个百分点，这1个百分点意味着什么呢？相当于200亿美元。这个数字看起来很大，但是摊到中国两亿多农民身上，每个人也只有约100美元。而我们清楚地知道，如果没有中方在1995年推动美国承诺以务实的方式解决中国发展中国家地位和待遇问题，以及在谈判最后阶段的据理力争，我们是不可能得到这宝贵的1个百分点的，甚至连7.5%的水平都难以得到，就像后来加入世贸组织的一些发展中国家一样，在未能获得主要谈判方对其发展中国家地位的承诺的情况下，他们只能接受5%的水平。

Looking back at that night-to-dawn negotiation, 8.5% and 7.5%, what difference does 1% make? Well, it makes about 20 billion dollars of additional subsidies to Chinese farmers. This might seem like a large number, but spread over 200 million farmers in China, each farmer may receive only about 100 dollars over the course of a year.

That is not a big win. But one thing we should be clear: without that persistence in the final stage of the negotiation, without the 1995 communique that committed to address realistically the issue of China’s developing country status and treatments, it would have been impossible for China to get this precious 1%, and perhaps even securing 7.5% would have been difficult. As we see from the deals of other developing countries that joined the WTO after China’s accession, without a warranty on their developing country status, they had to accept 5%.

故事并没有结束。正如我们当年所预见的那样，加入世贸组织后，随着工业化进程加快，中国农业生产资料价格快速增长。我们在谈判中竭力争取到的政策空间也渐渐地显得捉襟见肘，不敷使用了。

Here the story should have ended, but it did not. As foreseen at the time of the negotiation, China’s industrialization accelerated after the accession to the WTO, and the price of agricultural capital goods increased rapidly. The policy space that China gained in that night-to-dawn negotiation is becoming short of meeting the demand.

雪上加霜的是，2019年2月和4月，我们遗憾地在世贸组织输了两个农业官司。我至今也不能认同专家组关于“适格产量”（QEP）的界定——即使用年度总产量而非实际收购量作为计算补贴的基础。专家组成员显然对中国的农产品收购制度缺乏深入了解，从而得出了错误的结论。但出于对世贸组织争端解决机制的尊重，我们还是接受了裁决，并正在按照规定的时限进行整改，这意味着中国农业支持的分母被人为地扩大，支持空间进一步被压缩，政策调整将涉及到近1亿小麦和水稻种植农户的生计。

What makes things worse is that in February and April 2019, we lost two cases on agriculture at the WTO. Personally I disagree with the decision of the panel on “Quantity of Eligible Production (QEP)”, which uses annual aggregate production, instead of actual amount of procurement, as the basis for calculating subsidies.

Apparently the panel members did not have a thorough understanding of China’s procurement system, which led them to the wrong conclusions. Nevertheless, we have accepted the ruling and have made adjustments within the prescribed timeframe because in our view respecting the dispute settlement system is one of the obligations members should undertake. This means an inflated denominator for China’s agricultural domestic support, thus further squeezing the space for the support that the government can provide to the farmers. Almost 100 million wheat and rice farmers will be affected by the relevant policy adjustments, who are among the most needed on the government support for their livelihood.

历史并未走远，上海国际会议中心的灯火映在黄浦江上的粼粼波光，至今历历在目。这个故事告诉我们，对许许多多发展中国家而言，所谓“全面的特殊与差别待遇”从来就不存在，要在谈判中争取到有实际意义的特殊与差别待遇，必须依托乌拉圭回合协定赋予的和加入世贸组织谈判争取到的制度性权利，绝不能轻言放弃。这种权利与仅凭谈判者个人的口舌之利或寄望于对方的怜悯和施舍获得某些灵活性完全不可同日而语。

History is never far from us. Even today, I can still recall the neon light reflections on the night Huangpu River from the Convention Centre. What I learned from this story is that for many developing countries, the so-called “blanket special and differential treatment” is nothing but a beautiful promise. To win real and meaningful S&D in the negotiations, they need to rely on the institutional rights endowed to them by the Uruguay Round agreement and their WTO accession agreements. These institutional rights are irreplaceable, and we cannot hope that articulate negotiations or sympathetic counterparts can provide the same level of flexibilities.

关于“市场导向条件”

Market-Oriented Conditions

美国大使谢伊：

Ambassador Shea’s Statement:

美国、巴西和日本要求设置此项议程，目的是继续强调市场导向对国际贸易体系的重要性。作为我们共同的工作成果，美国、巴西和日本三方共同发表了一份声明（WT/GC/W/803/Rev.1）。这一联合声明反映了我们共同认可的一项世贸组织核心原则，即市场导向条件是保证自由、公平、互惠的国际贸易体系的根基。

The United States, Brazil, and Japan have requested this agenda item to continue highlighting the importance of market-oriented conditions to the global trading system.

As a result of our work together, Brazil, Japan, and the United States have released a joint statement (WT/GC/W/803/Rev.1). The joint statement reflects our shared belief in one of the core principles of the WTO: that market-oriented conditions are fundamental to a free, fair, and mutually advantageous world trading system.

为此，美日巴联合声明认为，所有成员的企业都应当在市场导向条件下运作，并指出了市场参与方表明和保证市场导向条件的要素。这些标准也反映了我们的企业所遵从的市场导向条件和纪律。

To that end, the Brazil-Japan-U.S. joint statement affirms that Members’ enterprises should operate under market-oriented conditions and notes the elements that indicate and ensure those conditions for market participants. These criteria reflect the market-oriented conditions and disciplines to which our own enterprises are subject.

在10月召开的上一次总理事会上，我们鼓励成员们详细审议这些要素，以更好地参与对这一重要问题的深入讨论。

At the last General Council meeting in October, we encouraged Members to review these elements in detail to facilitate more robust engagement on this important issue.

值得注意的是，在总理事会和非正式会议上，相当多的成员同意这些原则确实可以促进公平贸易，我没有听到任何成员认为，如果有一个成员否定市场导向条件，我们可以做到公平贸易。

It is notable that both in the General Council and informal meetings, we have considerable agreement from Members that these criteria do promote fair trade and have not heard any Member assert that trade is fair if market-oriented conditions are denied by a Member.

我们听到有一个成员认为市场导向条件是一个学术问题，质疑这一理念是否可以被清晰定义，并询问我们为什么要花时间在世贸组织中进行讨论。

We have heard statements from one Member dismissing market-oriented conditions as academic, questioning whether these concepts can ever be defined, and asking why we should bother to engage on this topic at the WTO.

我们想直接回应这一批评。这些并非新概念，也不是学术问题，其他很多人都认可这些问题对我们保证国际贸易的正常运行非常关键。

We would like to address these criticisms directly: these concepts are not new; they are not academic; and they have been recognized by others as critical to our efforts to ensure the proper functioning of international trade.

举一个很有说服力的例子，钢铁行业一直是成员们非常关注的存在非市场政策和实践问题的领域。我们来看看由二十国集团和感兴趣的经合组织成员组成的钢铁产能过剩全球论坛讨论的问题，尤其是2017年二十国集团在德国担任主席国期间通过的报告。

To give one, prominent example: steel is an area where Members have focused significant attention on the problems caused by non-market policies and practices. Let us consider what the G20 and interested OECD members said in the Global Forum on Steel Excess Capacity, in particular in their 2017 report approved under the German presidency of the G20.

报告审查了造成钢铁产能过剩问题的条件并提出了应对建议，这些国家认为钢铁产能过剩是“一个全球性问题”， “需要通过有效的政策措施强化市场作用”。他们认为“强化市场作用对于保证真正基于竞争优势进行国家和国际层面的交流至关重要。”

In examining the conditions leading to excess capacity and recommending an effective response, these countries considered that steel excess capacity “is a global issue which requires . . . effective policy solutions to enhance the market function.” They considered that “the enhancement of market function is essential to ensure that exchanges at the national and international level are based on genuine competitive advantages.”

他们认为，“开放和竞争性的市场，以及基于钢铁企业竞争力的、由市场驱动的资源分配应成为钢铁行业的驱动力。新投资、生产和贸易流应当反映以市场为基础的供求条件。”

They considered that “open and competitive markets and a market-driven approach to resource allocation based on the competitive positions of steel enterprises should be the driving forces of the steel sector. New investment, production and trade flows should reflect market-based supply and demand conditions.”

在报告的“重点建议”中，他们提出的结论包括“成员们应当考虑其架构条件和机制安排能够在何种程度上保证市场发挥适当作用。”

Among their “Key recommendations,” these countries concluded that “Members should consider the extent to which their framework conditions and institutional settings ensure proper market functioning.”

他们强调，“要特别注意保证，竞争法、贸易和投资政策能够促进企业在国内和国际上的公平竞争，不论其所有制；破产法有效、破产程序执行迅速；国内融资市场能够给风险定价并处理坏账。”

They emphasized that “particular attention should be given to ensure that,” inter alia, “competition law, trade and investment policies . . . foster a level playing field for competition among companies irrespective of ownership, both domestically and internationally;” that “bankruptcy legislation is effective and procedures are expedited efficiently;” and that “the internal financial market is able to price risk and deal with non-performing loans.”

这些国家的重点建议还包括：“应保证各种所有制钢铁企业间的公平竞争环境”以及“所有参与一国钢铁市场的企业在经济行为，包括破产程序方面，均应遵循同样的规则和法律。”

These countries concluded, among their key recommendations, that “a level playing field should be ensured among steel enterprises of all types of ownership” and that “all enterprises acting in a country’s steel market should follow the same rules and regulations with economic implications, including bankruptcy procedures.”

他们强调，“为保证钢铁行业的公平竞争和平等环境，所有钢铁企业均遵循同样的规则和披露要求非常重要。”

They emphasized that “in order to ensure fair competition and a level playing field in the steel industry, it is important that all steel enterprises follow the same rules and reporting requirements.”

这些结论以及在德国担任二十国集团主席国期间众多成员同意的其它结论确认了一个广泛认可的共识：市场导向条件对于解决我们目前面临的问题非常重要。

These conclusions and others agreed by numerous Members under the German G20 presidency confirm a wide recognition that market-oriented conditions are essential to solving the problems we face.

我们认为，世贸组织是成员们解决影响公平贸易的非市场条件问题的适当场合。如果认为世贸组织不是解决这一关注的适当场合，那无异于宣称世贸组织是一个，而且也应当是一个无关的组织。我们尊重但并不同意这一观点。

As we see it, the WTO is an appropriate place for Members to work to address these problems of non-market conditions that undermine fair trade. To say that the WTO is not the place to discuss these concerns is really to assert that the WTO is and should be irrelevant – and we respectfully disagree.

我们与巴西和日本的联合声明中提出的要素和标准对于保证在各个行业适用市场导向条件至关重要，不仅仅限于钢铁行业，从而使所有市场参与者都可以在公平环境下竞争。

The elements and criteria identified in our joint statement with Brazil and Japan are essential to ensuring that market-oriented conditions exist across sectors – not just in steel – so that all market participants compete on a level playing field.

我们不同意这些条件的重要性仅限于学术领域的说法，二十国集团以及感兴趣的经合组织成员已经在钢铁行业树立了我们需要市场导向条件的例子，他们的结论生动地说明，此类讨论不是学术性的，而是国际贸易体系中的核心要义。

We disagree with those who would say that the importance of these conditions is only academic. The example of the conclusions reached by G20 and interested OECD members on the need for market-oriented conditions in the steel sector demonstrate vividly that this discussion is not academic but is rather at the heart of some of the most significant stresses in the international trading system.

当一个成员认为市场导向条件不值得世贸组织成员花费时间和精力时，听上去似乎他们并不想为其他成员提供公平竞争环境。如果确实如此，那么此类讨论就更加重要了。一个忽视此类关注的成员应当解释一下，在部分成员提供市场导向条件而其他成员不提供的情况下，如何保证公平的竞争环境。

When a Member takes the position that market-oriented conditions are not worth the time or concern of WTO Members, it sounds as if they do not want to provide a level playing field for other Members. If that is the case, then this discussion is even more important to have. A Member who would dismiss these concerns should explain how we can have a level playing field if some Members offer market-oriented conditions but others do not.

如果审视市场导向条件的标准，你会清晰看到每一项是如何有助于公平竞争和贸易条件的。审视这些标准也有助于证明，没能达到这些标准将是何等的不公平。

If one examines the market-oriented conditions criteria, it is clear how each contributes to conditions of fair competition and trade. A review of these criteria also helps to illustrate how a failure to meet these criteria is unfair.

例如，一个企业试图向市场销售，结果发现它的竞争对手被指示以非市场价格或不盈利的价格进行销售。

Take, for example, a business that may try selling into a market, only to find that its competitor is directed to sell at non-market or unprofitable prices.

又如，一个企业希望扩大规模并按市场利率寻求融资，结果发现其国家支持的竞争对手可以从另一个国有企业那里以非市场利率获得融资。

Or, for example, consider a business that would like to expand and seeks financing at a market rate, only to find that its state-backed competitor can obtain financing from another State Enterprise at a non-market rate.

再如，一个企业寻求从市场上以适合其商业运营的利率获取融资，结果因为其竞争对手可获得非市场融资，从而出现过度投资和产能过剩的情况而被拒绝。

Or, for example, consider a firm that seeks financing from the market at a rate to make its business case, only to be denied because competitors have access to non-market financing that results in over-investing and excess capacity.

类似的，众所周知，强制技术转让仍是一项重大且程度不断加深的关切。这些政策和实践也反映出对市场导向条件缺乏尊重，因为一项强制转让或者一次公然的窃取并非是自愿性的。强制技术转让不公平地剥夺了一个主体的知识产权、贸易秘密、“技术诀窍”或其他有价值的知识，并将之以非市场的条件给予他人。我们不认为任何成员会试图为通过网络骇客或网络窃取把技术转移至本国商业主体的行为进行辩护，说它是公平的做法。

Likewise, it is well known that forced technology transfer remains a large and growing concern. These policies and practices also reflect a failure to respect market-oriented conditions because a forced transfer – or an outright theft – is not voluntary. Forced technology transfer unfairly deprives one actor of its intellectual property, trade secrets, “know-how,” or other valuable knowledge, and gives them to another on non-market terms. We do not think any Member would try to defend cyber hacking or cyber theft to transfer technology to a domestic commercial actor as fair.

在以上每个例子中，不能确保市场导向条件所导致的结果都是完全不公平的。

In each of these examples, the failure to ensure market-oriented conditions generates a result that is fundamentally unfair.

我们没有听到任何成员持不同立场。当基于这些条件给予本国实体特别优势时，难道会有成员真认为这会导致公平贸易吗？

And we have not heard any Member argue for a different position.

Do any Members really believe that fair trade can result when special advantages are given to domestic entities under these conditions?

保证适用于市场参与者的市场导向条件的存在，对实现国际贸易体系的收益极为重要，它来自于我们对这些规则的相互承诺。这个共同的基础对确保所有成员有一个公平竞争的环境是必要的。

Ensuring that market-oriented conditions exist for market participants is critical to realizing the benefits of the international trading system that come from our mutual commitment to these rules. This common foundation is necessary to ensure a level playing field for all Members.

正如我们看到的，世贸组织持续的相关性将取决于其是否可基于开放、市场导向的政策，兑现世界贸易体系的承诺。我们改革的努力能否成功将取决于我们是否有确保自由、公平和互惠贸易这些根本前提不变的能力。

As we see it, the continued relevance of the WTO will depend on whether it can deliver on the promises of a world trading system based on open, market-oriented policies. The success of our reform efforts will depend on our ability to ensure the fundamental premise of free, fair, and mutually advantageous trade remains intact.

当我们牢记世贸组织改革必要性的同时，我们将继续欢迎与那些致力于强化我们共同承诺的成员间的互动，这些承诺包括承诺开放、市场导向政策，承诺向这些市场导向条件迈进，承诺保证可惠及所有人的公平竞争环境。

As we keep in mind the imperative to reform the WTO, we will continue to welcome engagement with Members who seek to strengthen our collective commitment to open, market-oriented policies, to move closer toward these market-oriented conditions, and to ensure a level playing field that benefits us all.

中国大使张向晨：

Ambassador Zhang Xiangchen’s Statement:

主席先生，“青山遮不住，毕竟东流去。”在市场和政府的关系中，市场的力量毫无疑问是决定性的，这是个常识。我们在这里需要讨论的是谁在挑战这个常识？是谁在破坏 “最惠国待遇”这样的通行国际市场规则，是谁在人为地改变和阻碍国际市场要素的流动？是谁要把世贸组织带回到谁的拳头大谁就掌握真理的旧时代？谢伊大使在今天上午的发言中提及钢铁产能过剩全球论坛报告中的建议，我脑海中立刻出现的一个问题是，是谁以国家安全的名义对钢铁产品采取限制措施从而扭曲正常的贸易？不搞清楚这个问题，不采取措施纠正这些错误做法，不有效地阻止今后出现类似的系统性破坏，在这里空谈市场导向，我们就会像挑战风车的堂吉诃德一样荒唐可笑。

Mr. Chair, as a Chinese saying goes: “Not even mountains can stop the river from flowing into the sea”. In the relationship between market and government, market obviously has the decisive power. This is a common sense. What we need to discuss here is - in today’s world, who is actually going against this common sense? Who is undermining the common rules of the international market, such as the “Most-Favoured-Nation” principle? Who is artificially altering and impeding the international flow of production factors? And who is bringing WTO back to the ages of “might is right”? Dennis mentioned recommendations contained in the Report of Global Forum on Steel Excess Capacity this morning, the question immediately comes to my mind is who is taking measures in the name of national security to distort normal trade in steel sector? If we cannot have a clear answer to these questions, and if we, as WTO members, cannot take effective measures to undo the damages and prevent future disruptions to the system, empty talks about market orientation is nothing but a quixotic quest that leads us to nowhere.

谢伊大使在7月份总理事会上说过，“市场导向条件不是要否定或干预政府治理和监督管理政策，而是为了确保市场主体之间的公平。”事实真的如此吗？美国提案中的“市场导向”标准，并非什么新的东西，而是来自其国内法有关反倾销的“非市场经济国家”的标准。在现实中，美国按照自己制定的这些标准，对一国经济任意定性，普遍适用个案调查，武断采取“替代国”做法，让中国和很多发展中国家的企业吃尽了苦头。我们从自己的经验中感受到，这些标准与多边贸易体制的非歧视原则格格不入。

Ambassador Shea said in the July General Council meeting: “what we’re concerned with is ensuring fair competition and a level playing field; not interfering with the ability to govern”. I have to say that I have serious doubts about this statement.

The “market-oriented conditions” in the US proposal is nothing new. From my perspective, it is an extension of the “non-market economy” standard in anti-dumping investigations under the US domestic law. In fact, through these domestic standards, the US has high-handedly judged the economies of other countries, and the extensive application of this standard led to arbitrary decision on using the “surrogate countries” data. These unilateral actions have made a lot of companies both from China and other developing members suffer from unjust duties, affecting millions of jobs. From our experiences, these standards are utterly incompatible with the non-discrimination principle of the multilateral trade system.

反补贴领域也是一样。我给大家讲一个实例。位于中国山西偏僻乡村的一家小企业，生产普通的铸铁污水管，却在2018年7月莫名其妙地遭到美国的反补贴调查，而且被认定的补贴率高达34.87%。这样明显荒唐的结论是如何做出的呢？第一，以中国存在国有企业为由推定中国要素市场严重扭曲；第二，采用第三国市场要素价格代替中国真实市场价格来计算补贴利益。按此推导，这家企业从政府得到铁矿石、废铁、焦炭、电力乃至贷款利率等各种补贴一大堆。而实际上，这些补贴纯属子虚乌有，这家企业真正可能来自政府的资助只有0.12%。错误地使用人为市场标准夸大别国补贴的情况，可以从圣加仑大学伊文尼特教授的研究中得到印证。

The same is in the countervailing investigations. Let me give you an example. A small company in a remote village of Shanxi province produces cast iron sewage pipes. They had completely no idea why in July 2018, their company was placed on the list of countervailing investigation by the US. The determined countervailing rate amounted to 34.87%.

We had a look at how the investigation arrived to such an erroneous conclusion. First, it was determined that since there’re state-owned enterprises in China, there must be a market distortion in production factors in China. Second, based on the first assumption, the countervailing rate was calculated using the prices in the third country market, while completely ignoring the real market prices in China. According to this reasoning, the company received various kinds of subsidies, including on purchases of iron ore, scrap iron, coke, electricity and even on interest rates of loans. In fact, the company received none of these so-called subsidies. The support it received from the government, if any, is only 0.12%. There’re many more examples of such distortions of using the US’s own standards to inflate the subsidies of other countries, which can be found in the studies by professor Simon Evenett from St. Gallen University.

“市场导向条件”，听上去很美好。我的厨师周末喜欢到山上采蘑菇，也积累了一些经验。他告诉我，越是看上去色彩艳丽的蘑菇越是要当心，因为它们很可能是有毒的。

The term “market-oriented conditions” may sound completely harmless. However, not all that is wrapped in gold paper is a chocolate. My chef likes to pick mushrooms on his weekends walks and has developed quite a bit of knowledge of mushrooms. He tells me: beware of the brightly coloured ones, they’re most likely to be poisonous.

‍‍‍‍‍

张向晨：现任中华人民共和国常驻世界贸易组织代表、特命全权大使。

H.E. ZHANG Xiangchen, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of China to the WTO.