下载客户端

张向晨大使批评美国破坏上诉机构并阐述中方有关WTO改革立场

2019-12-11 23:53

来源：澎湃新闻·澎湃号·政务

中国常驻世贸组织大使张向晨。

2019年12月9-10日，WTO召开2019年度第五次总理事会。WTO成员经过数月讨论形成的改进上诉机构总理事会决议草案因美国阻挠未能获得通过，上诉机构将暂停运转，张向晨大使发言批评美方错误做法。美国还提出一项议程——“非市场政策及行为对WTO的挑战”，称非市场行为导致贸易扭曲，对多边贸易体制构成严重威胁，要求成员联手应对。此外，美国在会上第五次提交有关发展问题提案，要求取消部分发展中成员的特殊与差别待遇。张向晨大使就上述问题阐述中方立场。

一、关于上诉机构危机

谢谢主席女士，

戴维·沃克大使组织成员讨论形成的改进上诉机构运作的总理事会决议草案因美国的反对没有通过。作为卓有成效的WTO贸易争端解决机制的重要组成部分，上诉机构将暂时停止运转。这毫无疑问是WTO成立以来多边贸易体制遭受到的最沉重的打击。

我预见到了这个结果，所以今天特意挑了一条黑色的领带。这是我夫人专门为我参加别人的丧礼准备的。但我不想表现出丝毫的沮丧，因为挫折可以促使我们清醒，帮助我们反思，督促我们前进。

WTO成立25年来，争端解决机制发挥了重要作用。专家组和上诉机构就200多个争端做出裁决，多数都得到顺利解决。香蕉、棉花、飞机、牛肉、贸易救济以及赌博案等等，那些成功化解的争端案例已载入史册。上诉机构也被人们誉为皇冠上的明珠，一时风光无限。

但当前全球化遭遇的逆流，不可能不反映到多边贸易体制当中来。单边主义、保护主义甚嚣尘上，有人试图以一己蛮力改变其他成员的贸易政策，而不再依赖WTO裁决，这些并不意外。但出乎我们意料的是，一个成员一意孤行就可以使上诉机构瘫痪，这反映了多边贸易体制的脆弱性。

上诉机构价值几何？对于尊崇多边主义的人来说，它价值连城；对迷信丛林法则的人来说，它一钱不值。对于世界贸易秩序来说，上诉机构的瘫痪可能带来不可弥补的损害和难以预料的后果。我们不能把今天所享有的稳定性和可预见性视为理所应当。

国际社会不能失去正义。我们当然相信，上诉机构迟早会恢复运转，明珠即便从皇冠上落入荒草，也仍难掩其光泽。我们注意到有117个成员呼吁立即启动遴选，这表明了大多数成员对恢复上诉机构的强烈政治意愿，我们因此支持沃克大使继续推动非正式磋商工作。特别重要的是，在我们反思如何改进上诉机构的时候，我们必须考虑如何防止其再次遭到系统性的破坏。

关于今后的争端解决，除专家组程序外，成员们仍有权使用DSU第25条规定的仲裁，这与个别成员是否高兴无关。在上诉机构恢复运转之前，虽然仲裁与上诉审理性质上有所区别，但毕竟可以保持两级审理的争端解决机制，“虽不中，亦不远”。

巴黎圣母院被烧是场悲剧，所幸里边的大部分文物都还在，法国人民终会将其修复。保留体制性记忆至关重要。今天还在职的上诉机构和上诉机构秘书处的所有专家，从司长到每一位律师，他们的知识、他们的专长和他们的经验都是极为宝贵的，是多边贸易体制的共同财富。

我们在对他们过去的杰出工作、超凡业绩和卓越贡献表示衷心感谢的同时，也祝愿他们善自珍摄，鼓励他们继续为巩固和完善多边贸易体制贡献心力。

谢谢主席女士。

二、关于“非市场经济政策及行为”

主席女士，

什么是非市场经济行为？动辄以国家安全为借口封杀别国企业和产品才是非市场经济行为。什么叫扭曲贸易？不顾WTO规则和自身承诺擅自提高关税就是扭曲贸易。

在WTO，每个成员的经济体制都是独特的，我们不承认任何人掌握着市场经济的金科玉律，也不允许任何人对我们的经济模式横加干预。我们从未否认，中国的市场经济体制还在不断完善之中，因而非常愿意听取国际社会关于中国改革的意见、建议和批评。对的我们就照着去做，不对的我们表示感谢之后继续走自己的路。与WTO规则有关的，我们严格按规则办事。WTO规则之外的，我们有权自主处理。当然，作为贸易大国，我们会以负责的态度考虑自身经济政策的外溢性。正因为如此，尽管中国政府从未实行过强制性技术转让政策，我们还是修改了《外商投资法》，明文禁止强制性技术转让；尽管中国对WTO的某些争端结果也有不满，我们还是接受和执行了所有案件的裁决；尽管有人说中国是重商主义者，我们还是连续两年举办进口博览会，鼓励从各国进口。顺便说一句，今年美国企业的参展面积达到4.75万平方米，位居各参展国首位；尽管有人说中国的服务市场不开放，我们还是于近期在加入WTO承诺之外自主做出了取消证券公司、证券投资基金公司、期货公司、寿险公司的外资持股比例限制；尽管有人对中国的产业政策扭曲市场竞争的指责不符事实，我们还是在着手编制第十四个五年规划时明确要求在打造市场化法治化国际化营商环境上取得更大进展；尽管有人污称中国国有企业都是“公共机构”的观点不值一驳，我们还是在加紧制定国有企业市场化改革三年行动方案。

在这个世界上，并不是谁的喇叭大谁就掌握真理。谁是补贴的主要提供者？有人想当然地认为是中国，因为他们被所谓中国提供巨额补贴的喧嚣声淹没了。但这是事实吗？错了！我仅举一个例子，根据圣加仑大学“全球贸易预警”数据库，2019年5月，美国的非农产品进口，有45%需要与接受美国国家补贴的企业竞争。这些补贴形式包括财政援助、国家贷款、税收和社会保险减免等。上述数据均根据对制造业提供的国内补贴来测算，未包括农业补贴和出口激励，否则影响的贸易数据还要大很多。中国的数字是多少？23.9%，是美国的53%。那么，谁是世界上最大的补贴者呢？

当然，对事实认知的差异并不一定妨碍我们就WTO改革达成一致意见。WTO规则包括补贴纪律是否可以改进？当然可以。发达国家包括美国的巨额农业补贴扭曲国际农产品贸易几十年了，早就应该全部取消。加强产业补贴纪律，防止救济措施被滥用是当务之急。恢复《补贴协定》第八条对落后地区和教育科研环保的不可诉补贴是应有之义。但如果有人想搞歧视性的补贴新规则，我们坚决反对。

主席女士，

我们愿意对所有与贸易有关的议题采取开放的态度，但正如我刚才提到的，WTO是管理贸易政策的，无权干涉成员的经济模式。贸易政策和经济模式的联系只是在于，如果一个成员的经济体制与其承担的国际贸易义务相协调、相适应，可能会更好地促进其经济发展。中国加入WTO就是一个很好的例子。为了遵守非歧视、透明度、国民待遇这些反映市场经济体制一般要求的多边贸易规则，中国改革了贸易管理体制，也在其他领域自主采取了一系列市场化措施，促进了整个经济体制改革的协调推进，实现了中国经济的快速持续发展，也为世界经济做出了贡献。有人也许会问，今后继续深化改革，中国难道不再需要借鉴国际规则和惯例了吗？当然需要。但是，我们不会接受别人乱扣的帽子，更不会在多边贸易体制框架下让别人给我们套上一副枷锁，再送给别人一根可以随时打击我们的大棒。

主席女士，

我认为，我和谢伊大使之间的分歧并非在于是否应修改WTO规则，而是从根本上我不接受美方一直试图建立的一套逻辑，即当前国际贸易关系紧张的根源，是所谓的中国的非市场经济体制和扭曲性的产业补贴政策，进而必须有针对性地制定多边规则对中国加以约束。在我看来，过去几十年，发展中国家包括中国参与经济全球化和融入全球价值链最重要的客观条件，一是科技的发展和传播，二是跨国公司产业布局的调整。发展中国家制定自己的发展战略和实施相关产业政策的重要性在于，抓住融入全球价值链的机遇并为这种融入创造必要的条件。由于总体上处于全球价值链的低端，发展中国家的收益和对国际贸易的影响与发达国家相比是不平衡、不对称的。发展中国家对本国产业的支持是合情合理合法的，但他们在支持能力上存在短板，与发达国家相比，支持的作用和效应是有限的，中国也不例外。某些发达国家社会矛盾激化，归根到底是由于这些国家的政府未能在经济全球化的进程中进行必要的国内政策调整，真正帮助那些陷入困境的人群。当前多边贸易体制危机的根源，是有人为了转嫁国内矛盾对外采取单边主义措施，而绝非其他什么原因。因此，WTO改革的首要和最紧迫任务就是抵制贸易保护主义，维护WTO的基本原则和核心价值，维持其基本功能的运转，而不是其他任何东西。

主席女士，

世界上并不是只有这个房间里的人关心WTO改革，也不是只有这个房间里的人清楚应该如何改革。关于中国经济模式与WTO的关系，我和谢伊大使在去年7月进行过辩论。我不喜欢重复自己说过的话，也不喜欢别人这样做。那么，就让我们听一听专家的看法吧。哈佛大学的丹尼•罗德里克教授是一位杰出的发展经济学家，我有幸曾在2002年拜访过他。去年他在《金融时报》发表文章，题为“WTO已失灵——贸易规则必须承认包括中国模式在内的经济模式多样化带来的利益”，他的话值得我们思考。他说，“公平的世界贸易体制应该承认经济模式多样性的价值，它应该在这些模式之间寻找妥协之道，而不是把规则卡紧。”10月18日，罗德里克等35位中美著名经济学家共同发表了《中美经贸政策工作小组联合倡议》，其核心观点是，面对不同的经济政策和模式，生硬脱钩不可取，按照自己的偏好强求一律不可行，尊重差异、平等协商、竞争共存才是出路。在推进WTO改革过程中，在我们还没有犯严重错误之前，我们应该记住罗德里克教授的忠告，“如果WTO失灵，那是因为我们把贸易规则的手伸得太长了。”

谢谢主席女士。

（第二轮发言）

主席女士，

本次总理事会议题很多，我无意占用大家更多的时间。我知道美国今天要求设置这个议题无非是为今后提出有关产业补贴的提案做铺垫，就像是暴雨来临之前的几声响雷一样。我只是有些好奇，中国老话说“十月怀胎，一朝分娩”，为什么那个提案两年了还没有搞出来？我最近睡眠不太好，也许和楼梯上的另一只靴子迟迟没有扔下来有关。我已经做好了辩论的准备，甚至准备着被说服——如果提案方讲的确有道理的话。别让我等得太久了。

谢谢主席女士。

三、关于发展中成员特殊与差别待遇

主席女士,

感谢谢伊大使的介绍，也感谢美方为修改其提案所做的努力。美方这样做至少符合了总理事会程序上的要求，即不重复讨论同一份文件。

关于实质内容，方向比努力更重要。

2018年，加拿大拍了一部很好看的电影《蜂鸟项目》（The Hummingbird Project）。蜂鸟挥动一次翅膀的时间大约是16毫秒，而如果降低金融交易所的网络延迟16毫秒，就可以赚大钱。于是两个操作员开始挖沟开路，修建光缆。但由于技术方向不对，当他们实现预期的降低延时目标时，市场早已采取了更先进的技术，他们的努力付诸东流。

回到美国的提案，世行的“高收入”标准并非必然与一国的发展阶段相联系。比如，安提瓜和巴布达只有10万人口，如果岛上出了一两个亿万富翁，即便其他人都是穷人，那这个国家也可以被计算为“高收入国家”，但却绝不可能是“发达”国家；再如，一些中东国家主要依赖于石油这一单一产品，由于气候问题几乎全部农产品都需要进口，国际市场的波动将会对结构单一和脆弱的经济带来巨大冲击，这样的国家也很难一律被称为“发达”国家。此外，G20也不是衡量一国发展水平的标准，只是发达国家与发展中国家共同应对全球危机的一个平台。

总之，人为制定的几个标准无法解决发展中国家面临的诸多挑战和问题。正确的方向是尊重各国根据自身的发展情况自行认定发展阶段，鼓励他们在能力范围内做出积极的国际贡献。

不久前，中国在服务贸易国内规制谈判中，提交了减让表修改草案，涵盖了所有做出承诺的部门。在这场具体谈判中，我们并未寻求使用给予发展中成员的特殊与差别待遇，包括过渡期，尽管我们认为特殊与差别待遇是国内规制谈判的有机组成部分，对其他一些发展中成员至关重要。在今后其它WTO谈判中，中方将会继续以务实和负责任的态度处理特殊与差别待遇问题，不去追求自身并不需要的灵活性，但也绝不会事先放弃应有的制度性权利。

谢谢主席女士。

四、关于WTO预算

主席女士，

今年这个预算是我见过的最糟糕的一个。它产生的过程被不幸地当作了政治工具，它颠倒了政策实施与财政保障的关系，影响了上诉机构的正常运转，破坏了秘书处的独立行政管理权限。

我们完全有理由对这个预算说不。但我们不能惩罚那些辛勤工作的秘书处员工，让他们带着灰暗的心情去迎接圣诞假期。假如我们有权力扣减那些破坏多边贸易体制人的薪酬的话，我会举双手赞成。

我唯一的希望是这个预算方案背后的丑陋能够引起人们足够的厌恶和警觉，从而避免在今后重蹈覆辙。

谢谢主席女士。

Statement by Ambassador Zhang Xiangchen of China

at the General Council Meeting

December 9 & 10, 2019

Item 5. Informal Process on Matters related to the Functioning of the Appellate Body - Report by the Facilitator and Draft Decision on the Functioning of the Appellate Body (WT/GC/W/791)

Madam Chair,

Due to the opposition by the United States, the General Council today failed to adopt the draft decision on improving the functioning of the Appellate Body, which is expected to be the outcome of consultations among Members led by Ambassador David WALKER. Today’s failure makes it happen that the Appellate Body, an important component of effective WTO dispute settlement mechanism, will temporarily go lights out. This is no doubt the most severe blow to the multilateral trading system since its establishment.

I foresaw this result and therefore chose to wear a black tie today. This tie was prepared by my wife for me to attend funerals. Nevertheless, I do not want to show even the slightest frustration, since the setback could help us to stay cool, stay reflective, and push us move forward.

Over the past 25 years since the establishment of the WTO, the dispute settlement system has played an outstanding role. Panels and Appellate Body have rendered decisions in almost 200 disputes and most have been settled smoothly and effectively. We still remembered those disputes regarding bananas, cotton, airplanes, beef, tuna, trade remedies, gambling, etc., just like it happened yesterday. Been regarded as the crown jewel, the Appellate Body had seized the limelight for quite a while.

However, the current backlash experienced by the globalization would inevitably spread to the multilateral trading system. Unilateralism and protectionism are on the sharp rise. It is therefore not surprising that someone attempts to use its might rather than WTO adjudications to change trade polices of other Members. What does surprise me is that one Member’s persistence to go on its own way could finally lead to paralyzing the whole Appellate Body. This reveals the fragility of the multilateral trading system.

What is the Appellate Body worth? For those who uphold the multilateralism, it is invaluable asset. For those who prefer the laws of jungle, it is worthless. For the world trade order, the paralysis of the Appellate Body may bring irreparable damages and unintended consequences. The security and predictability we have enjoyed cannot be taken for granted.

The international community cannot afford to lose justice. We have the very confidence that the Appellate Body will restore its functioning sooner or later. Even if the jewel falls from the crown into wild grass, its brilliance cannot be missed. We note that 117 Members have called on the immediate launch of selection process which is a strong testimony of the majority Membership’s political will to restore the Appellate Body. We therefore renew our supports to Ambassador Walker to continue the informal process. More importantly, when reflecting on the improvement of the Appellate Body, we have to consider how to protect it from future systemic sabotages.

In future dispute settlements, besides the panel proceedings, Members are still entitled to use the arbitration under Article 25 of the DSU, regardless of whether a member is happy or not. Yes, arbitration is not the same as the appellate review. It nevertheless could be utilized to preserve the two-tier dispute settlement system before the restoration of the Appellate Body, and the essentials of the current system could be reserved in spite of formality differences.

The burning of Notre-Dame de Paris is a tragedy, fortunately most of its cultural relics were salvaged from the fire, and the French people will restore it. To preserve the institutional memory is vitally important. Regarding Appellate Body Members, and experts within the Appellate Body secretariat, from its Director to each and every staff attorney, their knowledge, expertise and experience are of exceptional value which constitute the common treasure of the multilateral trading system. We should be truly grateful to their excellent work, outstanding performance and prominent contributions. At the same time, we wish them to take good care of themselves and encourage them to further contribute to enhance and improve the multilateral trading system.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Item 12. Challenges Posed to the WTO by Non-market Policies and Practices

Madame Chair,

We’ve heard “non-market policies and practices” referred many times. What is “non-market policies and practices” anyway? For me, it is the ban of foreign products and companies from normal trade under the disguise of national security without any substantive proof. We’ve also heard “distortion of trade”. What is exactly “distortion of trade”? For me, it is the blatant disregard of the WTO rules and one’s own commitments, and the unilateral raise of tariffs.

Every WTO Member has its unique economic system, and no one should have a monopoly on what is a market economy and what is not. And I don’t think any Member would allow others to dictate how we should run our own economies or our own models, not because it is good for us, but because it is good for them.

China’s market economy system is evolving and improving constantly. We welcome comments, suggestions and even criticisms from the international community on how to deepen our reforms. We will adopt those suggestions that could contribute to our economic growth, and we’ll say “thank you but no thank you” to those that will undermine it. For what is within the jurisdiction of the WTO, we shall adhere to those rules, as we have done in the past. For what is outside of the scope of the WTO, Members have full right to make their own decisions. Of course, as a large trading nation, China will responsibly consider the externalities of our economic policies.

As such, we have amended the Foreign Investment Law to explicitly prohibit forced technology transfer, although our government has never implemented such policies whatsoever. We have fully complied with the rulings and recommendations of the DSB in all disputes, despite our disagreement to some decisions. We have hosted China International Import Expo to spur imports for two consecutive years, regardless of the accusation that we are mercantilists. Fun facts by the way: the exhibition space taken up by American companies this year has reached 47,500 square meters, ranking first among all participating countries. We have voluntarily lifted restrictions on foreign equity cap of securities companies, securities investment fund companies, futures companies, and life insurance companies beyond our WTO commitments, although some blame that our services sectors are not open. Although it is not true that our industrial policies distort market competition claimed by some, we still explicitly requested that greater progress be made in creating a market-based, rule-based, and internationalized business environment when preparing the fourteenth five-year plan. Although the notion that all our state-owned enterprises are "public bodies" contradicts both the facts and the rules, we are still stepping up the formulation of a three-year action plan for the market-oriented reform of state-owned enterprises.

In today’s world, being loud doesn't make you right. We’ve heard so much about subsidies. Who is the main supplier of subsidies in this world? China? Wrong! It may be natural that China pops up in someone’s mind because we have been bombarded with the rhetoric about China’s massive subsidies. But is that the truth?

Let us look at the numbers. According to the “Global Trade Alert” database of the University of Saint Gallen, in May 2019, of all non-agricultural imports into the US, 45% have to compete with products produced by companies receiving subsidies from the US government. These subsidies include financial aid, state loans, and reduction or waiver of taxation or social insurance. Even that 45% does not represent the full picture of the US subsidies, because it only takes into account domestic subsidies to the manufacturing companies, but does not include agricultural subsidies and export incentives. You might wonder what is the percentage for China? It is 23.9%, roughly half of that of the US. So who is the largest subsidizer in this world?

Ambassador Shea has also mentioned about the recent Global Forum on Steel Excess Capacity. The Forum could have served as a communication and cooperation platform for relevant countries to address excess capacity issue. But regretfully, it has been hijacked by some countries as a tool to pressure and attack China, the biggest contributor to global capacity reduction, and ventured into a dead-end. We have to be clear that the Forum’s mandate has been set by all participating countries at three years which expires in December 2019. Therefore, its end is not a question of minority versus majority, but a natural course of expiration. However, that question does arise in the current Appellate Body crisis, where we have a situation of 1 versus 163. A single Member’s blockage failed all other Members’ obligation to fill the Appellate Body and jeopardized the whole multilateral trading system.

That being said, it does not necessarily prevent us from reaching possible agreements in the process of WTO reform. For example, should we and can we improve rules on subsidies? Of course we can. The massive agricultural subsidies provided by developed countries including the US have been distorting trade in agricultural products for decades, which should have been eliminated long ago. What else is urgently needed is putting a stop to the abuse of trade remedies, and restore Article 8 of the SCM Agreement to allow non-actionable subsidies to the disadvantaged regions and for education, research and environmental purposes. We will, however, firmly oppose any proposal of new subsidies rules that are discriminatory in nature.

Madame Chair,

We want to be open-minded about all trade related issues. But we need to be clear that the WTO’s mandate is to regulate international trade, not to dictate any Member’s model for development. The only linkage between trade policies and economic models is that if a Member's economic system is coordinated and adapted to its international trade obligations, it may better facilitate its economic development. China's accession into the WTO is a good example. On its accession, China adopted extensive reforms to align its trade laws and regulations with the multilateral trade rules that embody some general requirements of the market economy, such as non-discrimination, transparency and national treatment. At the same time, China also adopted a series of market-oriented initiatives in many other areas autonomously to promote the overall economic reform. These reforms have put China onto a path of rapid and sustained economic growth, which also contributed significantly to the development of the global economy.

Someone might ask: on its course of further reforms, shouldn’t China continue to take reference of the international rules and norms? The answer is certainly yes. However, what we heard today is nothing like that. What it aims to advance is not international rules representing the general interest of the WTO Members, but rather a set of biased and discriminatory requirements based on the self-interest of a small group of Members. It goes against the principles and purposes of the WTO, and will lead to nothing but discrimination and disruption.

The greatness of the sea lies in its capacity in taking in all the rivers. The multilateral trading system is also expected to be as inclusive to embrace Members with different economic systems and models, where they can coexist and learn from one another. We want to cooperate with other Members on the basis of mutual respect and on equal footing, and work together to improve the international economic governance. Nevertheless, we don’t want any “hat” to be thrown onto our head for things we have never done. In the reform of the WTO rules, we’ll never let anyone put a straightjacket on China and give them a stick.

Madame Chair,

I think the difference between Ambassador Shea and I is not in whether we should update the rules on subsidies, but rather in the underlying assumption that is fundamentally flawed. The assumption the US is trying to establish here is that the cause of today’s tension in international trade is the so-called “non-market economy” of China and the so-called “trade distortive industrial subsidies”. Hence there is a need to target China with a set of tailored multilateral rules to constrain these subsidies.

Looking back at the past decades, it is true that developing members, including China, have increased their share in global trade. Two factors played fundamental roles in this process: innovation and dissemination of technologies and development of global value chains of the multinational companies. The two factors combined have enabled developing members to participate in the economic globalization and become part of the supply chain of the multinational companies. The significance of developing their own development strategy and implementing relevant industrial policies for developing members is to seize the opportunity of integration into the global value chain and create necessary conditions for such integration.

However, we should also see that developing members are at the lower end of the value chains. What they can gain and how they can impact are limited. Developing members have legitimate rights and tools to support their domestic economic growth, but compared with the developed ones, their capacity to provide support to domestic industries and effectiveness of these supports are simply dwarfed. China is no exception.

In my view, the root of the social tension in some developed members today is that the governments failed to adjust domestic policies to keep up with the pace of economic globalization. Corporations are gaining tremendous profits from globalization, while the costs of globalization are borne by the working class, and governments are not providing sufficient redress to those negatively impacted by globalization.

This domestic tension makes its way into the multilateral system and is threatening to collapse it. Therefore, the greatest risk we face today is not subsidies, not insufficiency of rules, but rather “trade-bashing” by some Members to ease their domestic tensions. Therefore, the first and foremost objective of the reform of the WTO should be fighting against trade protectionism and upholding the basic principles and core values of the WTO, and we should not waste our time on scapegoating, trade-bashing and fence-building.

Madame Chair,

People in this room are not the only ones in the world concerned about the reform of the WTO, and we are certainly not the only ones who know about the reform. With regard to China’s economic model and the WTO, I’ve had a thorough debate with Ambassador Shea in July last year. I don’t like repeating myself, and I don’t think others like to repeat themselves. So perhaps let’s hear what experts say about this subject.

Professor Danny Rodrick from Harvard University is a prominent development economist well known in the trade circle. I’ve had the pleasure of meeting him in 2002. Last year, he published an article in the Financial Times, titled “The WTO has become dysfunctional: Trade rules must acknowledge the benefits of divergent economic models such as China’s”. In the article, he provided an insight worth contemplating in our efforts to improve the WTO system. He said, “A fair world trade regime would recognize the value of diversity in economic models. It should seek a modus vivendi among these models, rather than tighter rules.” On 18 October this year, Danny Rodrick along with 35 prominent Chinese and U.S. economists, including five Nobel Prize winners, released a Joint Statement of the US-China Trade Policy Working Group. They argued that neither decoupling nor forced convergence are options to address the differences in the economic policies and economic models. Only by respecting the differences, consultation on the equal ground and coexistence with competition can we find a way out. On our path to reform the WTO, before we spar ourselves to the edge of the cliff, we should remember his advice, “If the WTO has become dysfunctional, it is because our trade rules have over-reached”.

Thank you, Madame Chair.

(Second Intervention)

Madame Chair,

I have no intention to take up more of our time. We do have a long list to cover in today’s agenda after all.

To be frank, I know that the purpose behind this agenda item is to set the scene for a future proposal on industrial subsidies, like the thunder before a storm. Although everything takes its time to ripe, I was a bit curious that after two whole years why the proposal still hasn’t been unveiled yet. I haven’t been slept well lately, maybe because the wait for the other shoe to drop is simply too long.

I have prepared myself for a civilized debate, and if the proponent is convincing enough, even to be persuaded. Don’t leave me hanging.

Thank you, Madame Chair.

Item 13. Procedures to Strengthen the Negotiating Function of the WTO – Communications from the United States (WT/GC/W/757/REV.1 AND WT/GC/W/764/REV.1)

Madam Chair,

I would like to thank Ambassador Shea for his introduction and the United States for its efforts for revising its proposal. By doing so, the United States at least met the procedural requirements of the General Council, which is not discussing the same document repeatedly.

With regard to substance, direction is more important than effort. In 2018, Canada made a good movie named The Hummingbird Project. It takes the hummingbirds about 16 milliseconds to wave their wings once. If you reduce the network delay of the financial exchange by 16 milliseconds, you can make a lot of money. So two operators began to dig trenches and build fiber optic cables. But due to the wrong technology direction, the market already adopted more advanced technology when they achieved the expected reduction in delay. Their efforts were in vein.

Coming back to the revised US proposal, the World Bank's "high income" standards are not necessarily linked with a country's stage of development. For example, Antigua and Barbuda has only 100,000 people. If there are one or two billionaires on the island, this country can be counted as a "high-income one" even if everyone else is poor. But it is by no means a developed country. Some Middle Eastern countries mainly rely on the single product of oil. Due to climate issues and the fact that almost all agricultural products need to be imported, fluctuations in international markets will have a huge impact on the single-structured and vulnerable economy. It's hard to label them all as “developed”. In addition, the G20 is not a measurement of a country's level of development, but only a platform for developed and developing members to jointly cope with the global crisis.

To sum up, some artificially formulated standards cannot solve the numerous challenges and problems facing the developing members. The right direction is to respect each country's right of self-declaration based on their own development situation and encourage them to make international contributions within their capabilities.

Recently, China has submitted its indicative draft schedule of Specific Commitments in the DR JSI negotiation, which covers all the committed sectors. We did not claim any special and differential treatment, including the transition period, although we believe that S&DT is an integral part of domestic regulation negotiations and is vital to some other developing members. In other WTO negotiations in the future, China will continue to deal with SDT in a pragmatic and responsible manner, without pursuing flexibility it does not need. But China will not give up its due institutional rights in advance.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Item 20. Committee on Budget, Finance and Administration - Reports on Meetings of April, June, September, October and November 2019 (WT/BFA/179, WT/BFA/180, WT/BFA/181, WT/BFA/1823 WT/BFA/1834)

Madame Chair,

The tabled budget proposal is the worst one I ever worked on. It unfortunately came into being a political tool, which has reversed the relation between policy implementation and fiscal guarantee, affected the Appellate Body’s functions and undermined the independent administrative authority of the WTO Secretariat.

We have every reason to say no to this budget proposal; however, we have no reason to punish those diligent staffs of the WTO Secretariat, making them empty-handed and down-hearted for the Christmas holiday. If we could dock the pay of those who have been sabotaging the multilateral trading system, I would be all for it.

My only wish is that the ugly truth behind this budget proposal could raise sufficient alarm and strong aversion, so as to avoid falling into the same old trap again.