中国入世五周年：美国观点

作者：美国贸易代表苏珊•施瓦布(Susan Schwab)
2006年12月11日 星期一


五年前的12月11日，发生了现代经济史上最重要的事件之一：中国加入了世界贸易组织(WTO)。周年纪念日的到来提供了一个契机，使我们可以通过由美国国会批准、美国贸易代表办公室(USTR)最近发布的一份报告，对中国融入全球经济和履行WTO义务的状况进行评估。

这个纪录完全是好坏参半。过去5年，中国以坚定的信心，对部分经济结构和政府结构进行了改革。中国颁布或修订了1000多部法律法规，以使其贸易体系符合 WTO规则。中国还降低了对美国工业至关重要的商品的关税，从1997年的平均25%降至今天的7%，农产品关税也有类似幅度的削减。

此外，中国降低或消除了大量的非关税壁垒，放宽了国际服务提供商的市场准入条件，提高了政府程序的透明度。过去五年中，这些措施促进了中美两国的经济增长，使得美国对华出口增长了190%左右。今天，中国已成为美国第四大出口市场——10年前的排名为第15位。

入世还促进了中国的法制建设，让中国服从于国际争端解决程序。然而，回顾过去一年，我们看到了一些令人不安的迹象，显示中国的改革势头已开始放缓。中国国内反对进一步开放市场的呼声开始高涨，政府——特别是省级政府——对经济的干预有所加强。

尽管美国企业遭遇全面禁止或禁止性关税的情形有所减少，但一系列监管障碍和政府政策，却使它们在华开展业务面临着不确定性。

本周晚些时候，我将随其他政府官员一道，加入财长汉克•保尔森(Hank Paulson)率领的访华代表团，与中国展开新的战略经济对话。作为此次对话的一部分，我们将明确传达我们的观点：改革放缓会阻碍中国的发展，并损害美中双边关系的健康态势。

美国贸易代表办公室发现的最严重挑战之一是，尽管中央政府官员采取了各项措施，打击非法侵犯知识产权的行为，但中国的这一违法行为依然猖獗。假冒、盗版和知识产权保护不力，掠夺了美国企业每年高达数十亿美元的合法销售收入，损害了中国自身知识型产业的发展。

同样令人不安的是，中国还在利用产业政策来限制商品进口，依靠政府补贴来鼓励出口、保护非竞争性行业，并设置监管障碍，阻碍美国服务提供商进入中国市场。 从钢铁到电信，中国许多其它领域，并没有完全从计划经济转为市场经济，这种不彻底性造成了大量的扭曲现象，可能使中国和全球经济面临风险。在农业领域，我 们很高兴地看到美国对华出口的增长。但中国的一些做法让该国成为全球最不透明、最难以预测的市场之一，我们的出口商仍因此而感到沮丧。

美国今年的对华贸易逆差将超过2005年的2020亿美元。造成巨额贸易逆差的因素既有财政和货币政策的差异，也有储蓄、投资和消费模式的不同。我们的贸 易政策可以帮助将贸易失衡降低到封闭市场或不公平贸易实践所引发的失衡的程度。美国贸易代表办公室和其它美国政府机构，正通过美中商贸联合委员会(US- China Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade)和其它双边论坛，积极解决我们与中国的贸易问题。多哈(Doha)回合贸易谈判下的多边谈判、WTO诉讼和贸易补偿法的实施，是其它的一些重 要途径。无论是通过对话、谈判还是争端解决机制，中国都必须信守改革的承诺。

我们希望与这个幅员辽阔、发展迅速的经济体建立强大的贸易关系。这将在出口、就业和增强经济竞争力等方面，为美国带来巨大的潜在益处。然而，这取决于中国的继续改革，取决于中国承诺以市场参与者（而非官僚们）的决策为基础，扩大自由而公平的贸易。

本文作者是美国贸易代表。








CHINESE VOICES THAT OPPOSE REFORM GROWLOUDER

SUSAN SCHWAB
Monday, December 11, 2006


One of the most important events in modern economic history occurred five years ago today when China joined the World Trade Organisation. This anniversary provides the opportunity to take stock – through a congressionally mandated report issued today by the office of the US Trade Representative – of China’s integration into the global economy and its compliance with WTO obligations.

The record is profoundly mixed. China has moved with resolve to reform some of its economic and governmental structures over the past five years. It has enacted or revised over 1,000 laws and regulations to help bring its trading system into compliance with WTO rules. It has also reduced tariffs on goods of great importance to US industry from an average of 25 per cent in 1997 to 7 per cent today, with similarly significant reductions for agricultural products.

In addition, it has reduced or eliminated numerous non-tariff barriers, increased market access for international service providers and improved the transparency of its governmental procedures. These steps have expanded economic growth in both countries and contributed to a roughly 190 per cent increase in US goods exports to China over the past five years. Today, China is America’s fourth largest export market – up from 15th a decade ago.

WTO accession has also helped promote the rule of law in China and subjected the country to binding international dispute settlement procedures. Nevertheless, looking back on the past year, we see troubling indications that China’s momentum towards reform has begun to slow. Voices in China opposing further market liberalisation have grown louder and government intervention in the economy, especially at the provincial level, has increased.

While facing fewer blanket prohibitions or prohibitive tariffs, US companies face an array of regulatory obstacles and government policies that make doing business in China uncertain.

Later this week, I will join other administration officials on a trip to China as part of the new strategic economic dialogue led by Treasury secretary Hank Paulson. As part of this dialogue, we will clearly convey our view that a slowdown in reform hinders China’s development and undermines the health of our bilateral ties.

One of the most serious challenges identified by USTR is the rampant infringement of intellectual property rights that persists in China in spite of efforts by central government officials to move against this illegal practice. Counterfeiting, piracy and inadequate enforcement of intellectual property protections rob US businesses of billions of dollars a year in legitimate sales and weaken China’s development of its own knowledge-based industries.

Of equal concern is China’s continued use of industrial policies that limit imports of goods, government subsidies that encourage exports and protect non-competitive industries, and regulatory barriers that impede participation in China’s market by US service providers. There are many other areas, from steel to telecommunications, where China’s incomplete move away from a centrally-planned to a market-based economy is creating massive distortions that could leave the Chinese and global economies at risk. In agriculture, we are pleased by the rise in US exports to China. But our exporters continue to be frustrated with practices that make China one of the world’s least transparent and predictable markets.

The large US trade deficit with China, which this year will exceed the $202bn reached in 2005, is due to factors including differences in patterns of saving, investment and consumption as well as fiscal and monetary policies. Our trade policies can help reduce the imbalance to the extent it arises from closed markets or unfair trade practices. USTR and other US government agencies are aggressively addressing our trade concerns with China through the Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade and other bilateral forums. Multilateral negotiations under the Doha round of trade talks, litigation through the WTO and the applrade remedy laws are other important avenues. Whether through dialogue, negotiation or dispute settlement, China must be held to its commitments to reform.

We want a strong trade relationship with this vast and fast-growing economy. The potential benefits for Americans – in exports, jobs and greater economic competitiveness – are enormous. But that depends on China’s continued reform, and on a commitment to expand free and fair trade based on decisions by the actors in the market – not by bureaucrats.

The writer is US trade representative