Ambassador Zhang Xiangchen
剛才，美國謝伊大使的發言，一下子讓總理事會變得火藥味十足。我們應該感謝他，是他提醒我們現在處于多邊貿易體制的空前危機當中，大家不能再悠閑地坐在湖畔享受夏日微風了。我特別要感謝他，7 月 13 日就把美國擬提交的《中國貿易破壞性的經濟模式》文件發給我，使我能夠提前消化它。但遺憾的是，這并非是什么佳肴美饌，而是味同嚼蠟。
The remarks by the US Ambassador Shea moment ago have made the air smell like gunpowder in this Council room. We should thank Ambassador Shea, as he reminded us that we are now in an unprecedented crisis of the multilateral trading system, and we can no longer sit leisurely by the lakeside, enjoying the sunshine and summer breeze. I would like to thank Ambassador Shea in particular for sending me a copy of the US submission on China’s Trade-Disruptive Economic Model on 13 July, so that I can digest this heavy cake before I come to this meeting. But much to my disappointment, that to me, it tastes more like a half-cooked dough than a cake.
我該如何回應呢？貿易政策審議是成員間相互評估貿易政策的機制，世貿組織第 7 次對華貿易政策審議剛剛結束，我的同事王受文副部長已經回答了美國文件中的很多問題。如果有人愿意在別的機制下批評其他成員的貿易政策，我不持異議。你若意猶未盡，我愿洗耳恭聽。盡管我不認為世貿組織是討論成員經濟模式的恰當場所，我還是選擇不阻攔總理事會議程的通過，阻礙正常程序使一個機構不能正常運轉， 那不是中國人的行事風格。
Then, how should I respond? As a matter of fact, the Trade Policy Review is a collective appreciation and evaluation of Members’ trade policy and practices. Two weeks ago, we have just finished the 7th Trade Policy Review of China, during which my colleague, Vice-Minister Wang Shouwen has answered quite many questions including those showed up in the US paper. Should any Members wish to criticize other Members' trade policy under other mechanism, I have no objection. If you feel like having more to say, I am then all ears. Although I do not believe the WTO is the appropriate place to discuss the economic models of Members, I chose not to block the adoption of this agenda item at today’s meeting of the General Council. Because blocking the normal proceedings and forcing a WTO body out of operation is definitely not our way of doing things.
針對美國文件里的指責，我完全可以重申中方在審議中的立場：中國的國有企業是自主經營自負盈虧的市場主體，產能過剩的根本原因是金融危機造成的需求收縮，中國沒有強制性技術轉讓的法律規定，中國的產業政策是指導性的，中國嚴格履行了入世承諾，中國執行了所有爭端解決的裁決，中國的發展惠及世界，作為發展中國家的中國在解決發展不平衡不充分方面依然任重道遠，等等，然后打烊收工。但是這樣做好像有些對不住那些起草文件的美國同事，他們畢竟花了不少功夫。來而不往非禮也。美國文件長達十幾頁，做出回應大約需要 30 分鐘。我一向不愿意作冗長發言，但今天懇請大家諒解。
In response to those charges raised by the US in its paper, I can reiterate what China has stated in our trade policy review,that is, the state-owned enterprises in China are market entities, carrying out autonomous operation and assuming sole responsibility for profits or losses; the root cause for overcapacity is contraction of global demand following the financial crisis; China has no legal provisions that impose compulsory requirements on technology transfer; the industrial policies in China are guidance in nature; China has strictly abided by its WTO accession commitments and implemented all dispute settlement rulings; China’s development has benefited the whole world; as a developing country, China still has a long way to go in terms of achieving comprehensive and balanced development and etc. I can go on elaborating all these facts and we can call it a day at the meeting. But for me, this might seem a bit unfair to our US colleagues who have spent many hours in drafting this paper. As we say, it is impolite not to reciprocate. The US submission has a dozen pages, to respond to it might take around 30 minutes. I never liked to make long interventions, but I’ll have to ask for your indulgence today.
I believe there are some basic rules to follow both in terms of giving and receiving criticism. For those who receive criticism, they should have an open mind for any criticism and embrace those criticisms that are fair and just. This should be the case no matter how harsh the criticism is or how much factual it is. We should treat the criticism in the spirit of correcting mistakes if you have made any and guarding against them if you have not. Actually in my Mission we are oftenhaving criticism and self-criticism among our colleagues. So please rest assured that we do have enough courage and broad mind to receive criticisms.
To be fair, for those who give criticism, they should also abide by some basic principles. For example, criticism should be based on facts, should refrain from putting labels on others, should use correct facts and correctly use facts, there should be clear logic in reaching conclusions through analyzing evidence. Only in this way, can criticism be convincing and produce good results.
Unfortunately, the US paper seems to fall short of these principles. Let me just give you a few examples.
First, regard one’s own views as others’ positions or even the multilateral rules.
1992 年，當中國宣布建立社會主義市場經濟時，我記得清清楚楚，就在旁邊的 RoomW會議廳，當被問及什么是社會主義市場經濟，中國代表回答，我們所說的社會主義市場經濟就是中國共產黨領導的市場經濟。26年過去了，我們從未改變過自己的觀點。至于有些人認為中國加入世貿組織后會改旗易幟，那只是他們的一廂情愿而已。世界上市場經濟不只有一種模式，中國在努力探索符合中國國情的市場經濟道路，并且已經取得了巨大的成就，不管別人說什么，我們都會堅定不移地沿著這條道路走下去。
Back in 1992, when China announced that it would build a socialist market economy, right in the Room W, a question was posed to a Chinese delegate, that is, what is a socialist market economy? I clearly remember this delegate replying that the socialist market economy was the market economy under the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party. 26 years passed since then, we have never changed our position. As for those who speculated that China would change and move onto a different path upon its WTO accession, but that was just their wishful thinking. There are more than one model of market economy in this world. China has been vigorously exploring a road of market economy which suits China’s own national situation and circumstances, and we have made remarkable progress in this endeavor. Whatever others may say, we will march along this road unswervingly.
In his remarks, Dennis mentioned the term “non-market nature of China’s economy”. However, we can't find the definition of “market economy” throughout the WTO rule book. There is no one-size-fits-all “market economy” standard in the world. The WTO rules never authorize any Member to use its own economic model as the template of “market economy”, and to accuse any other Member who would not copy it as a “non-market economy”.
If there is any relevance in the topic of "non-market economy", it reminds us once again that there are certain Members, including US, who, disregarding the WTO rules and their own commitments, are still using the notorious “surrogate country” methodology in anti-dumping investigations according to the “market economy” standards of their domestic laws. I would like to take this opportunity to urge these Members once again, “pacta sunt servanda”. Please honor your commitments 17 years ago.
Paragraph 1.5 of the US paper partially quoted an expression from the Communiqué of the Third Plenary Session of the 18th Central Committee, that is, “the government plays its role better”. The US paper intentionally omitted the rest part of sentence, which says “the market should play a decisive role in allocating resources”. In this regard, it is critically important to recognize the decisive role that market plays in allocating resources, as this is precisely the economic and institutional basis upon which China promotes its economic and trade relations with the WTO Members. Please allow me to give you a full quote of the entire paragraph in the Communiqué. “Economic structural reform is the focus of deepening the reform comprehensively. The underlying issue is how to strike a balance between the role of the government and that of the market, and let the market play the decisive role in allocating resources and let the government play its functions better. It is a general rule of the market economy that the market decides the allocation of resources. We have to follow this rule when we improve the socialist market economy. We should work hard to address the problems of imperfections in the market system, too much government interference and poor oversight.”
Similarly, preamble of the US paper partially quoted the Marrakech Declaration of 1994, that the multilateral trading system should be “based upon open, market-oriented policies”. However, the paper intentionally omitted the rest part of sentence, which says “ (based upon ... ) and the commitments set out in the Uruguay Round Agreements and Decisions”. This second half sentence is extremely important, as each Member has its own domestic policy objectives, and that the results of multilateral negotiations are a balance between Member’s domestic policies and the process of global trade liberalization. Such balance is reflected in the trade rules, the tariff schedules and services schedules of Members, which contain descriptions of Members’ legitimate regulatory policies and measures. To put it simple, the WTO Agreement is a set of contracts achieved through negotiations. Within the scope of those contracts, Members abide by the conditions set forth in the contracts. Beyond the scope of those contracts, Members have their own policy space.
中國憲法第十六條對國有企業的自主經營權做了明確規定。美方文件花了大量筆墨試圖說明政府對企業的“控制”， 但卻沒能提供政府干預企業正常經營活動的證據。我曾就這個問題與一位美國高級官員辯論，他也未能提供證據，最后他說，控制不是科學而是藝術。話說至此，辯論當然無法繼續，但我在心里卻不能認同成千上萬的中國企業是由一群藝術家控制的觀點。在座的很多同事都清楚，美國真正的目的不只是想證明中國企業受政府控制，而且希望建立這樣一種邏輯關系，即因為企業受控制，所以它們是履行政府職權的“公共機構”，應承擔相應世貿組織協定比如補貼協定下的義務。可惜，這種邏輯被世貿組織上訴機構駁回了。上訴機構在 DS379 案的裁決中明確指出，“不能僅僅因為一個實體的所有權性質或者是否受政府控制來認定該實體是公共機構。” 我知道美國同事一直對輸掉這個官司耿耿于懷，但上訴機構的裁決不容挑戰。
The Article 16 of China’s Constitution clearly states that state-owned enterprises have decision-making power over their operation and management. The US paper spends many paragraphs trying to argue that the Chinese government “controls” enterprises. But the paper failed to provide evidence to prove that the government intervenes in the normal operation of the enterprises. I once had a debate with a US senior official over this point. He later conceded that he was unable to provide evidence. At the end of our debate, he said that control was not science, it was an art. With his such words, the debate was adjourned. But for me, I would not agree with the notion that thousands of enterprises in China are controlled by a group of artists. It is known to many colleagues present today that the real purpose of the US is not only trying to prove that Chinese enterprises are controlled by the government, but also trying to establish kind of logic. That is, so long as enterprises are controlled by the government, they therefore assume and perform part of government functions and therefore should be deemed as “public bodies” in the context of WTO and should undertake obligations under the WTO agreements such as Subsidies and Countervailing Agreement. Unfortunately, such logic was overturned by the Appellate Body. In the US-China Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties case, the Appellate Body stated that “the mere ownership or control over an entity by a government, without more, is not sufficient to establish that the entity is a public body”. I was told that our American colleagues have been quite unhappy with losing this case, but the ruling of the Appellate Body cannot be challenged.
讓我再舉一個例子，文件第一部分第 1.14 段，美國批評中國將“社會信用體系”作為“監控在華企業的新工具”。而實際上中國探索建立社會信用體系是為了營造公平誠信的市場環境，中國的做法借鑒了德國、法國等 60 多個國家建立公共征信系統的經驗。難道僅僅因為這個系統和美國的信用系統有所區別就成了控制企業的工具？
Let me give you another example. In paragraph 1.14 of the paper, the US questioned China for using “Social Credit System” as “new tool to monitor, rate and condition the conducts of all enterprises in China”. But the fact is that such a system is meant to create a fair and credible business environment and prevent fraud and misbehavior. And China’s “Social Credit System” is based on the experiences of over 60 countries that have established a similar public credit system, including in France and Germany. Is it simply because of its differences from that of the US that such system becomes a tool to monitor and control enterprises?
Second, there lacks consistency in the standards used in assessing Members’ policies.
發達國家是產業政策和補貼的發明者和主要使用者。正是 18 世紀末美國漢密爾頓的《制造業報告》開啟了制定產業政策的先河。今天美國的《先進制造業伙伴計劃》（AMP）《信息高速公路計劃》（NII）等不就是美國的產業政策嗎？ 根據美國補貼監控組織“好工作優先”統計， 2000-2015 年這 15 年間，美國聯邦政府以撥款或者稅收抵免形式至少向企業補貼了 680 億美元。
The developed countries are inventors and major users of industrial policies and subsidies. It is actually Alexander Hamilton who pioneered the concept of industrial policies in his 1790 Report on Manufactures. Today, the US Advanced Manufacturing Partnership (AMP), the US National Information Infrastructure (NII), to name a few, are key industrial policies in the US. According to the Good Jobs First, a US national policy resource center that tracks subsidies, the US federal government has allocated a total of 68 billion USD in the form of government grants and tax credits from year 2000 to 2015.
Like other countries, China also has developed some industrial policies for strategic and planning purposes. These policies have played certain role in China’s social and economic development. But in the US paper, these policies are described as rocket engines, which is plainly exaggerating. If that were the case, there would be no need for any country to work hard and enhance their productive capacity, rather all countries can simply rush to draw up fancy industrial policies. In this regard I can share some personal experiences. Several years ago, I served as the Director General for the Policy Research Department in the Ministry of Commerce and I had been involved in developing some plans. A former colleague from that Department recently visited me, saying with a bit of surprise and confusion that: “I used to feel frustrated quite often with the actual effect of the plans that I had joined in developing, but happily now some people are saying these plans had changed China and shocked the world. I never realize that I myself and my plan can be so powerful.” I said to him: “Wake up, you should know better what those plans can do.”
Third, there are missing links between evidences and arguments.
Mr. Qu Dongyu is Vice-Minister of Agriculture and Rural Affairs in China and also an agricultural scientist. He is my friend and came to Geneva a few weeks ago. When we met, I asked him what makes a scientist different from an ordinary person. He replied that you seldom hear a Yes or No answer from a scientist. They can talk a lot about facts in a descriptive manner, but they would be very cautious to give you any conclusions. Of course, we cannot use the scientists as a benchmark for everyone. But it is scientifically wise not to draw hasty conclusions before making thorough analysis.
美方文件第二部分第 2.9 段的論點是中國的計劃經濟越來越多，使用的證據是有多達幾千家的機構參與了產業政策的制定過程。在我看來，這個論據只能說明中國產業政策是在廣泛征求意見基礎上制定的，是公開透明的。
Let us get back to the US paper, the Paragraph 2.9 argues that China’s planned economy “has become more, not less salient over the past 20 years”. The evidence used to support this argument is that thousands of agencies participate in planning industrial policies. To me, these facts only prove that the mechanism for setting industrial policies has become more open and transparent, that government agencies making policies increasingly rely on extensive consultations with stakeholders.
In section 4 of the US paper, entitled “Benefits to China of its economic model”, the US pointed to several facts, such as “China has seized on the benefits of WTO membership to rapidly develop its economy” and the lower cost of China’s manufacturing owes to “economies of scale and more advanced supply-chain development”. But from these facts, this section jumps to questioning China’s status as a developing country and criticizing China as exempting itself from contributing to liberalization of global trade rules, without providing any cause and effect analysis. It is hard to see how China’s development has benefited from its developing country status. All countries and regions join the WTO with a view to developing their economies, and that principle was stated in the Preamble of the WTO Agreement. The reason why China has been able to make contribution to the global development is precisely because that we have achieved growth through developing our own economy, and more importantly, sharing the opportunities and benefits with the rest of the world.
Fourth, there are lack of seriousness in selecting and using evidences.
我不僅讀了美方文件的正文部分，也看了它的 88 個腳注，有些腳注里的內容現在還沒找到。我的同事說也許因為我是巨蟹座的，所以特別關注細節。但這里的每一個人都知道魔鬼在細節里。一份文件如果腳注有問題，論據就靠不住，論點就值得懷疑。請讓我分享幾個發現：
I have read very carefully the US paper, not only its main part, but also the 88 footnotes. For some footnotes, I could not find the sources as referred. My colleagues were saying that because I was born in June and I am a Cancer in the Zodiac, so I often pay too much attention to the details. But as we all know, the devil is in the details. If a paper has flaws in its footnote, then its evidence may be called into question and its arguments will be put into doubt. Let me share a few.
文件第一部分第 1.3 段稱中國限制市場力量發揮作用，其依據是腳注 2 的中國《物權法》，而《物權法》明明規定“支持、鼓勵、引導”非公有制發展。為什么在美國同事的眼里，“支持、鼓勵、引導”卻等同于打壓、限制和干擾呢？
Paragraph 1.3 of the paper says that China limits the power of the market and cites in its footnote China’s Property Law as a source. But the fact is that the Property Law clearly says that China “encourages, supports and guides the development of the non-public economy.” I wonder why in the eyes of our US colleagues, the very words “encourage, support and guide” could be misread as “suppress, limit and intervene”.
文件第三部分“非互惠和封閉的市場”這一節和其他部分有個不同之處，三段文字竟然沒有一個腳注。我想可能是不太好找吧，與此結論相反的腳注卻很容易找，我忍不住想幫忙提供幾個：2017 年中國對世界經濟增長的貢獻率為 34%。中國是 120 多個國家和地區的最大貿易伙伴。這樣的例子在中國剛剛向總理事會提交的《中國與世貿組織白皮書》（WT/GC/W/749）中隨處可見。還有，謝伊大使擔任美中經濟與安全審查委員會副主席時聯合簽署的委員會 2013 年度報告指出，“中國航空航天、汽車工業和農產品等行業的需求增長支撐了美國出口”。如果中國是一個非互惠和封閉的市場，美國產品是怎進去的呢？
Section 3A of the paper is entitled “non-reciprocal and protected market” of China. But one particularity over this section is that it has not a single footnote. I presume it is difficult to find evidence that can support this argument. However, if we reverse the argument, we can find plenty of evidences. Let me just offer a few. In 2017, China’s contribution to the growth of the world economy is 34%. China is the largest trading partner for over 120 countries and regions. There are plenty more such evidences in the white paper on China and the World Trade Organization that China has recently submitted to the General Council in the document WT/GC/W/749.The 2013 Report to Congress of the US-CHINA Economic and Security Review Commission co-signed by Ambassador Shea stated that “growing demand from China has supported American exports in certain sectors of the US economy, such as aerospace, the auto industry and agricultural products”. If China had been a “non-reciprocal and protected market”, how did those US products enter the Chinese market?
對文件 3.5 段產能過剩這部分，我也愿意貢獻一個腳注。圣加倫大學教授伊文尼特（Simon Evenett）5月3日發表了一篇文章《不要對制造業產能過剩問題惱羞成怒》，里面提到中國對G20 成員出口產品的86%都不是來自所謂的產能過剩行業。他所參與的全球貿易預警（Global Trade Alert）項目對 16 家中國和 31 家其他國家的上市鋼鐵公司財務報告進行了研究，發現中國公司獲得的補貼占銷售收入的比例只有不到 0.4%，而很多其他國家公司獲得的補貼比這高得多。
I would also like to contribute a footnote to paragraph 3.5 on excess capacity. On 3 May, Professor Simon Evenett published an article entitled “Don’t go spare over excess capacity in manufactures”, which provided that 86% of China’s exports to the G20 countries are not coming from the so-called sectors with excess capacity. The Global Trade Alert that he runs has examined financial reports of 16 Chinese and 31 non-Chinese listed steel companies. The figures show that subsidies only accounted for less than 0.4% of sales revenue of the Chinese steel companies, while for many non-Chinese steel companies, that share is much higher.
Mr. Chairman. For comment on the US paper, maybe I should stop here. As for the other submission by the US, which is the 2017 Report to Congress on China’s WTO Compliance, I believe there is no need for me to comment on it. I feel a bit sorry for our USTR colleagues who have worked so hard to produce these documents. In fact, I quite respect them though. The reason why I have identified some questions in their submissions is to help them improve the quality of their criticism. I know for sure that this has nothing to do with their professionalism and diligence. But we all know if we start writing with a preoccupied viewpoint, then the paper’s quality will be less than our expectation.
In China we have an old saying that it only takes three people to make you believe there is a tiger around. The story runs like this. One day, someone told the Emperor that there was a tiger rambling around the Capital. The Emperor did not believe him. Later in the day, another person told the Emperor the same thing. He still did not believe it. But when the Emperor heard the same story from a third person, he ordered his generals to go out and hunt for the tiger. This story tells us that a fiction repeated enough times may become a belief. This is maybe the anticipated results wanted by those who are labeling others. I do not think they have a bigger chance of success, as this may work the opposite way in that those who are labeling others will change from the hired agents in the Strategies of the Warring States to the boy who cried wolf in the Aesop's Fables. This is because the facts and truth can never be covered or altered. As I said in a recent interview, someone criticized China as a Mercantilist country, but have you ever seen a Mercantilist country that cuts tariff voluntarily? Have you ever seen a mercantilist country that hosts an International Import Expo to increase import from around the world?
Currently, the WTO is facing the unprecedented challenges. We have to be fully aware which country’s trade measures are most disruptive. How disruptive are the Section 232 measures that restrict import of steel and aluminum using national security as a pretext? How disruptive are the Section 301 measures that unilaterally impose tariffs on imports? If compared to the FIFA World Cup, these measures have severely undermined the rules of game and deserve a couple of red cards. What is worse, the US is blocking the referees from performing their duties by obstructing the reappointment of the Appellate Body members.
As mentioned in the beginning, I have an open mind for criticisms, even if they maybe unjust attack and not in good faith. We may just laugh it off. For China, holding our feet to the fire never worked. In the past, external pressure only made a nation of generations of hard working people striving for a purpose. And for now, criticisms help us to keep a cool head while moving forward. For the WTO, the only way to resolve differences is through consultations on equal footing, to find out about the root cause, the nature and implications of the problems and explore their relationship with the WTO rules. Extortion, distortion or demonization does no good to resolve the issues.
我們從未否認過中國經濟體制中存在的問題，中國進入了改革的深水區，我們的工作還存在許多不足，也面臨不少困難和挑戰，對有益的批評和建議我們求之不得，如饑似渴。在對華貿易政策審議中，很多成員向中國提出了建設性的意見和建議。在座的同事都聽了瑞士大使尚博文（ Didier Chambovey）先生作為引導人的評論，我認為他的評論是建立在深入考察、客觀分析基礎之上的真知灼見。他給我印象最深的一句話是，“世貿組織成員具有多樣性，有著各自不同的經濟模式，有著各自不同的管理貿易投資的框架。但在這種多樣性當中，有一種共同的東西，即大家都相信市場的力量，盡管程度有所不同。”他指出的從高速度轉向高質量發展和處理好市場與政府作用關系方面中國所面臨的諸多挑戰，正是我們今后改革的重點。對于這種中肯的意見，我們會心悅誠服地接受。對于這種以嚴謹的態度提出批評意見的人，我們愿意把他們當作我們的先生，隨時向他們請教。
We have never denied that there are problems in China’s economic system, and China’s reform is entering into the deep water zones. We face many challenges and there are much more to be done. We readily welcome the constructive criticisms and suggestions, which we are more than happy to consider. In the Trade Policy Review of China two weeks ago, many Members provided constructive comments and suggestions. We have all heard the comments by H.E. Ambassador Didier Chambovey of the Switzerland as discussant in China’s TPR. I commend him on his statement as it is based on in-depth insight and objective analysis. For me, the most impressive sentence from his concluding remarks is this: “Membership at the WTO is multifaceted. We all have different types of economic models, differing frameworks for trade and investment. Yet at the centre of this diverse universe is a more or less common belief in the virtues of market forces.” Ambassador Chambovey rightly pointed out that in the transition from huge quantity to high quality, and in properly handling the relationship between the government and the market, China still has many challenges to overcome. And this is exactly the priority for China’s future reform. With regard to such good faith and objective opinion, we would accept wholeheartedly. And those who kindly give us good faith and just comments, we would regard them as our teachers and learn from them constantly.
Having listened to the interventions of other members and the second intervention by Ambassador Shea, I think I need to make a recap. Members can of course comment on other member’s economic policies and their relationship with the WTO, but to do that, I think we should have the courage to look first into ourselves and also have a sense of where the border line is.
孔子說過“不遷怒”。不能因為自己的問題沖別人發火。任何所謂的結構性問題歸根到底都是國內問題。例如，不解決美國儲蓄率低的問題，貿易逆差是不可能根本解決的。在批評別人的時候不要忘記自己是怎么走過來的，像發達國家一樣，發展中國家保護知識產權水平的提高需要一個過程，發展中國家也需要通過制定產業政策幫助實現工業化，像巴基斯坦的沙淘奇 (Tauqir Shah)大使說的不能做過河拆橋、上房抽梯的事。
Confucius said that we should not vent our anger on others, or blame others for our own failure. We all know that at the end of the day, all structural issues are domestic issues. For instance, if the US does not increase its savings rate, it’s unlikely that it can solve its problem of trade deficit. Before criticizing others, we should think twice if we have done similar things in the past. Like developed counties done in the past, today’s developing countries also need time to enhance their protection of intellectual property right, or develop their industries through strategic planning and policies. As Ambassador Tauqir Shah said during China’s TPR, we cannot burn the bridge after crossing the river.
Laozi, the founder of Taoism, said if you know when to stop, you’ll not face danger. There’re boundaries to both WTO’s functions and our capacities. We should focus on those areas where members have shared concerns and could potentially make progress. We should not get ourselves into debating issues that are beyond the realm of the WTO and beyond our capacities.
That being said, for sure we need to think about the future of the WTO, and explore how to make the multilateral system compatible with the changes in the globalization. China is willing to play a constructive role and make its contribution. However, at the present moment, the paramount task for the WTO is to curb the spread of unilateralism and protectionism, to bring the dispute settlement to its full function and to stop the trade war. We should not waste our time finding scapegoats or look away from these fundamental challenges.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.