WTO’s Ruling Smacks of Western Bias

Published in Huanqiu
(China) on 31 January 2012
by Huo Jianguo (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Nathan Hsu. Edited by Gillian Palmer.
On Jan. 30, the WTO made its ruling on the suit brought by the U.S. and Europe against China regarding its export of raw materials, concluding that Chinese export limits on nine types of raw materials, including bauxite, coke and fluorspar, violated its terms of accession and that an unfair trade bias existed. Furthermore, the WTO requested that China lower its export duties, remove export quotas, etc.

After objecting that the WTO's panel of experts had made a biased decision on the case in July, China had [at the time] already brought up grounds for refutation and an appeal. We were greatly astonished by the results of the final ruling issued by the WTO this time, even to the point that doubts were raised about the related WTO regulations. Those doubts are whether the special clause concerning the involvement of non-renewable resources and environmental protection in article 20 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade was in effect, as well as whether the levying of export duties is the sole right of each nation, and should be respected [as such]. However, upon serious reflection, the WTO's ruling is unsurprising.

The core question is who controls the WTO, or simply put, who controlled the panel of experts on this case. [To find out, we] must look at who comprised the members on the panel of experts, and also whose interests they represented — the interests of the demand side or those of the supply side.

The core argument of this case is that China was coming from an attitude of being responsible in protecting the environment and strengthening regulation of natural resource products, especially managing the production and sale of raw materials which heavily pollute the environment, and furthermore has already gained positive results. However, these measures may have led to a rise in prices on the global market, or a temporary shortage in supply, thereby having an effect on several consumer countries' interests.

Ignoring the positive aspects and the public good in the effects of China's policies, the U.S. and European nations instead went on the warpath. One after another, they attacked our relevant policies, even going so far as to submit the case to the WTO's system of arbitration, using this to protect the West's economic interests. Because the WTO and its panel of experts — and even the workings of the system — are fundamentally directed by the West's influence, their aforementioned ruling is completely unsurprising.

This case exposed an even more serious problem, namely the issue of the WTO's fairness and authority. How to guarantee that the WTO's system of arbitration can independently make equitable rulings, as well as implement them, is a problem which has concerned everyone from the beginning. If it loses its fairness and authority, any ruling becomes meaningless.

I believe that the current global economy is directly approaching a period of transformation. The Western economies have all run into differing levels of difficulty in their development, with the only option for solving these difficulties and contradictions being to strengthen cooperation in trade and eliminate the obstructions of trade protectionism. However, real circumstances are precisely the opposite. Competition between the powers is growing more intense by the day and Western countries' trade protectionism is rising unchecked, severely interfering with the balanced development of the global economy and trade and blocking the path to globalization of economies and cooperation in trade.

Because the WTO is a multilateral trade organization, [the problem of] how to strengthen its equitable nature as well as its role in promoting the healthy development of global trade is extremely important. Obviously, hastening reforms of the WTO's systems currently in place and realizing the WTO's positive role participating in the governance of global trade has already been put on the agenda.

Huo Jianguo is president of the Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation.


作者:霍建國 商務部國際貿易經濟合作研究院院長


  1月30日,WTO就美歐國家起訴中國原材料出口案作出裁決,認為中國對鋁土、焦炭、螢石等九種原材料出口採取的限制措施違背了加入世貿組織的承諾,存在不公平貿易的傾向,並要求中國應降低出口關稅,解除出口配額限制等做法。


  此案在去年7月份世貿專家組做出了傾向性裁決意見後,中方已提出了反駁和申訴的理由。我們對WTO此次發表的終裁結果甚感詫異,甚至也對WTO的有關規則產生疑議,即關貿總協定第20條關於不可再生資源的及涉及環保的特別條款是否有效問題,以及加征出口關稅是否屬於一國主權、應受到尊重問題。但認真反思,WTO做出上述裁決結論,也並不為奇。


  核心問題是誰在操縱世貿組織,或簡單地說,誰在操縱此案的專家組。那要看專家組的成員是由誰組成,又代表了誰的利益,是需求方的利益,還是供給方的利益。此案的核心利益是,中方出自對環保負責的態度,加強並規範了資源性產品、特別是對環境污染嚴重的有關原材料生產和銷售的管理,並且已取得了積極的效果。但這些措施可能導致國際市場價格上漲,或供給出現暫時的緊張,從而影響了部分消費國的利益,而美歐國家不顧中方政策效果的公益性及積極方面,卻大興干戈,輪番對我有關政策進行攻擊,以致提交到WTO的仲裁機制,以此維護歐美的經濟利益。由於WTO及其專家組乃至運轉機制基本上是由歐美勢力主導,因此做出上述裁決就不足為奇了。


  這一案例暴露了一個更嚴重的問題,即WTO的公正性和權威性問題。如何保證WTO的仲裁機制能夠獨立地做出公正的裁決,並得到貫徹執行,是大家一直關心的問題。如果失去了公正性和權威性,任何裁決也就沒有意義了。


  我認為,當前世界經濟正面臨轉型期,歐美經濟發展都遇到了不同程度的困難,解決這些困難和矛盾的唯一出路只能是加強經貿合作,排除貿易保護主義的干擾。但實際情況恰恰相反,大國之間的競爭日益加劇,歐美國家的貿易保護不斷上升,嚴重地干擾了全球經濟貿易的平衡發展,阻礙了經濟全球化及經貿合作的大方向。


  WTO作為世界多邊貿易組織,如何加強其公正性以及在促進全球貿易健康發展方面的作用至關重要。顯然,加快對WTO現有機制的改革,發揮WTO在參與全球經濟治理中的積極作用,已提到議事日程。
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Germany: Trump’s Tariffs: China Acts, Europe Reacts

Japan: The Role of a Diplomatic Attitude To Maintain the International Order

Israel: Epstein Conspiracy: When the Monster Has a Life of Its Own and Rises Up

Ireland: US Tariffs Take Shine Off Summer Economic Statement

Spain: Another Threat from Trump

Topics

Ireland: US Tariffs Take Shine Off Summer Economic Statement

Israel: Epstein Conspiracy: When the Monster Has a Life of Its Own and Rises Up

Spain: Another Threat from Trump

Canada: Negotiating a Business Deal without Trust

Taiwan: Tariff Showdown Doesn’t Shake Confidence

Australia: Donald Trump Made MAGA a Promise on the Epstein Files. They Are Holding Him to It

Australia: What’s Behind Donald Trump’s Latest Crypto Adventure?

Related Articles

Germany: Trump’s Tariffs: China Acts, Europe Reacts

Australia: As Trump Turns His Back on Renewables, China Is Building the Future

Indonesia: US-China: Tariff, Tension, and Truce

China: US Chip Restrictions Backfiring

Thailand: US-China Trade Truce Didn’t Solve Rare Earths Riddle

Previous article
Next article