二、中美經(jīng)貿(mào)關(guān)系的事實(shí)
II. Clarifications of the facts about China-US trade and economic cooperation

中美經(jīng)貿(mào)交往規(guī)模龐大、內(nèi)涵豐富、覆蓋面廣、涉及主體多元，產(chǎn)生一些矛盾分歧在所難免。兩國應(yīng)以全局綜合的視角看待，從維護(hù)兩國戰(zhàn)略利益和國際秩序大局出發(fā)，以求同存異的態(tài)度妥善處理分歧，務(wù)實(shí)化解矛盾。但是，現(xiàn)任美國政府通過發(fā)布《對(duì)華301調(diào)查報(bào)告》等方式，對(duì)中國作出“經(jīng)濟(jì)侵略”、“不公平貿(mào)易”、“盜竊知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)”、“國家資本主義”等一系列污名化指責(zé)，嚴(yán)重歪曲了中美經(jīng)貿(mào)關(guān)系的事實(shí)，無視中國改革開放的巨大成績和中國人民為此付出的心血汗水，這既是對(duì)中國政府和中國人民的不尊重，也是對(duì)美國人民真實(shí)利益的不尊重，只會(huì)導(dǎo)致分歧加大、摩擦升級(jí)，最終損害雙方根本利益。
Economic cooperation and trade between the two countries is so huge, substantive and broad-based, with so many players, that it is inevitable for some differences and friction to emerge. The two countries need to take a comprehensive perspective, keep in mind their strategic interests and the international order, properly handle their differences by seeking common ground while shelving differences, and take practical steps to resolve their tensions. However, in its Section 301 report and other ways, the current US administration stigmatizes China by accusing it of “economic aggression”, “unfair trade”, “IPR theft” and “national capitalism”. This is a gross distortion of the facts in China-US trade and economic cooperation. It turns a blind eye to the huge progress in China’s reform and opening-up as well as the dedication and hard work of the Chinese people. This is disrespectful to the Chinese government and people as well as incompatible with the real interests of the American people. It will only aggravate differences and tensions, which in the end will damage the fundamental interests of both countries.

（一）不應(yīng)僅看貨物貿(mào)易差額片面評(píng)判中美經(jīng)貿(mào)關(guān)系得失
1. The gap in trade in goods alone is not a good indicator of China-US trade and economic cooperation.

客觀認(rèn)識(shí)和評(píng)價(jià)中美雙邊貿(mào)易是否平衡，需要全面深入考察，不能只看貨物貿(mào)易差額。中國并不刻意追求貿(mào)易順差，事實(shí)上，中國經(jīng)常賬戶順差與國內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值之比已由2007年的11.3%降至2017年的1.3%。中美貨物貿(mào)易不平衡現(xiàn)象更多是美國經(jīng)濟(jì)結(jié)構(gòu)和現(xiàn)有比較優(yōu)勢(shì)格局下市場(chǎng)自主選擇的自然結(jié)果，解決這一問題需要雙方共同努力進(jìn)行結(jié)構(gòu)性調(diào)整。美國無視影響中美經(jīng)貿(mào)關(guān)系的多方面因素，片面強(qiáng)調(diào)兩國貨物貿(mào)易不平衡現(xiàn)象，將責(zé)任歸咎于中國，是不公平、不合理的。
An objective understanding and assessment of China-US trade balance calls for comprehensive and in-depth study, rather than a glance at the trade deficit in goods. It is not China’s intention to have a trade surplus. Rather, the ratio of China’s current account surplus to its GDP has declined from 11.3% in 2007 to 1.3% in 2017. The imbalance of trade in goods between China and the US is more of a natural outcome of voluntary choices the US has made in economic structure and market in the light of its comparative strengths. To resolve this issue, both sides need to make concerted efforts in restructuring. The United States turns a blind eye to various factors in its trade and economic cooperation with China, singles out the imbalance of trade in goods, and blames China for the imbalance, which is unfair and unreasonable.

中美經(jīng)貿(mào)往來獲益大致平衡。中美雙邊貨物貿(mào)易不平衡現(xiàn)象有一個(gè)歷史演變過程。在上世紀(jì)80年代至90年代初期美國一直處于順差地位，1992年之后中國轉(zhuǎn)為順差并持續(xù)增加。
China-US trade and economic cooperation delivers balanced benefits in general. The imbalance of trade in goods between the two countries has evolved over time. From the 1980s to early 1990s, the US ran a surplus in its trade with China; in 1992 China began to run surplus, which has continued to grow.

在經(jīng)濟(jì)全球化深入發(fā)展、國際化生產(chǎn)普遍存在的今天，雙邊經(jīng)貿(mào)關(guān)系內(nèi)涵早已超出貨物貿(mào)易，服務(wù)貿(mào)易和本國企業(yè)在對(duì)方國家分支機(jī)構(gòu)的本地銷售額（即雙向投資中的本地銷售）也應(yīng)考慮進(jìn)來。綜合考慮貨物貿(mào)易、服務(wù)貿(mào)易和本國企業(yè)在對(duì)方國家分支機(jī)構(gòu)的本地銷售額三項(xiàng)因素，中美雙方經(jīng)貿(mào)往來獲益大致平衡，而且美方凈收益占優(yōu)（圖4）。根據(jù)中國商務(wù)部統(tǒng)計(jì)，2017年美國對(duì)華服務(wù)貿(mào)易順差為541億美元，美國在服務(wù)貿(mào)易方面占有顯著優(yōu)勢(shì)。根據(jù)美國商務(wù)部經(jīng)濟(jì)分析局?jǐn)?shù)據(jù)，2015年美資企業(yè)在華銷售額高達(dá)4814億美元，遠(yuǎn)高于中資企業(yè)在美256億美元的銷售額，美國占有4558億美元的優(yōu)勢(shì)，美國企業(yè)跨國經(jīng)營優(yōu)勢(shì)更為突出。2018年6月德意志銀行發(fā)布的研究報(bào)告《估算美國和主要貿(mào)易伙伴之間的經(jīng)濟(jì)利益》認(rèn)為，從商業(yè)利益角度分析，考慮到跨國公司的全球經(jīng)營對(duì)雙邊經(jīng)貿(mào)交往的影響，美國實(shí)際上在中美雙邊貿(mào)易交往過程中獲得了比中國更多的商業(yè)凈利益。根據(jù)其計(jì)算，扣除各自出口中其他國家企業(yè)子公司的貢獻(xiàn)等，2017年美國享有203億美元的凈利益（注12）。
In today’s world of greater globalization and widespread international production, bilateral trade and economic cooperation already extend beyond trade in goods. Trade in services and sales of local subsidiaries in the host country (local sales in two-way investment) should also be included. If we give full consideration to these three factors—trade in goods, trade in services and sales of local subsidiaries in the host country, trade and economic cooperation delivers balanced benefits in general for China and the United States, with the latter reaping more net benefits. (See Chart 4)According to MOFCOM, the US ran a surplus of US$54.1 billion in trade in services in 2017, indicating its remarkable competitive strength in this area. According to the US Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), the sales of US companies in China reached US$481.4 billion in 2015, way higher than the US$25.6 billion sales of Chinese companies in the US, an advantage of US$455.8 billion. US companies enjoy an even bigger advantage in cross-border operations. In June 2018, Deutsche Bank released a report on calculating economic interests between the US and its major trading partners, arguing that, from the perspective of commercial interests, the US has in fact gained more commercial net benefits than China from their two-way trade, given the impact of global operations by multinational corporations on bilateral trade and economic cooperation. According to Deutsche Bank, after contributions from subsidiaries of third countries are taken away, the US enjoyed net benefits of US$20.3 billion in 2017.

中美貨物貿(mào)易差額是美國經(jīng)濟(jì)結(jié)構(gòu)性問題的必然結(jié)果，也是由兩國比較優(yōu)勢(shì)和國際分工格局決定的。中美雙邊貨物貿(mào)易差額長期存在并不斷擴(kuò)大，是多重客觀因素共同作用的結(jié)果，并不是中國刻意追求的結(jié)果。
The gap in China-US trade in goods is a natural outcome of the US economic structure, and a result of the two countries’ comparative strengths and the international division of labor. The persistent and growing gap in trade in goods between the two countries is a result of a number of factors, rather than China’s intent.

第一，這是美國國內(nèi)儲(chǔ)蓄不足的必然結(jié)果。從國民經(jīng)濟(jì)核算角度看，一國經(jīng)常項(xiàng)目是盈余還是赤字，取決于該國儲(chǔ)蓄與投資的關(guān)系。美國經(jīng)濟(jì)的典型特征是低儲(chǔ)蓄、高消費(fèi)，儲(chǔ)蓄長期低于投資，2018年第一季度，美國凈國民儲(chǔ)蓄率僅為1.8%。為了平衡國內(nèi)經(jīng)濟(jì)，美國不得不通過貿(mào)易赤字形式大量利用外國儲(chǔ)蓄，這是美國貿(mào)易逆差形成并長期存在的根本原因。自1971年以來，美國總體上處于貿(mào)易逆差狀態(tài)，2017年與102個(gè)國家存在貿(mào)易逆差。美國貿(mào)易逆差是一種內(nèi)生性、結(jié)構(gòu)性、持續(xù)性的經(jīng)濟(jì)現(xiàn)象。美國目前對(duì)中國的貿(mào)易逆差，只是美國對(duì)全球貿(mào)易逆差的階段性、國別性反映。
First, it is a natural outcome of a low savings rate in the US. From the perspective of national accounts, the balance of a country’s current account is decided by the relationship between savings and investment. The US economy is characterized by low savings and high consumption. Savings have been lower than investment for many years. In the first quarter of 2018, the US net national savings rate was as low as 1.8%. To balance its domestic economy, the US has to attract a large amount of foreign savings by trade deficit. This is the fundamental cause of the US trade deficit over the years. The US began to run trade deficits in its foreign trade in 1971, and by 2017 it was running trade deficits with 102 countries. The US trade deficit is an endogenous, structural and sustained economic phenomenon. The current trade deficit of the US with the rest of the world has shifted among its trading partners and resides with China for the time being.

第二，這是中美產(chǎn)業(yè)比較優(yōu)勢(shì)互補(bǔ)的客觀反映。從雙邊貿(mào)易結(jié)構(gòu)看，中國順差主要來源于勞動(dòng)密集型產(chǎn)品和制成品，而在飛機(jī)、集成電路、汽車等資本與技術(shù)密集型產(chǎn)品和農(nóng)產(chǎn)品領(lǐng)域都是逆差。2017年，中國對(duì)美農(nóng)產(chǎn)品貿(mào)易逆差為164億美元，占中國農(nóng)產(chǎn)品貿(mào)易逆差總額的33%；飛機(jī)貿(mào)易逆差為127.5億美元，占中國飛機(jī)貿(mào)易逆差總額的60%；汽車貿(mào)易逆差為117億美元。因此，中美貨物貿(mào)易不平衡是雙方發(fā)揮各自產(chǎn)業(yè)競爭優(yōu)勢(shì)的情況下市場(chǎng)自主選擇的結(jié)果。
Second, it is a fair reflection of the complementarity and comparative strengths of Chinese and US industries. In terms of trade mix, China’s trade surplus with the US mainly comes from labor-intensive products and manufactured goods, and its trade deficit with the US lies in capital- and technology-intensive products such as aircraft, integrated circuits, and automobiles, as well as agricultural products. In 2017, China ran a US$16.4 billion trade deficit with the US in agricultural products, accounting for 33% of China’s total trade deficit in the agricultural sector; a US$12.75 billion trade deficit with the US in aircraft, accounting for 60% of China’s total trade deficit in this sector; China also ran a US$11.7 billion deficit in automobile trade with the US. Therefore, the imbalance in trade in goods is a result of voluntary market choices where both countries have played to their industrial competitive strengths.

第三，這是國際分工和跨國公司生產(chǎn)布局變化的結(jié)果。隨著全球價(jià)值鏈和國際分工深入發(fā)展，跨國公司利用中國生產(chǎn)成本低、配套生產(chǎn)能力強(qiáng)、基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施條件好等優(yōu)勢(shì)，來華投資設(shè)廠組裝制造產(chǎn)品，銷往包括美國在內(nèi)的全球市場(chǎng)。從貿(mào)易主體看，據(jù)中國海關(guān)統(tǒng)計(jì)，2017年中國對(duì)美貨物貿(mào)易順差的59%來自外商投資企業(yè)。隨著中國承接國際產(chǎn)業(yè)轉(zhuǎn)移和融入亞太生產(chǎn)網(wǎng)絡(luò)，中國在很大程度上承接了過去日本、韓國等其他東亞經(jīng)濟(jì)體對(duì)美的貿(mào)易順差。據(jù)美國商務(wù)部經(jīng)濟(jì)分析局統(tǒng)計(jì)，日本、韓國等東亞經(jīng)濟(jì)體占美國總逆差的比值，由1990年的53.3%下降為2017年的11%，同期中國對(duì)美貿(mào)易順差的占比則由9.4%上升為46.3%（圖5）。
Third, it is a result of the international division of labor and the changing configuration of production locations by multinational companies. As the global value chain and international division of labor expand, multinational companies have come to establish factories in China to assemble and manufacture products and sell them to the US and the global market, thanks to China’s low production costs, strength in auxiliary production, and reliable infrastructure. When it comes to players in foreign trade, according to China Customs, 59% of China’s trade surplus with the US was contributed by foreign-invested enterprises in China in 2017. In the process of receiving international industrial relocation and joining the Asia-Pacific industrial network, China has, to a large extent, taken over the trade surpluses of Japan, the ROK and other East Asian economies with the US. According to US BEA, the shares of Japan, the ROK and other East Asian Economies in the total US trade deficit have declined from 53.3% in 1990 to 11% in 2017, while China’s trade surplus with the US has risen from 9.4% to 46.3% in the same period. (Chart 5)

第四，這是美國對(duì)華高技術(shù)產(chǎn)品出口管制的結(jié)果。美國在高新技術(shù)產(chǎn)品貿(mào)易方面擁有巨大競爭優(yōu)勢(shì)，但美國政府基于冷戰(zhàn)思維，長期對(duì)華實(shí)施嚴(yán)格的出口管制，人為抑制了美國優(yōu)勢(shì)產(chǎn)品對(duì)華出口潛力，造成美企業(yè)喪失大量對(duì)華出口機(jī)會(huì)，加大了中美貨物貿(mào)易逆差。據(jù)美國卡內(nèi)基國際和平基金會(huì)2017年4月的報(bào)告分析（注13），美國若將對(duì)華出口管制放松至對(duì)巴西的水平，美國對(duì)華貿(mào)易逆差可縮減24%；如果放松至對(duì)法國的水平，美國對(duì)華貿(mào)易逆差可縮減35%。由此可見，美國高技術(shù)產(chǎn)品對(duì)華出口的潛力遠(yuǎn)未充分發(fā)揮，美國不是不可以減少對(duì)華貿(mào)易逆差，只是自己關(guān)閉了增加對(duì)華出口的大門。
Fourth, this is the consequence of US export control over high-tech products exported to China. The US boasts huge competitive strength in high-tech trade. Yet, haunted by the cold-war mentality, it imposes strict export controls on China, thereby limiting the potential of advantageous US exports, causing significant lost export opportunities, and widening its trade deficit with China. According to a report by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in April 2017 , if US export controls on China were relaxed to the level of those on Brazil, its deficit could be cut by 24%, and 35% if relaxed to the level of France. Evidently there remains a huge potential to be tapped in high-tech exports to China. If the US had not itself closed the door, it could well have seen its trade deficit reduced.

第五，這是美元作為主要國際貨幣的結(jié)果。二戰(zhàn)結(jié)束后確立了以美元為中心的布雷頓森林體系，一方面，美國利用美元“囂張的特權(quán)”（注14）向世界各國征收“鑄幣稅”，美國印制一張百元美鈔的成本不過區(qū)區(qū)幾美分，但其他國家為獲得這張美鈔必須提供價(jià)值相當(dāng)于100美元的實(shí)實(shí)在在的商品和服務(wù)。另一方面，美元作為主要國際貨幣客觀上需要承擔(dān)為國際貿(mào)易提供清償能力的職能，美國通過逆差不斷輸出美元。美國貿(mào)易逆差背后有其深刻的利益基礎(chǔ)和國際貨幣制度根源。
Fifth, this is the result of the US dollar being a major global currency. The Bretton Woods system established after WWII was based on the US dollar. On the one hand, the US uses its “exorbitant privilege” to levy seignorage on all countries. For the US the cost for printing a hundred-dollar bill is no more than a few cents, but other countries will have to provide real goods and services in exchange for that note. On the other hand, as a major global currency, the US dollar supports global trade settlements, and the US supplies US dollars to the world by way of a deficit. Therefore, beneath the US trade deficit lie profound US interests and the very root of the international currency system.

此外，美國統(tǒng)計(jì)方法相對(duì)高估了中美貨物貿(mào)易逆差額。中美雙方的統(tǒng)計(jì)差異長期存在，且差異較大。2017年，中國統(tǒng)計(jì)對(duì)美貨物貿(mào)易順差為2758億美元，美國統(tǒng)計(jì)對(duì)華逆差接近3958億美元，相差1000億美元左右。由中美兩國商務(wù)部相關(guān)專家組成的統(tǒng)計(jì)工作組，每年就中美貿(mào)易統(tǒng)計(jì)差異進(jìn)行一次比較研究。根據(jù)該工作組測(cè)算，美國官方統(tǒng)計(jì)的對(duì)華貿(mào)易逆差每年都被高估20%左右。根據(jù)中國海關(guān)和美國商務(wù)部普查局的統(tǒng)計(jì)，雙方統(tǒng)計(jì)結(jié)果在最近十年來的走勢(shì)和變動(dòng)幅度大致相同（圖6）。引起差異的原因包括進(jìn)口價(jià)格和出口價(jià)格之間的差異、轉(zhuǎn)口貿(mào)易增值、直接貿(mào)易加價(jià)、地理轄區(qū)、運(yùn)輸時(shí)滯等。
In addition, US statistics exaggerate its deficit in trade in goods with China. There has been a significant and long-standing statistical divergence between China and the US. In 2017, Chinese statistics recorded a Chinese surplus of US$275.8 billion, while US statistics showed it to be US$395.8 billion, a gap of about US$100 billion. The statistical working group comprising experts from the USDOC and MOFCOM compare every year the statistics from China and the US, and estimate that the US statistics overstate the trade deficit with China by 20% every year. According to statistics from China Customs and the USDOC, the dynamics of and gap between the two statistics have been largely the same over the past decade.(Chart 6) Causes for divergence include differences between CIF and FOB prices, transit trade value-added, direct trade markup, geographical jurisdiction, and shipping time delay.

若以貿(mào)易增加值方法核算，美國對(duì)華逆差將大幅下降。中國對(duì)外貿(mào)易具有大進(jìn)大出特點(diǎn)，中美貿(mào)易亦是如此。據(jù)中國商務(wù)部統(tǒng)計(jì)，從貿(mào)易方式看，中美貿(mào)易不平衡的61%來自加工貿(mào)易。中國在很多加工制成品出口中獲得的增加值，僅占商品總價(jià)值的一小部分，而當(dāng)前貿(mào)易統(tǒng)計(jì)方法是以總值（中國對(duì)美出口的商品全額）計(jì)算中國出口。世貿(mào)組織和經(jīng)合組織等從2011年起倡導(dǎo)以“全球制造”新視角看待國際化生產(chǎn)，提出以“貿(mào)易增加值核算”方法分析各國參與國際分工的實(shí)際地位和收益，并建立了世界投入產(chǎn)出數(shù)據(jù)庫。以2016年為例，據(jù)中國海關(guān)按照傳統(tǒng)貿(mào)易總值的統(tǒng)計(jì)，中國對(duì)美順差額為2507億美元；但若根據(jù)世界投入產(chǎn)出數(shù)據(jù)庫，從貿(mào)易增加值角度核算，中國對(duì)美貿(mào)易順差為1394億美元，較總值方法減少44.4%。
If calculated by value added, the deficit would decrease significantly. China’s foreign trade is characterized by large-scale imports and large-scale exports in processing, which applies to its trade with the US as well. According to MOFCOM, by trade methods, 61% of the China-US trade imbalance comes from processing. The value added in China accounts for only a small portion of the total value of many products, while the current approach is to calculate an export by aggregate (total value of goods exported). The WTO and the OECD started to advocate in 2011 a global perspective on production, and proposed to analyze the roles and benefits of all countries participating in the global distribution of labor by the approach of value-added accounting, for which the database WIOD was established. As an example, in 2016 conventional statistics show China’s surplus with the US to be US$250.7 billion. Based on the WIOD database and using the value-added approach, this would become US$139.4 billion, a 44.4% decrease from the aggregate approach.

（二）不應(yīng)脫離世界貿(mào)易組織的互惠互利原則談?wù)摴劫Q(mào)易
2. The discussion of fair trade should not be detached from the principle of mutual benefit of the WTO

近年來，美國從倡導(dǎo)“自由貿(mào)易”轉(zhuǎn)向強(qiáng)調(diào)所謂“公平貿(mào)易”，并賦予其新解釋?，F(xiàn)任美國政府強(qiáng)調(diào)的所謂“公平貿(mào)易”不是基于國際規(guī)則，而是以“美國優(yōu)先”為前提，以維護(hù)美國自身利益為目標(biāo)。其核心是所謂“對(duì)等”開放，即各國在每個(gè)具體產(chǎn)品的關(guān)稅水平和每個(gè)具體行業(yè)的市場(chǎng)準(zhǔn)入上都與美國完全一致，尋求絕對(duì)對(duì)等。在美國政府看來，美國與其他國家市場(chǎng)開放“不對(duì)等”使美國處于不公平的貿(mào)易地位，并導(dǎo)致雙邊貿(mào)易不平衡。這種對(duì)等概念，與世界貿(mào)易組織的互惠互利原則并不一致。
In recent years, the US has turned away from “free trade” to advocating so-called “fair trade”, to which it has added new meanings. Unlike previous administrations, the incumbent administration emphasizes a “fair trade” that is not based on international rules but “America first”, or the protection of America’s own interests. The core is so-called “reciprocal” opening, an idea of absolute equality, believing that all countries should apply identical tariff levels and provide identical market access in all sectors in their dealings with the US. In the eyes of the US government, the lack of reciprocity in market opening in other markets puts the US in an unfair position, and leads to bilateral trade imbalances. Such a concept of reciprocity is inconsistent with the reciprocal and mutually advantageous principle of the WTO.

世界貿(mào)易組織所提倡的互惠互利原則，考慮了各國發(fā)展階段的差別。在世界貿(mào)易組織框架下，發(fā)展中成員享有差別和更優(yōu)惠待遇。這種制度安排是在尊重發(fā)展中國家和地區(qū)發(fā)展權(quán)的基礎(chǔ)上，積極吸納新的發(fā)展中成員加入，以擴(kuò)大成員數(shù)量、增強(qiáng)多邊體制的包容性，也體現(xiàn)了以當(dāng)期優(yōu)惠換取后期開放的互惠原則。對(duì)于發(fā)展中成員而言，由于其處于發(fā)展初期階段，需要對(duì)產(chǎn)業(yè)適度保護(hù)以促進(jìn)良性發(fā)展，其市場(chǎng)隨經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展擴(kuò)大后，也將為發(fā)達(dá)國家?guī)砀嗌虡I(yè)機(jī)會(huì)。發(fā)展中成員享有差別和更優(yōu)惠待遇，符合包括發(fā)達(dá)成員在內(nèi)的各國各地區(qū)長期利益，這種制度安排是真正意義上的國際公平。2001年，中國通過多邊談判以發(fā)展中成員身份加入世界貿(mào)易組織，享受發(fā)展中成員待遇。十幾年來，中國經(jīng)濟(jì)實(shí)現(xiàn)了快速發(fā)展，但仍然是一個(gè)發(fā)展中國家。由于中國有13.9億人口，經(jīng)濟(jì)總量數(shù)據(jù)顯得較為龐大，但這沒有改變?nèi)司l(fā)展水平較低的現(xiàn)實(shí)。根據(jù)國際貨幣基金組織數(shù)據(jù)，2017年中國人均國內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值8643美元，僅為美國的14.5%，排在世界第71位。2017年末中國還有3046萬農(nóng)村貧困人口。僅以中國經(jīng)濟(jì)和貿(mào)易總規(guī)模較大為依據(jù)，要求中國和美國實(shí)現(xiàn)關(guān)稅絕對(duì)對(duì)等是不合理的。美國追求絕對(duì)對(duì)等的做法，違背了世界貿(mào)易組織最惠國待遇和非歧視性原則（專欄1）。
The principle of reciprocity of the WTO takes into consideration different development stages by granting special and differential and more favorable treatment to developing members. This arrangement aims to attract new developing members, increase the WTO’s representation and enhance the inclusiveness of the multilateral system, while respecting the right to develop of developing countries and regions. It enshrines the principle of mutual benefit in exchanging present favors for future opening. Developing members that are in the initial stage of development need appropriate protection for their industries to promote sound growth, which will provide more opportunities for developed countries in time. This differential and more favorable treatment is in the long-term interests of all countries and regions, including developed members, and this is genuine global fairness. In 2001, China joined the WTO as a developing member and has been treated as such. It still remains a developing country even after more than a decade of rapid economic development. China’s large population of 1.39 billion dilutes massive economic figures to low levels on a per capita basis. According to IMF statistics, in 2017 the per capita GDP of China was US$8,643, only 14.5% of that of the US, and ranking 71st in the world. By the end of 2017 there were still 30.46 million rural people living in poverty. It is unfair to demand absolute equality in tariffs between China and the US simply on the grounds of China’s economic aggregate and trade volume. The absolute equality approach also violates the MFN and non-discrimination principles of the WTO (Box 1).

圖表：專欄1 所謂“對(duì)等”開放不符合世界貿(mào)易組織非歧視性原則 新華社發(fā)

世界貿(mào)易組織所提倡的互惠互利原則，是各國就所有產(chǎn)業(yè)開放市場(chǎng)實(shí)現(xiàn)總體互惠和利益平衡，并非狹義局限于每個(gè)產(chǎn)業(yè)或產(chǎn)品承諾水平對(duì)等。由于資源稟賦、產(chǎn)業(yè)競爭力的差異，很難實(shí)現(xiàn)兩個(gè)經(jīng)濟(jì)體絕對(duì)對(duì)等開放，不同產(chǎn)業(yè)關(guān)稅水平是有差異的。如果按照美國絕對(duì)對(duì)等邏輯，美國自身也有大量不公平和不對(duì)等的情況。例如，中國對(duì)帶殼花生、乳制品和貨車征收的關(guān)稅分別為15%、12%和15%－25%，而據(jù)世界貿(mào)易組織關(guān)稅數(shù)據(jù)顯示，美國相應(yīng)的關(guān)稅分別為163.8%、16%和25%，均高于中國（表2）。
The reciprocity and mutual benefit principle advocated by the WTO means overall reciprocity and balance of interests in market opening across all the industries of the members, rather than narrowly defined reciprocity of treatment for a specific industry or product. Given the differences in endowment and competitiveness, absolutely reciprocal opening would be virtually impossible, and tariffs in different industries diverge. Even if we follow this absolute reciprocity logic of the US, unfair and non-reciprocal practices are more than common in the US. For example, China’s tariffs on peanuts in the shell, dairy products and trucks are 15%, 12% and 15-25% respectively, while WTO tariff figures show those of the US to be 163.8%, 16% and 25%, all higher than China. (Table 2)

事實(shí)上，中國在切實(shí)履行加入世界貿(mào)易組織承諾后，還主動(dòng)通過單邊降稅擴(kuò)大市場(chǎng)開放。截至2010年，中國貨物降稅承諾全部履行完畢，關(guān)稅總水平由2001年的15.3%降至9.8%。中國并未止步于履行加入世界貿(mào)易組織承諾，而是通過簽訂自由貿(mào)易協(xié)定等方式推進(jìn)貿(mào)易投資自由化，給予最不發(fā)達(dá)國家關(guān)稅特殊優(yōu)惠，多次以暫定稅率方式大幅自主降低進(jìn)口關(guān)稅水平。根據(jù)世界貿(mào)易組織數(shù)據(jù)，2015年中國貿(mào)易加權(quán)平均關(guān)稅稅率已降至4.4%，明顯低于韓國、印度、印度尼西亞等新興經(jīng)濟(jì)體和發(fā)展中國家，已接近美國（2.4%）和歐盟（3%）的水平；在農(nóng)產(chǎn)品和制成品方面，中國已分別低于日本農(nóng)產(chǎn)品和澳大利亞非農(nóng)產(chǎn)品的實(shí)際關(guān)稅水平（表3）。2018年以來，中國進(jìn)一步主動(dòng)將汽車整車最惠國稅率降至15%，將汽車零部件最惠國稅率從最高25%降至6%；大范圍降低部分日用消費(fèi)品進(jìn)口關(guān)稅，涉及1449個(gè)稅目，其最惠國平均稅率從15.7%降至6.9%，平均降幅達(dá)55.9%。目前，中國關(guān)稅總水平已進(jìn)一步降為8%。
China, having fulfilled its WTO commitments, has voluntarily engaged in unilateral tariff reductions to expand market opening. By 2010, all commitments in goods had been fulfilled, with the overall tariff level decreased from 15.3% in 2001 to 9.8%. Yet China did not limit itself to WTO commitments; it has promoted trade and investment liberalization through FTAs, given special treatment in tariffs to LDCs, and significantly reduced import tariffs using provisional tariffs on several occasions. According to the WTO, China’s weighted tariff in 2015 had fallen to 4.4%, significantly lower than that of emerging economies and developing countries such as the Republic of Korea, India and Indonesia, approaching that of the US (2.4%) and the EU (3%). China’s tariffs on agricultural products are lower than the real tariffs of Japan, and lower than those of Australia for non-agricultural goods (Table 3). From the beginning of 2018, China further voluntarily cut the MFN rate on whole vehicles to 15%, and the MFN rate on auto parts from a maximum 25% to 6%. China has reduced import tariffs for 1,449 daily necessities, with the MFN rate down by an average of 55.9%from 15.7% to 6.9%. Currently, China’s overall tariff rate has been reduced to 8%.

美國所主張的“公平貿(mào)易”和“對(duì)等開放”，否定各國發(fā)展階段、資源稟賦和優(yōu)勢(shì)產(chǎn)業(yè)的客觀差異，無視發(fā)展中國家發(fā)展權(quán)，勢(shì)必會(huì)對(duì)發(fā)展中國家經(jīng)濟(jì)和產(chǎn)業(yè)造成沖擊，造成更大范圍的不公平，最終也不利于美國企業(yè)擴(kuò)大國際市場(chǎng)，分享發(fā)展中國家發(fā)展機(jī)遇。
The idea of “fair trade” and “reciprocal opening up” advocated by the US ignores the existence of objective differences among countries in terms of stage of development, resources, and competitive industries, and ignores developing countries’ right to develop. It will create an impact on the economy and industries of the developing countries, result in broader inequality, and eventually prevent American businesses from expanding their international market share and sharing development opportunities in the developing countries.

中國加入世界貿(mào)易組織后，為世界經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展作出了重要貢獻(xiàn)。國際上有的人認(rèn)為，中國加入世界貿(mào)易組織是占了便宜，其他國家吃了虧。事實(shí)上，中國加入世界貿(mào)易組織后，中國低成本勞動(dòng)力、土地等資源與國際資本、技術(shù)相結(jié)合，迅速形成巨大生產(chǎn)能力，推動(dòng)了全球產(chǎn)業(yè)鏈、價(jià)值鏈發(fā)展，促進(jìn)了世界經(jīng)濟(jì)增長。在此期間，外商對(duì)華直接投資持續(xù)擴(kuò)大，規(guī)模從2001年468.8億美元，增加到2017年的1363.2億美元，年均增長6.9%，跨國公司分享了中國經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展的巨大機(jī)遇。與此同時(shí)，中國在經(jīng)濟(jì)快速發(fā)展過程中也在環(huán)境、產(chǎn)業(yè)調(diào)整等方面承擔(dān)了較大成本。
Since its accession to the WTO, China has made important contribution to world economic development. Some people think China has taken advantage of its WTO membership while putting other countries at a disadvantage. In fact, after China joined the WTO, it has provided international capital and technologies with low-cost labor and land resources, generating immense production capacity that has promoted the development of global industrial chain and value chain, and world economic growth. In this process, FDI to China has kept on growing, surging from USD46.88 billion in 2001 to USD136.32 billion in 2017, at an annual growth of 6.9%. Multinationals have shared the immense opportunities in China’s economic development. In the meantime, China has paid a high cost in environment and industrial restructuring as its economy grows rapidly.

（三）不應(yīng)違背契約精神指責(zé)中國進(jìn)行強(qiáng)制技術(shù)轉(zhuǎn)讓
3. China should not be accused of forced technology transfer as it is against the spirit of contract

中國改革開放以來，外國企業(yè)為了拓展新興市場(chǎng)、節(jié)約生產(chǎn)支出、實(shí)現(xiàn)規(guī)模效益和延長技術(shù)獲利時(shí)間，主動(dòng)與中國企業(yè)建立合作伙伴關(guān)系，訂立契約合同，把產(chǎn)能和訂單向中國轉(zhuǎn)移，這完全是基于商業(yè)利益的企業(yè)自愿行為。不能因?yàn)橹袊髽I(yè)的技術(shù)進(jìn)步，就把原本雙方自愿的交易活動(dòng)歪曲為強(qiáng)制技術(shù)轉(zhuǎn)讓，這既不符合歷史事實(shí)，也是對(duì)契約精神的背棄。
Since the adoption of reform and opening up, foreign enterprises have established partnerships with Chinese companies by voluntarily entering into contracts. They transferred production capacity and orders to China of their own volition so as to tap into the emerging market, save production costs, achieve economy of scale, and extend the term of profiting from technologies. These are voluntary behaviors based on business interests. However, it accords with neither historical facts nor the spirit of contract to unjustly label bilateral transactions on a voluntary basis as forced technology transfer simply on the grounds of Chinese firms’ technological advances.

中國與美國等發(fā)達(dá)國家合作過程中發(fā)生的技術(shù)轉(zhuǎn)移，源自發(fā)達(dá)國家企業(yè)出于利益最大化考慮的主動(dòng)技術(shù)轉(zhuǎn)讓及產(chǎn)業(yè)轉(zhuǎn)移。產(chǎn)品生命周期理論表明，任何一種產(chǎn)品都會(huì)因新技術(shù)的應(yīng)用而經(jīng)歷一個(gè)由盛到衰的生命周期?？鐕驹谂﹂_發(fā)新技術(shù)的同時(shí)，需要不斷向發(fā)展中國家轉(zhuǎn)讓已落后或是標(biāo)準(zhǔn)化了的技術(shù)，以延長依靠舊技術(shù)獲取利潤的時(shí)間，并為新技術(shù)研發(fā)應(yīng)用騰出空間和要素資源，也間接分擔(dān)研發(fā)成本，技術(shù)轉(zhuǎn)讓和許可是常用的商業(yè)合作模式。上世紀(jì)90年代以來，微軟、英特爾、高通、寶潔、通用電氣、朗訊等美國公司相繼在中國設(shè)立研發(fā)機(jī)構(gòu)，目的是更好適應(yīng)和開發(fā)中國市場(chǎng)。多年來美國在華企業(yè)通過技術(shù)轉(zhuǎn)讓與許可獲得了巨額利益回報(bào)，是技術(shù)合作的最大受益者。
Technology transfer in the course of cooperation between China and developed countries such as the US is voluntary technology transfer and industrial transfer initiated by the enterprises of developed countries keen to maximize their interests. The product life-cycle theory indicates that any kind of product goes through a life-cycle from peak to decline due to application of new technologies. While endeavoring to develop new technologies, multinationals continuously transfer technologies that are either obsolete or standardized to developing countries with a view to extending the term of profiting from old technologies, making room and sparing production factors for R&D and application of new ones, and indirectly sharing R&D costs. Therefore, technology transfer and licensing is a widely-used business cooperation model. Since the 1990s, Microsoft, Intel, Qualcomm, P&G, GE, Lucent, and other American companies have set up R&D facilities in China in a bid to better adapt to and explore the Chinese market. Over the years, American firms in China have earned handsome profits through technology transfer and licensing. They are the largest beneficiary of technological cooperation.

在中外企業(yè)合作中，中國政府沒有強(qiáng)制要求外商投資企業(yè)轉(zhuǎn)讓技術(shù)的政策和做法。中外企業(yè)技術(shù)合作和其他經(jīng)貿(mào)合作完全是基于自愿原則實(shí)施的契約行為，雙方企業(yè)都從中獲得了實(shí)際利益。一般來說，外國企業(yè)技術(shù)收入有三種模式：（1）一次性轉(zhuǎn)讓，可以按轉(zhuǎn)讓價(jià)結(jié)算，也可以折價(jià)入股；（2）銷售的設(shè)備、零部件或產(chǎn)品中，包括技術(shù)收入；（3）技術(shù)許可，收取許可費(fèi)。比如，當(dāng)一家具有技術(shù)優(yōu)勢(shì)的外國企業(yè)銷售設(shè)備給中國企業(yè)，中國企業(yè)由于不掌握設(shè)備的某些技術(shù)，需要長期多次購買設(shè)備提供方的技術(shù)服務(wù)和零部件，在此情況下，中國企業(yè)愿意以一次性付費(fèi)的方式向外方購買部分技術(shù)。這種技術(shù)轉(zhuǎn)讓要求，屬于企業(yè)在成本效益核算基礎(chǔ)上的正常議價(jià)談判，無論分次支付技術(shù)費(fèi)還是一次性支付技術(shù)費(fèi)，都是國際商業(yè)技術(shù)交易中常見的做法。美國政府將外商投資企業(yè)通過訂立商業(yè)合同與中國企業(yè)建立伙伴關(guān)系、轉(zhuǎn)讓或許可其技術(shù)、共同在中國市場(chǎng)上獲得商業(yè)回報(bào)的自愿合作行為稱為“強(qiáng)制技術(shù)轉(zhuǎn)讓”，完全是對(duì)事實(shí)的歪曲。
In the process of cooperation, the Chinese government has never introduced policies or practices that force foreign invested enterprises to transfer technology. Technological cooperation and other forms of commercial cooperation between Chinese and foreign businesses are entirely voluntary and bound by contracts. It generates real benefits for companies on both sides. Generally speaking, there are three patterns of technology-related revenues earned by foreign enterprises: (1) one-off transfer through settlement by an agreed price or discounted equity participation; (2) technology-related income that is included in the sales of equipment, components or products; and (3) technology licensing fees. For example a foreign enterprise with a technological advantage sells equipment to a Chinese company short of certain technologies related to the equipment. The Chinese company has to buy technical services and components from the equipment supplier multiple times in the long run. The Chinese company is willing to purchase some of the technologies from the foreign company for a one-off payment. Such requirements for technology transfer are normal price negotiations based on cost-benefit accounting. Such technology fee payments, be they in installments or in a lump-sum, are common practices in international commercial technology trading. It is a complete distortion of the facts that the US administration labels as forced technology transfer the voluntary behaviors of FIEs to partner with Chinese companies, transfer or license technologies, and reap profits together in Chinese market by entering into business contracts.

除此之外，中國在某些領(lǐng)域的股權(quán)合作符合中國的國際義務(wù)、各國慣例和實(shí)踐，不能被混淆為“強(qiáng)制技術(shù)轉(zhuǎn)讓”。而且，近幾年中國對(duì)外商投資的股權(quán)限制不斷放開，外國企業(yè)自由選擇權(quán)不斷擴(kuò)大（專欄2）。在此過程中，中外企業(yè)股權(quán)合作仍然不斷深化，完全是雙方基于商業(yè)原因的自由選擇。
Besides, equity cooperation in some areas is in line with China’s international obligations and usual practices of many countries, and does not constitute forced technology transfer either. In recent years, China has eased restrictions on foreign equity (See Box 2), and given foreign businesses greater freedom of choice. In this process, equity cooperation between Chinese and foreign enterprises becomes deeper as a result of free choices based on commercial considerations by the two sides.

圖表：專欄2 中國大幅放寬外商投資準(zhǔn)入 新華社發(fā)

美國政府關(guān)于中國“偷盜”先進(jìn)技術(shù)的指責(zé)是對(duì)中國科技進(jìn)步艱苦努力的污蔑。中華民族是勤勞智慧、善于創(chuàng)造的民族，中國政府高度重視科學(xué)技術(shù)和教育發(fā)展，中國科技進(jìn)步是中國長期實(shí)施科教興國戰(zhàn)略和創(chuàng)新驅(qū)動(dòng)發(fā)展戰(zhàn)略的結(jié)果，是全體人民特別是科技工作者辛勤勞動(dòng)的成果。2000年以來，中國全社會(huì)研發(fā)經(jīng)費(fèi)投入以年均近20%的速度增長。2017年，中國全社會(huì)研發(fā)經(jīng)費(fèi)投入1.76萬億人民幣，僅次于美國，位居全球第二，占國內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值的比重達(dá)到2.13%（注15），已經(jīng)接近經(jīng)合組織國家平均水平。中國有2613所高等學(xué)校，10.9萬家各類研發(fā)機(jī)構(gòu)，超過621萬研發(fā)人員，2017年研發(fā)人員全時(shí)當(dāng)量達(dá)403萬人年，其中企業(yè)占77.3%。（注16）2017年，有113家中國企業(yè)進(jìn)入“2017全球創(chuàng)新1000強(qiáng)”榜單（注17），僅次于美國、日本，位居全球第三。世界知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)組織2018年7月發(fā)布的“2018全球創(chuàng)新指數(shù)”排名中，中國由2016年的第22名升至第17名（注18）。2017年，中國專利申請(qǐng)369.8萬件，授予專利權(quán)183.6萬件（注19）；發(fā)明專利申請(qǐng)量達(dá)138.2萬件，同比增長14.2%，連續(xù)7年居世界首位（注20）；根據(jù)世界知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)組織公布的數(shù)字，2017年中國通過《專利合作條約》途徑提交的國際專利申請(qǐng)量達(dá)4.9萬件，僅次于美國。有10家中國企業(yè)進(jìn)入企業(yè)國際專利申請(qǐng)量前50位。美國前財(cái)政部長、著名經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家拉里·薩默斯說：“你問我中國的技術(shù)進(jìn)步來自哪里，它來自于那些從政府對(duì)基礎(chǔ)科學(xué)巨額投資中受益的優(yōu)秀企業(yè)家，來自于推崇卓越、注重科學(xué)和技術(shù)的教育制度。它們的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)地位就是這樣產(chǎn)生的，而不是通過在一些美國公司持股產(chǎn)生的?！保ㄗ?1）
That the US administration accuses China of “stealing” advanced technologies is an insult to China’s efforts to push for scientific and technological advances. The Chinese nation is known for diligence, intelligence, and ingenuity. The Chinese government sets great store by the development of science, technology and education. The progress in science and technology China has made comes from years of implementing a strategy of invigorating the country through science, technology and education and the strategy of innovation-driven development, and from the hard work of the Chinese people, especially scientific workers. Since 2000, the total R&D spend in China has registered an average annual growth rate of close to 20%. In 2017, China spent RMB 1.76 trillion in R&D, second only to the US, accounting for 2.13% of total GDP, and approaching the average level of the OECD countries. China has 2,613 institutions of higher education, 10,900 research institutions of all sorts, and over 6.21 million people engaged in R&D. In 2017, the full-time equivalent of R&D personnel in China reached 4.03 million man-years, of which 77.3% were in enterprises. In the same year, China ranked third after the US and Japan with 113 Chinese enterprises listed among “The 2017 Global Innovation 1000”. According to the “Global Innovation Index 2018” released by WIPO in July 2018, China’s ranking rose from 22ndin 2016 to 17thin 2018 . In 2017, patent applications reached 3.698 million in China, of which 1.836 million patents were granted. China’s invention patent applications reached 1.382 million, up by 14.2% year-on-year, ranking 1stin the world for seven years in a row. According to WIPO statistics, China filed 49,000 international patent applications via the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) in 2017, second only to the US. Among the top 50 international patent applicants, ten are Chinese enterprises. As former US Treasury Secretary and renowned American economist Larry Summers once said, “You ask me where China’s technological progress is coming from. It’s coming from terrific entrepreneurs who are getting the benefit of huge government investment in basic science. It’s coming from an educational system that’s privileging excellence, concentrating on science and technology. That’s where their leadership is coming from, not from taking a stake in some US company.”

（四）不應(yīng)抹殺中國保護(hù)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)的巨大努力與成效
4. China’s huge efforts and achievements with regard to IPR protection should not be dismissed.

中國在保護(hù)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)上的態(tài)度是明確而堅(jiān)定的，在立法、執(zhí)法和司法層面不斷強(qiáng)化保護(hù)（注22），取得了明顯成效。美國政府2016年以前的官方報(bào)告，也積極肯定中國在知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)保護(hù)方面取得的成績。中國美國商會(huì)所做的年度商務(wù)環(huán)境調(diào)查顯示，其會(huì)員企業(yè)在華運(yùn)營的主要挑戰(zhàn)中，知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)侵權(quán)行為已由2011年的第7位降低到2018年的第12位。近期美國政府對(duì)中國知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)保護(hù)的指責(zé)是有悖事實(shí)的，完全抹殺了中國保護(hù)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)的巨大努力與成效。
China’s attitude towards IPR protection is clear and firm. It has continued to reinforce protection through legislation, law enforcement and the judiciary, and achieved some notable successes. Official reports by the US administration before 2016 also acknowledged China’s achievements in IPR protection. The China Business Climate Survey Reports by the American Chamber of Commerce in China indicate that, among the main challenges facing its member enterprises in China, IPR infringement has dropped from the 7thbiggest concern in 2011 to 12thin 2018. The recent accusations by the US administration about China’s IPR protection are unrealistic and completely dismissive of China’s tremendous efforts and achievements in this regard.

中國建立并不斷完善知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)法律體系，法律保護(hù)力度不斷提高。中國在較短時(shí)間內(nèi)建立起一套完備且高標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)法律體系，走過了發(fā)達(dá)國家通常幾十年甚至上百年才完成的立法路程。目前已經(jīng)建立了從法律、規(guī)劃、政策到執(zhí)行機(jī)構(gòu)等知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)保護(hù)、運(yùn)用和管理的完整體系。世界知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)組織前總干事阿帕德·鮑格胥博士曾評(píng)價(jià)稱，“這在知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)發(fā)展史上是獨(dú)一無二的”。2013年，中國修訂了《商標(biāo)法》，增加了懲罰性賠償制度，將法定賠償限額從50萬元提高至300萬元，保護(hù)力度大幅度提高。自2014年啟動(dòng)的《專利法》第四次全面修改工作，提出了加強(qiáng)專利權(quán)保護(hù)的相關(guān)建議措施，包括加大對(duì)侵權(quán)行為的懲罰力度、完善證據(jù)規(guī)則、完善行政保護(hù)措施、加強(qiáng)網(wǎng)絡(luò)環(huán)境下專利保護(hù)等。2017年修訂《反不正當(dāng)競爭法》，進(jìn)一步完善了商業(yè)秘密的保護(hù)，明確市場(chǎng)混淆行為，拓寬對(duì)標(biāo)識(shí)的保護(hù)范圍，同時(shí)強(qiáng)化了對(duì)有關(guān)違法行為的法律責(zé)任。2017年10月1日，《中華人民共和國民法總則》施行，該法規(guī)定：“民事主體依法享有知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)”，并明確規(guī)定商業(yè)秘密屬于知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)，加強(qiáng)了對(duì)商業(yè)秘密的保護(hù)。
China has formulated and improved its laws and regulations on IP protection, and enhanced protection of IPR. China built a fully-fledged and high-standard IP legal framework in a relatively short period, compared to the decades or more that developed countries spent setting up similar legal systems. China has put in place a complete regime of IP protection, utilization and administration, spanning laws, planning, policies and enforcement agencies. Dr. Arpad Bogsch, former Director-General of the WIPO, has commented, “China had accomplished all this at a speed unmatched in the history of intellectual property protection.” In 2013, China amended its Trademark Law, setting up a system of punitive damages under which the damages cap is raised from RMB 500,000 to RMB 3 million, thus remarkably enhancing protection. Since the fourth major amendment to Patent Law launched in 2014, China has put forward measures for further strengthening protection of patents such as introducing harsher punishment for infringements, improving the rule of evidence, enhancing administrative protection, and better protecting patents in cyber space. In 2017, China amended the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, which further improves the protection of trade secrets, identifies act of confusion, expands the scope of protection for indications, and ratchets up legal liabilities for illegal acts. On October 1st, 2017, China adopted General Provisions of the Civil Law, which stipulates that “Civil entities enjoy intellectual property rights in accordance with law”, and enhances protection of trade secrets by making them a subject of IP protection.

加強(qiáng)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)司法保護(hù)，充分發(fā)揮司法保護(hù)主導(dǎo)作用。2014年，中國在北京、上海、廣州設(shè)立了專門的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)法院，跨區(qū)域管轄專利等知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)案件。自2009年以來，中國共設(shè)立了天津、南京、蘇州、武漢、西安等16個(gè)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)法庭，有效提升了知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)專業(yè)化審判水平。2013年至2017年，中國法院共新收各類知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)案件813564件，審結(jié)781257件。2017年，中國法院共新收一審知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)案件213480件，結(jié)案202970件，分別比上年增加46%和43%（注23）。中國已經(jīng)成為世界上審理知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)案件尤其是專利案件最多的國家。中國依法平等保護(hù)中外當(dāng)事人合法權(quán)益。2016年，中國法院共審結(jié)涉外知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)民事一審案件1667件，同比上升25.6%（專欄3）（注24）。中國處理涉外知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)案件的審理周期是全世界最短的之一，北京知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)法庭平均為4個(gè)月。由于司法程序快捷，目前中國法院已被國際上視為知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)訴訟較為可取的訴訟地，北京知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)法院受理的案件中有相當(dāng)一部分雙方當(dāng)事人都是外國人。
China has intensified judicial protection for intellectual property and given full play to judicial protection. In 2014, China set up three IP tribunals in Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou to handle cross-regional IP cases, including those related to patents. Since 2009, China has established 16 special judicial organs in Tianjin, Nanjing, Suzhou, Wuhan, Xi’an and other cities, effectively enhancing the professional handling of IP cases. Between 2013 and 2017, Chinese courts received 813,564 new IP cases of all sorts, and handled and closed 781,257 cases. In 2017, Chinese courts received 213,480 first-instance cases, and concluded 202,970 cases, up by 46% and 43% from the previous year. More IP cases, especially patent cases, are tried in China than in any other country. China provides equal protection for the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese and foreign interested parties in accordance with law. In 2016, Chinese courts heard and closed 1,667 first-instance cases related to foreign entities and individuals, up by 25.6% year-on-year. (See Box 3) The adjudication period for foreign-related IP cases in China is among the shortest in the world. Beijing IP court processes cases in four months on average. Thanks to its rapid judicial procedure, China is increasingly being selected as the forum of choice for non-Chinese companies to litigate IP disputes, and a significant number of both the plaintiffs and defendants in Beijing IP court are foreigners.

圖表：專欄3 中國法院依法審理涉外知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)案件 新華社發(fā)

知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)行政主管部門采取了積極主動(dòng)的保護(hù)措施，行政執(zhí)法力度持續(xù)加強(qiáng)。中國實(shí)施行政、司法雙軌制保護(hù)，知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)權(quán)利人不僅可以尋求司法保護(hù)，還可以尋求行政保護(hù)。中國國家知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)局積極構(gòu)建集快速審查、快速確權(quán)、快速維權(quán)于一體的快速協(xié)同保護(hù)體系，建成了基本覆蓋全國的“12330”知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)維權(quán)援助與舉報(bào)投訴網(wǎng)絡(luò)。專利、商標(biāo)、版權(quán)行政執(zhí)法部門開展了強(qiáng)有力的主動(dòng)執(zhí)法，有效保護(hù)了知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)權(quán)利人合法權(quán)益。2011年11月，中國國務(wù)院印發(fā)《關(guān)于進(jìn)一步做好打擊侵犯知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)和制售假冒偽劣商品工作的意見》，成立了全國打擊侵犯知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)和制售假冒偽劣商品工作領(lǐng)導(dǎo)小組，形成由29個(gè)部門參與的常態(tài)機(jī)制。2018年，中國重新組建國家知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)局，商標(biāo)、專利執(zhí)法由市場(chǎng)監(jiān)管綜合執(zhí)法隊(duì)伍承擔(dān)，執(zhí)法力量得到整合與加強(qiáng)。
IP administrative authorities have taken protective measures and intensified enforcement in a proactive manner. China adopts a dual-track protection system where IP right holders can seek not only judicial but also administrative protection. The State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) has established a coordinated system with rapid review, rapid rights verification, and rapid rights protection, and built a nationwide 12330 network that provides assistance in defending rights and accepting reports and complaints. The patent, trademark and copyright authorities have carried out strong and proactive enforcement that has effectively defended the legitimate interests of IP right holders. In November 2011, the State Council published Opinions on Further Cracking Down on IP Infringement and Manufacture and Sales of Counterfeit and Shoddy Products, setting up a national leading group and signaling a normalized mechanism involving 29 governmental departments. In 2018, China reorganized SIPO by retooling the trademark and patent enforcement teams into a comprehensive enforcement team for market regulation, thus integrating and strengthening the power of enforcement.

中國日益加強(qiáng)的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)保護(hù)為外國企業(yè)在華創(chuàng)新提供了有效保障。國外來華發(fā)明專利申請(qǐng)受理量從2012年的117464件增加到了2017年的135885件（注25）。來自國外的商標(biāo)注冊(cè)申請(qǐng)量從2013年的9.5萬件增加到了2017年的14.2萬件，同期存量商標(biāo)到期續(xù)展申請(qǐng)量從1.4萬件增加到了2.0萬件（注26）。美國彼得森國際經(jīng)濟(jì)研究所認(rèn)為，中國知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)保護(hù)狀況不斷改善，過去十年間中國使用外國技術(shù)支付的專利授權(quán)和使用費(fèi)增長4倍，2017年為286億美元，排名全球第四，其中為本國境內(nèi)使用的外國技術(shù)支付費(fèi)用的規(guī)模僅次于美國，排名全球第二（注27）。
This intensified IP protection has served as an effective guarantee for foreign businesses to innovate in China. Received foreign invention patent applications grew from 117,464 in 2012 to 135,885 in 2017. Foreign trademark registration applications grew from 95,000 in 2013 to 142,000 in 2017, and trademark extension applications grew from 14,000 to 20,000 in the same period. According to the Peterson Institute, China’s protection of intellectual property is improving. China’s payment of licensing fees and royalties for the use of foreign technology has recorded a four-fold increase over the last decade, reaching US$28.6 billion in 2017 and ranking fourth in the world. In fact, China ranks second globally in the scale of licensing fees paid for technology used within its national borders, second only to the US.

美國企業(yè)因中國有效保護(hù)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)獲益豐厚。根據(jù)美國商務(wù)部經(jīng)濟(jì)分析局統(tǒng)計(jì)，2016年中國向美國支付知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)使用費(fèi)79.6億美元。中國國家版權(quán)局、商務(wù)部和國家市場(chǎng)監(jiān)督管理總局?jǐn)?shù)據(jù)顯示，2012－2016年，中國自美國引進(jìn)版權(quán)近2.8萬項(xiàng)。在商標(biāo)方面，2002－2016年，美國在華申請(qǐng)轉(zhuǎn)讓商標(biāo)5.8萬余件，占中國商標(biāo)轉(zhuǎn)讓申請(qǐng)總數(shù)4.54%。在文化方面，中國國家廣播電視總局?jǐn)?shù)據(jù)顯示，2017年中國進(jìn)口美國影片31部，給美國帶來近6.5億美元收入。
US businesses have benefited hugely from effective IP protection in China. According to US Bureau of Economic Analysis of the DOC, China paid US$7.96 billion in licensing fees to the US in 2016. Statistics from China’s National Copyright Administration, Ministry of Commerce, and State Administration for Market Regulation suggest that from 2012 to 2016, China imported 28,000 copyrights from the US. In terms of trademarks, from 2002 to 2016, the US applied for over 58,000 trademarks transfer in China, making up 4.54% of total transfers. In terms of culture, according to the State Administration of Press, Publication, Radio, Film, and TV, in 2017 China imported 31 American films at a cost of US$650 million.

中國知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)保護(hù)成效得到了國際社會(huì)的積極肯定。2011年，中國海關(guān)被全球反假冒組織授予全球唯一的“反假冒最佳政府機(jī)構(gòu)獎(jiǎng)”。2012年，中國公安部經(jīng)偵局被全球反假冒組織授予“2012年度全球反假冒執(zhí)法部門最高貢獻(xiàn)獎(jiǎng)”。2011年5月9日，美國前總統(tǒng)奧巴馬表示：“中方在保護(hù)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)等方面取得了良好進(jìn)展。美方愿向中國和其他國家出口更多高科技產(chǎn)品，這符合雙方的利益?！保ㄗ?8）2018年2月，美國商會(huì)全球知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)中心發(fā)布《2018年國際知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)指數(shù)發(fā)展報(bào)告》，該報(bào)告分40個(gè)指標(biāo)對(duì)全球范圍內(nèi)50個(gè)經(jīng)濟(jì)體知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)保護(hù)環(huán)境進(jìn)行評(píng)價(jià)，中國位居第25位，較2017年上升2位。
China’s progress in IP protection has been recognized by the international community. In 2011, China Customs won the National Public Body Award of the Global Anti-Counterfeiting Network. In 2012, the Economic Investigation Bureau of the Ministry of Public Security won the award for Distinguished Contributions to Anti-counterfeiting Enforcement. On 9 May 2011, former US president Obama stated that China had made good progress in IP protection. The US was willing to export more high-tech products to China and other countries in the interests of both sides. In February 2018, GIPC released a report on the International Intellectual Property Index 2018, which maps the national IP environment for 50 surveyed economies with 40 indicators. China ranked 25th, up by 2 places from 2017.

（五）不應(yīng)將中國政府鼓勵(lì)企業(yè)走出去歪曲為一種推動(dòng)企業(yè)通過并購獲取先進(jìn)技術(shù)的政府行為
5. The Chinese government’s encouragement to Chinese business to go global should not be distorted as a government attempt to acquire advanced technologies through commercial M&A.

中國政府鼓勵(lì)企業(yè)走出去開展國際經(jīng)濟(jì)交流合作符合世界貿(mào)易組織的規(guī)則。隨著中國企業(yè)經(jīng)營能力提高，根據(jù)企業(yè)配置資源和開拓市場(chǎng)需要，越來越多企業(yè)開始自主向海外發(fā)展，這符合經(jīng)濟(jì)全球化潮流。與世界上其他國家和地區(qū)一樣，中國政府支持有實(shí)力、有條件的企業(yè)，在遵守東道國法律法規(guī)和國際規(guī)則的前提下，對(duì)外投資和拓展國際市場(chǎng)，政府為企業(yè)對(duì)外投資合作提供便利化的服務(wù)。美國將中國政府支持企業(yè)走出去，判定為一種推動(dòng)企業(yè)通過并購獲取別國先進(jìn)技術(shù)的政府行為，是缺乏事實(shí)依據(jù)的。
It is consistent with the WTO for the Chinese government to encourage businesses to go global and engage in international economic exchanges and cooperation. As Chinese companies get stronger and the need for resource allocation and market expansion increases, a growing number of firms have started to expand overseas at their own initiative, a trend in line with economic globalization. Like other countries and regions in the world, the Chinese government supports able and competent companies in outbound investment and tapping into international markets, while obeying the laws and regulations of the host countries as well as international rules. The government only provides services that facilitate this outbound investment and cooperation. The arbitrary conclusion of the US that such support is a government act to acquire advanced technologies through commercial M&A is groundless.

此外，中國對(duì)美直接投資中，技術(shù)尋求型投資占比實(shí)際上很低。據(jù)美國企業(yè)研究所的統(tǒng)計(jì)，2005－2017年，中國企業(yè)在美232項(xiàng)直接投資中，僅有17項(xiàng)涉及高技術(shù)領(lǐng)域，其他大部分分布在房地產(chǎn)、金融以及服務(wù)業(yè)等領(lǐng)域（注29）。
In fact, among Chinese investments in the US, those that seek to acquire technology represent a small share. According to the American Enterprise Institute, from 2005 to 2017, of 232 direct investments from China, only 17 involved high-technology, while others were mainly in real-estate, finance and services.

（六）不應(yīng)脫離世界貿(mào)易組織規(guī)則指責(zé)中國的補(bǔ)貼政策
6. China’s subsidy policy complies with WTO rules and should not be attacked.

中國認(rèn)真遵守世界貿(mào)易組織關(guān)于補(bǔ)貼政策的規(guī)則。補(bǔ)貼政策作為應(yīng)對(duì)市場(chǎng)失靈和解決經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展不平衡問題的手段之一，被包括美國在內(nèi)的許多國家和地區(qū)普遍使用。加入世界貿(mào)易組織以來，中國一直積極推進(jìn)國內(nèi)政策領(lǐng)域的合規(guī)性改革，切實(shí)履行世界貿(mào)易組織《補(bǔ)貼與反補(bǔ)貼措施協(xié)議》各項(xiàng)義務(wù)。
China conscientiously complies with WTO rules on subsidy policy. As one of the tools to address market failure and imbalanced economic development, subsidies are widely used by many countries and regions, including the US. Since China joined the WTO, we have actively pressed ahead with reform to ensure the compliance of domestic policies, and conscientiously honored the obligations under the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.

中國遵守世界貿(mào)易組織關(guān)于補(bǔ)貼的透明度原則，按照要求定期向世界貿(mào)易組織通報(bào)國內(nèi)相關(guān)法律、法規(guī)和具體措施的修訂調(diào)整和實(shí)施情況。截至2018年1月，中國提交的通報(bào)已達(dá)上千份，涉及中央和地方補(bǔ)貼政策、農(nóng)業(yè)、技術(shù)法規(guī)、標(biāo)準(zhǔn)、知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)法律法規(guī)等諸多領(lǐng)域。2016年7月，中國政府按照有關(guān)規(guī)則，向世界貿(mào)易組織提交了2001－2014年地方補(bǔ)貼政策通報(bào)，涵蓋19個(gè)省和3個(gè)計(jì)劃單列市的100項(xiàng)地方補(bǔ)貼政策。2018年7月，又向世界貿(mào)易組織提交了2015－2016年中央和地方補(bǔ)貼政策通報(bào)，地方補(bǔ)貼通報(bào)首次覆蓋全部省級(jí)行政區(qū)域。
China complies with the WTO rules on subsidy transparency. As required, we have regularly notified the WTO of the revision, adjustment and implementation of our domestic laws, regulations and measures. By January 2018, China had submitted thousands of notifications, covering various areas of central and sub-national subsidy policies, agriculture, technical regulations, standards, and IP laws and regulations. In July 2016, in accordance with the relevant rules, the Chinese government notified the WTO of sub-national subsidy policies between 2001 and 2014, covering 100 subsidy policies from 19 provinces and 3 municipalities with independent planning authority. In July 2018 we notified the WTO of the central and sub-national subsidy policies between 2015 and 2016, covering all the provincial level administrative areas for the first time.

為企業(yè)營造公平競爭的政策環(huán)境。近年來，中國政府一直致力于推進(jìn)產(chǎn)業(yè)政策的轉(zhuǎn)型。2016年6月，中國國務(wù)院發(fā)布了《關(guān)于在市場(chǎng)體系建設(shè)中建立公平競爭審查制度的意見》，要求規(guī)范政府行為，防止出臺(tái)新的排除、限制競爭的支持措施，并逐步清理廢除已有的妨礙公平競爭的規(guī)定和做法。2017年1月，《國務(wù)院關(guān)于擴(kuò)大對(duì)外開放積極利用外資若干措施的通知》進(jìn)一步要求，各部門制定外資政策要進(jìn)行公平競爭審查。2018年6月，《國務(wù)院關(guān)于積極有效利用外資推動(dòng)經(jīng)濟(jì)高質(zhì)量發(fā)展若干措施的通知》（以下簡稱《通知》）提出，全面落實(shí)準(zhǔn)入前國民待遇加負(fù)面清單管理制度，負(fù)面清單之外的領(lǐng)域，各地區(qū)各部門不得專門針對(duì)外商投資準(zhǔn)入進(jìn)行限制?！锻ㄖ芬?，保護(hù)外商投資合法權(quán)益，完善外商投資企業(yè)投訴工作部際聯(lián)席會(huì)議制度，建立健全各地外商投資企業(yè)投訴工作機(jī)制，及時(shí)解決外商投資企業(yè)反映的不公平待遇問題，各地不得限制外商投資企業(yè)依法跨區(qū)域經(jīng)營、搬遷、注銷等行為。
China has created a level playing field for the businesses. In recent years, the Chinese government has committed to transforming industrial policies. In June 2016 the State Council released Opinions on Establishing a Fair Competition Examination System in the Building of the Market System, setting out to guarantee rules-based government actions, prohibit new supportive measures that would exclude or impede competition, and filter out and abolish any existing rules and practices that hamper fair competition. In January 2017, the State Council released a Circular on Several Measures on Promoting Further Openness and Active Utilization of Foreign Investment, requiring authorities concerned to carry out a fair competition review in defining foreign investment policies. In June 2018, the State Council released a Circular on Certain Measures for Actively and Effectively Utilizing Foreign Investment to Promote Quality Economic Development, aiming to grant full pre-establishment national treatment on the basis of a negative list, and remove access restrictions on foreign investment in areas outside the list. As required by the Circular, to safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of foreign investors, China has improved the inter-departmental joint meeting mechanism for FIEs to lodge complaints, set up and enhanced the complaint mechanism for FIEs across the country, in order to promptly resolve any unfair treatment of FIEs, and avoid restrictions on the law-based cross-regional operation, movement and deregistration of FIEs.

中國農(nóng)業(yè)市場(chǎng)化程度持續(xù)提高。2015年，中國國家發(fā)展改革委宣布放開煙葉收購價(jià)格，標(biāo)志著中國在農(nóng)產(chǎn)品價(jià)格領(lǐng)域已完全取消了政府定價(jià)。2004年以來，在市場(chǎng)定價(jià)、自由流通的基礎(chǔ)上，中國政府為維護(hù)農(nóng)民基本生計(jì)，當(dāng)市場(chǎng)嚴(yán)重供大于求、價(jià)格過度下跌時(shí)，對(duì)部分農(nóng)產(chǎn)品實(shí)行托市收購制度。近年來，中國政府加大了對(duì)托市收購政策的改革力度，定價(jià)機(jī)制更加市場(chǎng)化（專欄4）。
China’s agricultural industry has become increasingly market-based. In 2015, the NDRC announced the abolition of controlled pricing on tobacco leaves, marking the definitive end to government pricing for agricultural produce. Since 2004, on the basis of market-set price and free circulation, the Chinese government had stepped in to ensure the basic livelihood of farmers by adopting a government purchase system, a backstop in the case of severe oversupply and collapsing prices. In recent years, the Chinese government has stepped up efforts to reform the purchase system by introducing a more market-based price-setting mechanism. (Box 4)

圖表：專欄4 中國的農(nóng)業(yè)支持政策改革 新華社發(fā)