China moves to safeguard millions of textile jobs

China moves to safeguard millions of textile jobs
China moves to safeguard millions of textile jobs
By Liu Weiling (China Daily)
Updated: 2005-05-31 05:34



In a move to safeguard thousands of jobs, China declared it will scrap - after only 10 days - its sharply increased export duties on Chinese-made textiles.


Commerce Minister Bo Xilai gestures as he speaks to the media during a press conference in Beijing Monday, May 30, 2005. Bo on Monday accused the United States and Europe of violating World Trade Organization rules by imposing import quotas on Chinese textiles without providing adequate information to back up claims they were disrupting markets. [AP]
The withdrawal comes after Washington and the European Union clamped more restrictions on Chinese exports, which China said are "unfair and incorrect."

Minister of Commerce Bo Xilai told a news briefing yesterday that export tariffs on 81 categories of textile products will be lifted, including the 74 for which 400 per cent increases were announced.

The latest restrictions imposed by the US side will affect US$2 billion worth of Chinese exports and 160,000 jobs, while the EU action will lead to a loss of US$300 million exports and corresponding jobs.

"Behind each category of product in question, some 1,000 to 6,000 Chinese enterprises would feel the pinch," Bo said.

"We have to make corresponding policy adjustment since the EU and the US have set controls on Chinese textile exports," said Bo.

"We must be fair to Chinese producers."

To ease the concerns of trade partners, the Finance Ministry unveiled on May 20 a staggering 400 per cent increase on export tariffs on 74 classes of products starting on June 1.

Such products registered a sharp rise in exports in EU and US markets in the first few months of this year after decades-old global textile quotas were abolished on January 1.

Experts said there would be no sharp rise in exports if US and EU had taken a step-by-step approach to abolishing the quotas.

Bo said he had hoped the earlier announcement of steep tariff rises would help ease concerns of trading partners, but "it is a pity that both the EU and the US failed to accept the policy."

The China Textile Import and Export Chamber of Commerce said the adjustment will help ease the burden on Chinese enterprises, which are already operating on razor-thin profit margins.

However, Bo warned enterprises to prepare for further restrictive measures and adapt to a new international trade environment.

Bo said he had noted that some domestic enterprises, under great pressure from the restrictive moves, were calling for retaliation measures, but he ruled out the possibility of a trade war.

"We do not want to see a trade war," he said. "I do not believe retaliation to be the only way (forward) for us. A healthy trade relationship is good for both sides," he added.

Although Bo stressed that China still hopes to solve the textile row through consultation, he said China reserves the right to resort to the World Trade Organization (WTO) to adjudicate the dispute since controlling measures not only violate WTO principles, but are also prejudicial against China.

"We have the right to submit the case to WTO. Whether we will resort to the WTO, and when, is completely up to the Chinese side," he said.

The EU decided last Friday to put the dispute to the WTO and attempted to launch safeguard measures on two categories of Chinese textiles-T-shirts and flax yarn-while Washington has begun imposing measures aimed at capping growth of cotton trousers, cotton-knit shirts and underwear.

Further talks

Bo stressed the importance of further dialogues with the US and EU to solve the dispute.

Vice-Minister of Commerce Ma Xiuhong is in currently in the US to negotiate while Vice-Minister Gao Hucheng has just concluded a tour to the EU.

Although no details of Gao's negotiations were disclosed, an EU trade official told a group of Chinese reporters last week in Brussels that the consultation is very likely to produce an allowed annual growth rate for Chinese textile exports.

EC hopes

EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson also said earlier the EU will not introduce a quota system.

The European Commission, the executive arm of the European Union, said yesterday that it still hopes to reach an amicable deal with China to solve the current textile disputes.

"We still keep our willingness to seek an agreement with China on textiles," European Commission spokeswoman Claude Veron-Reville told Xinhua News Agency in Brussels.


(China Daily 05/31/2005 page1)

The China Scapegoat - New York Times

The China Scapegoat - New York Times
May 29, 2005
The China Scapegoat
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Beijing

The most important diplomatic relationship in the world is between the U.S. and China. It's souring and could get much worse.

Alas, the U.S. is mostly to blame for this. And the biggest culprit of all is the demagoguery of some Democrats in Congress.

There are plenty of legitimate reasons to be angry with China's leaders, but its trade success and exchange rate policy are not among them. The country that is distorting global capital flows and destabilizing the world economy is not China but the U.S. American fiscal recklessness is a genuine international problem, while blaming Chinese for making shoes efficiently amounts to a protectionist assault on the global trade system.

In fact, China's pegged exchange rate has brought stability to Asia, and the Chinese boom has tugged Japan out of recession and increased prosperity worldwide. In recent years, China has supplied almost one-third of the growth in the global economy (measured by purchasing power), compared with the 13 percent that came from the U.S.

Moreover, the U.S. has a history of offering Asia economic advice that proves awful. U.S. pressure helped produce Japan's disastrous bubble economy and aggravated the 1997-98 Asian financial crisis. So when American officials urge an adjustment in the yuan exchange rate, the Chinese should keep a hand on their wallets.

Over the last five years, President Bush has done an excellent job in managing relations with China - it's one of his very few successes in foreign policy - but lately he has engaged in protectionism. This month he reimposed quotas on certain Chinese textiles, and the Treasury warned China that it had better adjust its exchange rate or else.

Mr. Bush abandoned his principles because he was under attack from Democrats waving the bloody shirt of lost jobs. Sure, China's cheap yuan has cost us manufacturing jobs - but it has also led to a flood of Chinese capital to America, keeping interest rates low. If we blame China for lost American jobs in making shirts, we should credit it for new American jobs in banking and construction.

Americans are also unfair in accusing China of not stopping North Korea's nuclear program. The reality is that the North Koreans don't listen to the Chinese about anything, and many on each side look down on the other. Privately, some Chinese dismiss the North Koreans as "Gaoli bangzi" or Korean hillbillies. And fortified by a bit of liquor, North Koreans denounce Chinese as unscrupulous, money-grubbing traitors. Whenever I meet North Koreans, I tell them that the Chinese government doesn't like me - and my status soars.

China has been pushing hard in the last two years for a negotiated solution to the North Korean crisis, and it at least has a coherent policy on North Korea. That's more than you can say for the Bush administration.

One of the biggest risks for U.S.-China relations is the - very outside - chance that President Bush will order a military strike on the North Korean nuclear complex at Yongbyon. Most experts say that the resulting radiation leakage would probably not harm nearby countries, and in any case South Korea and Japan would be more at risk than China. But any hint that radiation had reached the Chinese coast would provoke anti-American fury across China.

There's a third big danger for U.S.-China relations, and this one is Beijing's fault: China's schools teach hatred of Japan, resulting in last month's street demonstrations in which Chinese protesters screamed slogans such as "Japanese must die."

The next act in the drama will unfold at sea. Japanese ships may start exploring disputed waters for oil and gas in the late summer or fall, perhaps with military escorts. China's leaders will then be under tremendous popular pressure to send China's own military vessels to block what Chinese will see as an armed Japanese incursion. And then Japan will ask the U.S. for help under the U.S.-Japan security treaty. ...

In the past, President Jiang Zemin protected the U.S.-Chinese relationship. But many Chinese scorned him as "qin Mei," or soft on the U.S. The new president, Hu Jintao, seems much less likely to go out on a limb to preserve good relations with the U.S.

So it's time for Americans to take a deep breath. Poisonous trade disputes with China will only aggravate the risks ahead, strengthen the hard- liners in Beijing and leave ordinary Chinese feeling that Americans are turning into China-bashers. Sadly, they'll have a point.

E-mail: nicholas@nytimes.com

EU Still Seeks China Textile Deal - New York Times

EU Still Seeks China Textile Deal - New York TimesMay 30, 2005
EU Still Seeks China Textile Deal
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 8:04 a.m. ET

BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) -- The European Union said Monday it was ''surprised'' by China's decision to scrap concessions meant to avert a trade war over textiles, but appealed to Beijing to continue talks.

China was informed that the EU would call for formal consultations under world trade rules last Friday, EU spokeswoman Claude Veron-Reville said, and added that the EU was puzzled why Beijing would cancel its plans to sharply increase export duties.

''When we heard of that (Chinese action) we were surprised,'' she said. ''We are still willing to discuss, to negotiate, to a mutually satisfactory settlement.''

Beijing had said earlier that it would quintuple export tariffs on 74 types of goods on June 1, in efforts to appease the EU and United States to not restrict textile imports that have soared since a global quota system expired on Jan. 1.

On Friday, the EU took its dispute with China to the WTO, which will force Beijing to curb shipments of two sensitive trade categories -- T-shirts and flax yarn.

China withdrew the planned tariffs on Monday. China's Commerce Minister Bo Xilai criticized the new U.S. and EU textile quotas as a violation of WTO rule and said Beijing would ''firmly protect'' its legal rights, though he didn't say what steps his government would take.

The escalation came after informal talks between the EU and China failed to reach a deal.

Under the WTO talks China will be forced to restrict exports of flax yarn and T-shirts. Imports of these products can be ''no greater than 7.5 percent above the amount that entered the EU market during the period from March 2004 to February 2005,'' the EU has said.

Chinese imports of T-shirt in the first four months of 2005 rose by 187 percent over the first four months of 2004. Flax yarn imports rose by 56 percent during that period, according to EU figures.

The EU has said Chinese imports are not only hurting European producers but those in Africa as well.

China Blasts EU, US Over Textile Curbs - New York Times

China Blasts EU, US Over Textile Curbs - New York Times


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May 30, 2005
China Blasts EU, US Over Textile Curbs
By REUTERS
Filed at 8:24 a.m. ET

BEIJING/SHANGHAI (Reuters) - China hit out on Monday at the United States and the European Union for curbing Chinese textile exports, saying the restrictions were justified neither by trade law nor by statistics.

Commerce Minister Bo Xilai said Washington and Brussels had failed to prove their domestic markets had been disrupted by an increase in Chinese exports since a 40-year-old system of quotas on developing countries' exports of textiles expired on Jan 1.

Bo said China was willing to hold talks, but he was scathing about the ``double standards'' of rich countries that flew the flag of free trade but rushed to throw up barriers when poor nations started to exploit their comparative advantage of cheap labor.

``The EU and the United States should spend more time on the development of high technology -- Airbus or Boeing airplanes, and advanced modern machinery -- rather than spending time quarrelling with us on issues like shirts, socks and trousers.''

Bo was speaking hours after China said it would scrap export tariffs on 81 textile products, making good on its threat to roll back the taxes if the West imposed curbs on its goods.

The tit-for-tat move followed a formal request on Friday by the European Union for talks with China over surging shipments of T-shirts and flax yarn, which have fanned fears of widescale bankruptcies and lay-offs in the 25-member bloc.

China now has 15 days to limit this year's increase in exports of the two products to 7.5 percent over 2004 levels, otherwise the EU will enforce the limits itself.

Washington imposed similar quotas on Chinese-made trousers, underwear, shirts and other goods in mid-May.

Bo said the measures violated World Trade Organization rules and discriminated against China. He also disputed the evidence marshaled by the two governments to justify the curbs.

``The EU and U.S. imposed quotas on Chinese textiles based on primary data obtained in a short period of just three or four months and made a cursory decision. They are groundless and unscientific,'' Bo said. ``In our opinion this move lacks legal grounding and therefore is incorrect.''

IMMEDIATE RISK

The EU immediately rejected Beijing's charge.

``We have shown that not only is there a surge in imports from China but also ... that there is an immediate risk for (European) companies,'' European Commission spokeswoman Claude Veron-Reville said in Brussels.

In Europe, the flood of Chinese imports has crystallized fears that the EU is failing to protect jobs and was a background factor in French voters' rejection on Sunday of a new EU constitution.

But Bo said textiles were more important to China, where 19 million people depended on the industry for their living. Exports of $2.3 billion were at risk due to the U.S. and EU curbs.

Against this background, he said China had no choice but to scale back the export taxes it had voluntarily introduced.

``Since the U.S. and the EU have already decided to take quantitative restrictions against Chinese exports of textiles, how can the Chinese government possibly reimpose export duties on those products?'' he asked.

EU figures show imports of Chinese T-shirts rose 187 percent in the first quarter of 2005, while imports of flax yarn, used to make linen cloth, rose 56 percent.

Bo said China's analysis of the market differed sharply.

He said that Chinese textile exports in the first four months of 2005 rose 18.4 percent from a year earlier to $31.2 billion.

Not only was this rise 5 percentage points smaller than the increase recorded in the same period of 2004, but it lagged the 35 percent jump in overall Chinese exports for January to April this year.

The row over textiles has added fuel to a debate over the value of the yuan, which has been pegged near 8.3 per dollar for a decade. Law-makers and manufacturers in the United States, as well as many independent economists, believe the peg undervalues the currency, giving China's exporters an unfair advantage.

Bo gave no clues as to Beijing's thinking on a shift in the currency, saying only that when the government decides it will consider China's needs and the stability of the global economy.



Copyright 2005 Reuters Ltd. Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections RSS Help Contact Us Back to Top

China scraps export tariffs on 81 textile products

China scraps export tariffs on 81 textile products


Home>News Center>China
China scraps export tariffs on 81 textile products
(Xinhua)
Updated: 2005-05-30 20:27

China announced Monday it would no longer impose export tariffs on 81 categories of textile products as of June 1, 2005.


Commerce Minister Bo Xilai gestures as he speaks to the media during a press conference in Beijing Monday, May 30, 2005. Bo on Monday accused the United States and Europe of violating World Trade Organization rules by imposing import quotas on Chinese textiles without providing adequate information to back up claims they were disrupting markets. [AP]
A previous decision to quintuple the export tariffs on 74 textile categories, on which export tariffs were imposed from Jan.1 this year, was revoked, according to sources from the Customs Tariff Commission of the State Council, China's cabinet.

The export tariff on flax yarn will also be abolished, the Commission said.

"If some countries have imposed restrictive measures upon China's textile goods, then China needs to revoke export tariffs on these goods, because the country cannot make its textile export shoulder double pressures," said Chinese Minister of Commerce Monday afternoon at a press conference held by the State Council Information Office.

"Since the United States and European Union (EU) side have imposed quantitative restrictions China-originated textile goods, how can the Chinese government continue to impose export tariffs?"Bo said. The Chinese government must treat their enterprises fairly, he added.

Monday's decision was announced in the wake of EU decision to impose quotas on imports of Chinese textiles, as well as US decision to re-impose restrictions on seven kinds of Chinese textile and clothing imports recently.

On Jan. 1, 2005, when the global textile quotas were eliminated,China voluntarily imposed export tariffs on some textile goods so as to limit its export growth. On May 20, China again decided to raise the export tariffs on 74 categories of textile products, with a 400-percent hike for most of the products.

The United States and the European Union, disregarding these voluntary measures taken by China however, still imposed strict restrictive measures on textile import from China since the beginning of this year.

"If developed countries had eliminated their textile quota restrictions step by step, the surge of Chinese textile exports to their markets this year would be avoided," said Bo Xilai.

The United States and the European Union remained most of their quota restrictions on competitive textile products from developing countries to the last minutes, which led to the rapid growth of Chinese textile exports immediately after the global quotas were canceled, he said.

The decision just made by the Chinese government to revoke textile export tariffs is "wise," Zhang Yansheng, director of the Foreign Economy Institute of the State Development and Reform Commission told Xinhua.

Export tariff levy is a kind of voluntary measure taken by the government to limit export, and it is reasonable for the country to raise or revoke export tariffs under different circumstances, Zhang said.

"The abolishment of textile export tariffs shows the Chinese government fully understands the enormous difficulty faced by Chinese enterprises," Zhang said.

China's textile industry welcomes and supports the tariff abolishment, said Sun Huaibin, spokesman for the China Textile Industry Council.

"This shows the textile trade disputes between China and the United States and the European Union have not been solved, and will probably continue for the future three to eight years," he told Xinhua in an exclusive interview.

The tariff abolishment reduces the export cost of Chinese enterprises to some extent, but the key obstacle blocking China's textile export is the unreasonable restrictions imposed by the United States and the European Union, said General Manager Zhong Zhijie of the Baimei Apparel Company in eastern Zhejiang Province.

To face the new challenge, the country's textile sector should readjust their export strategies and introduce more advanced technology to increase the added value of their products, Sun Huaibin said.






Comment on this article

Close


Today's Top News Top China News



China scraps export tariffs on 81 textile products



CCB removes two senior leaders amid listing



End of tax breaks for companies in sight



French voters reject first EU constitution



Bank regulator warns of soaring estate loans



China rips Japan's war-criminal remarks



China criticizes EU, US for textile curbs

China to scrap export tariffs on 81 types of textiles

Bank regulator warns of soaring estate loans

EU safeguard measures on textiles opposed

Unhealthy lifestyle blamed for fatal diseases

CCB removes two senior leaders amid listing



Copyright By chinadaily.com.cn. All rights reserved

???????-??

???????-??中国应该据理力争

21世纪经济报道 　2005-05-25 15:35:36




　　香港WTO年会预料不提中国纺织品问题
　　中国应该据理力争
　　　　
　　本报记者　陈宜飚　香港报道
　　
　　虽然今年香港将主持高规格的部长级会议，但在中外纺织品贸易问题上，估计并不能发挥多大作用，甚至纺织品事件能否进入讨论议题都很难说。
　　
　　政府提税三大用意
　　今年春夏之交，中国内地的纺织品出口商过得相当艰难，备受欧美“特保”折磨之后，又将面临6月1日之后的出口税压力。
　　著名学者、香港世界贸易组织（WTO）研究中心主席王贵国接受本报专访时指出，中国政府的做法至少能收到三个效果：首先，中国政府自行增加出口税的最直接效果有助于减小来自欧美等国的压力，“内地纺织品本身成本提高后，其竞争力自然下降”。
　　另一个直接好处是增加了政府税收。王贵国认为，中国政府把潜在的，可能流入其他国家国库的钱截留在中国国内。对中国企业来说，即使中国政府不增加出口税，它们也可能面临被其他国家征税或通过其他方式收费的结果。从这点上看，企业支出并没有太大变化，但政府的税收却提高了。
　　不过，王贵国认为此次提税的根本目的，在于提高中国纺织品的出口档次，改善出口产品结构。从财政部的提税幅度与提税产品项目来看，这次政府的宗旨是提高低档产品的出口门槛。因为从提税的绝对额来看，大多数单件产品的税额从0.2元提到1元，对于高档产品来说可能压力并不大，但是却进一步压缩了低档产品的利润空间。
　　
　　外发加工方式受影响
　　由于内地纺织行业中不少是港商企业，而且运往欧美的不少货物经由香港转口，因此这次财政部增税引起香港方面的高度重视。
　　香港贸易发展局助理首席经济学家潘永才认为，相对内地纺织品商人，这次增税对香港纺织品商人的影响并不大。潘永才说，“这次征的是从量税，只是影响低档产品，而香港多为中高档产品，没有太大问题。”不过，潘永才提醒说，此次提税可能会打击利用外发加工方式（OPA）在内地生产的香港商人。
　　当初，面对欧美实施配额制，不少香港纺织品商人采用OPA，将主要工序放在香港进行，以香港为原产地避开欧美限制。但在内地开征纺织品出口税之后，外发加工的产品从内地进入香港时也要纳税。所以从今年1月开始，代表港商利益的香港纺织品协会便通过香港工业贸易署与内地有关部门协商，请求豁免OPA方式下的出口税。但是目前协商还没有结果。香港工贸署的新闻发言人在回应本报咨询时称，“我们会继续向内地争取，为港商在内地进行纺织品加工贸易尽快获得出口税豁免的安排。”
　　香港贸发局提供的数字显示，香港的纺织品出口已经受到影响。香港去年（转口加上本地）的纺织品与成衣出口占总出口的15％，是个不小的比例；目前受配额影响的纺织品，如果按去年的金额来看，占转口贸易的20％，涉及金额高达46亿美元。
　　
　　预期利益或受损
　　中国纺织品问题愈演愈烈也许是当初入世之时所不曾预料的，不少人寄望于WTO组织解决问题。今年的WTO部长级会议将于12月在香港召开，届时是否会有转机？
　　潘永才认为，虽然今年香港作为WTO的特别关税区，将主持高规格的部长级会议，但在中外纺织品贸易问题上，估计不能发挥多大作用。他表示，“甚至纺织品事件能否进入讨论议题都很难说。”
　　王贵国也认为，在今年的WTO部长会议上，纺织品问题不会再提起。“这件事情对WTO来说已经不是问题，它只是对中国有压力，原因与中国当初入世时的承诺有关。”王贵国指出，对于2005年1月1日《纺织品与服装协定》终止后如何限制中国的纺织品出口，美国等发达国家一直在研究对策。而中国入世时的《中国加入议定书》（“议定书”）和《中国加入工作组报告书》（“工作组报告”）成为最好的突破点。
　　《议定书》和《工作组报告》属于《世界贸易组织协定》的例外，如果前两者和后者发生冲突，具有优于《世界贸易组织协定》一般规定的作用，包括优于《纺织品与服装协定》。“但是任何例外都必须满足一定的条件，否则例外便可能被滥用。”王贵国说。
　　就纺织品贸易而言，援引《议定书》和《工作组报告》的规定，应满足程序和实体两个方面的条件。在程序方面，虽然包括美国在内的WTO成员可以以“市场扰乱”为理由，对原产于中国的纺织品进行限制，但在实施限制前必须与中国进行磋商，并在提出磋商请求时，“应向中国提供关于磋商请求的原因和正当理由的详细事实陈述，并附提出磋商请求成员认为能够证明下列内容的现行数据：（a）市场扰乱的存在或威胁；（b）在该市场扰乱中原产于中国的产品的作用。”
　　王贵国认为，目前美欧均没有严格按照上述要求对待中国纺织品问题。因此，中国应该据理力争。他说：“一旦欧美进一步实施配额，中国政府虽然可以去WTO进行申诉，但是长达两三年的申诉结束后，即使中国政府赢得了正义，企业也失去了宝贵的时间。如果美国能突破这个防线，其他国家也会效仿。到时中国真的失去纺织品这个行业，我们入世的预期利益就会有重大损失。”

???????-??

???????-??大幅提升纺织品出口税不失为次优选择

21世纪经济报道 　2005-05-25 15:35:15




　　特约评论员　梅新育
　　
　　在当前现实情况下，与让对方征收高额反倾销税或实施配额相比，自己加征出口税起码还算是次优选择。
　　
　　2005年5月13日－5月20日，短短一个星期时间里，中国纺织服装企业就充分见识了国际经贸争端中的风云变幻。美国政府于13日、18日两次宣布对我7种纺织服装产品实施特别保障措施。
　　我国政府于20日宣布将从6月1日起对已经征收出口税的148项纺织品中的39项8位税目产品下的74种纺织品大幅度提高出口关税税率，其中多数纺织品税率增加到原来的5倍，即由每件征收人民币0.2元增加到1元。同时对亚麻单纱开征出口税，却无异于在纺织品出口企业头上炸响了一声惊雷。其威力所至，不仅令纺织服装企业雪上加霜，也拖累了沪深两市数千万股民。星期一（23日）开市当天，纺织服装类股票一马当先引导沪深股市直泻而下，杉杉、黑牡丹、华芳纺织等股票当日均以跌停报收；上证指数报收于1070.84点，比前一交易日跌幅高达2.59％，创下近6年新低；深证成指报收于2840.97点，比前一交易日跌幅达2.06％；沪深300指数以863.34点报收，跌幅达2.2％。当日沪深股市成交量萎缩至76亿元，两市近1800个交易品种中，超过9成不同程度下跌。
　　大幅度提升纺织品出口税已成定局，在一定意义上，此举也不失为次优选择，但其已经显露和潜在的负面效应同样不可忽视。首先，我们必须明确，此举不可能彻底缓解中美双方的贸易摩擦，也不可能彻底缓解与其他国家之间的贸易摩擦。因为我国生产和出口的高速增长决定了我们必然要与原来的市场占有者发生摩擦，发生摩擦是正常的。
　　其次，我们作出了这样巨大的让步和牺牲，但能否换取对方的理性回应？其中存在较大疑问。据说白宫发言人达菲和欧盟委员会贸易事务发言人勒贝伊先后对我国此举作出了积极的表示，但以往的痛苦经验早已告诉我们，千万不能相信他们的这类表态有多少价值。所以，化解贸易争端，不能片面依靠让步，归根结底还是要靠增强自己的实力，充分显示自己有能力维护自己的核心利益，也有足够坚强的意志使用这种能力；在此基础上改进在进口国的政治游说能力，组织反贸易保护主义同盟军，尽可能从内部打破保护主义壁垒。
　　再次，这样做也可能会产生一些负面的示范作用。巴西发展、工业和对外贸易部在20日宣布，巴西总统卢拉将在近日内颁布两项法令，限制进口中国商品以保护本国工业。其中一项限制措施将针对来自中国的所有商品，其有效期到2013年；另一项法令仅针对进口中国纺织品，其有效期到2008年。限制措施将包括提高关税税率和实施进口配额。难说这不是受到了美国和欧洲的启示。
　　此外，从一个世界的视野来考虑，这样做大大提高了我们出口纺织品的成本，是否损害了全世界亿万低收入消费者的基本生存权利？毕竟，廉价而质量尚可的中国消费品是这个数量庞大的群体唯一能够承担的消费品，而且，除了中国以外，其他任何一个国家也没有能力以这样高的效率、这样低的成本供应如此大量的廉价消费品。
　　一个仅有7万从业人员的小小纺织服装部门就能够成功“绑架”世界唯一超级大国的对外政策，为了美国7万纺织服装从业人员能够继续向消费者勒索高价的“权利”就必须牺牲中国纺织部门1900万员工的利益？这就是当前国际政治和国际经济领域的残酷现实。在美国和欧盟限制措施阴影下大幅度提升纺织品出口税，甚至开征出口税本身，对于我们的企业、对于我们的工人是极其不公平的。在当前现实情况下，我们也可以理解，这是决策者为了维护更大的利益而不得不作出的痛苦决定。而且，与让对方征收高额反倾销税或实施配额相比，自己加征出口税起码还算是次优选择，毕竟这些税金可以进入我们自己的国库，而不是对方的国库。　

??? Zaobao.com

??? Zaobao.com社论/言论/天下事 2005-05-21



自由贸易不应有双重标准

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

　　５月13日和18日，在不到一个星期的时间内，美国商务部以“扰乱市场”为由，连续两次宣布对七类中国纺织品实行配额限制。由此，中美之间旷日持久的贸易纠纷再次升级，双边贸易的秩序正在经受考验。

　　自从今年1月1日世贸组织实施纺织品贸易一体化，也就是全部取消纺织品限额以来，中国销往美国和欧洲的纺织品大幅度增加，美欧相关企业受到冲击，各国政府受到压力之后，便试图把压力转嫁于国外。

　　在对华贸易都有较大逆差的背景下，美国和欧盟自然就趁机对北京左右夹攻，一是指责中国操纵人民币币值，致使出口商品价格偏低，二是要求中国采取措施，包括对纺织品实施出口限制。

　　其实，早在全球纺织品限额制度取消之前，中国就已经在欧美国家不安的关切之下，增加了对148种纺织品的税收，以此控制在短时间内出口涨幅过快的趋势。但是，尽管出口增幅得到一定程度的控制，成本优势使中国纺织品在欧美市场依然大行其道。在自由和公平贸易的前提下，这是自然的现象。

　　然而，美国和欧盟却把自身蒙受贸易逆差的责任全部加于中国，并且持续地以贸易制裁相威胁。鉴于事关贸易全局，欧盟虽然发出过威胁，但相比之下还比较冷静，表明不对中国纺织品采取单方面限制措施。但遗憾的是，华盛顿当局在谴责北京“操纵”人民币币值的同时，自己却做出了干涉自由贸易的事情。

　　美国和欧盟是全球贸易一体化的倡导者和推动者，一直走在公平和自由贸易运动的前列，并且也享受着自由贸易的果实。令人不解的是，当内部市场受到压力的时候，当自己感到“吃亏”的时候，美国就忘记了它对世贸组织所作出的承诺，或者从自身利益出发对公平贸易的原则采取双重标准。

　　对任何国家来说，自由贸易都有两面性。美国对华贸易确实存在着巨大逆差，并且仍然呈上升趋势。与此同时，美国某些劳动密集型的传统产业，确实受到了中国廉价商品的冲击，这些领域的就业压力也有所增加。

　　但是，美国从中国贸易的成长中，同样获得了巨大利益。在敲开了中国市场的大门之后，美国跨国企业正在从1亿多中产阶级的人口中收割丰硕的成果。中国对原材料的需求，也使美国的钢铁业、矿产业和木材业获得了极为丰厚的利润。而价廉物美的轻工产品，包括纺织品，更已成为美国进口商和分销商的依赖对象。更重要的是，对华双边贸易促进了美国经济的成长。

　　正因如此，美国对中国采取的贸易制裁措施，虽然获得了国内少数群体的支持，但却伤害了其他群体的利益，而且也达不到缩小贸易逆差的目的，充其量只能在国内政治中产生短期效应。

　　作为最重要的贸易经济体，美国动辄在双边贸易中采取单方面措施，是一个不好的示范。它会削弱人们对公平和自由贸易原则的信心。

The Telegraph - Calcutta : Opinion

The Telegraph - Calcutta : Opinion

Issue Date: Monday, May 09, 2005
ORGANIZING TRADE
- China’s economic growth has many lessons for India
Commentarao S.L. Rao
The author is former director-general, National Council for Applied Economic Research


More shine
The visit of the prime minister of China has triggered many comparisons between India and China. A recent presentation of an ongoing study on China by Jean-Francois Huchet, professor, University of Rennes in France, brought out some less-known facts about the Chinese economy. The many publications trying to explain the Chinese miracle, including the very illuminating China Inc. by Ted C. Fishman, shine more light on the development of corporate China. China today is more open in sharing data, there is more private collection and dissemination of data and many Chinese economists share the suspicion of government data.

Huchet’s studies show that corporate ownership as of now is, in much of Chinese industry, primarily with the state. He classifies companies in the Nineties into “red chips” that consist of companies registered on the Hong Kong stock exchange, mostly catering to export markets. A large part of China’s industrial production comes from the relocation of industries from Hong Kong (80 per cent of Hong Kong’s industrial capacity moved to China in the mid-Eighties), Taiwan and south-east Asia. (When such relocation was possible to India, our “socialism”, suspicion of private foreign investment, and our capacity for red tape killed such attempts.)

State and Central government-owned companies in China are in “protected” sectors in which foreign investment is not allowed. There are also autonomous state-owned enterprises that are leaders in the country (like Lenovo which recently bought IBM’s personal computer business). Urban employment is heavily dependent on state enterprises. Bottomlines of state enterprises are poor.

As of now most multinational entries are joint ventures with the government. This will change, since entry into the World Trade Organization requires China to allow foreign companies freer and unconditional entry. Almost half of exports are by government joint ventures with foreign companies. Private companies are in some competitive sectors and there are small private and family enterprises in service sectors in urban and rural China.

The favourable factors for industry are stability in policies, growing competition, enterprise-friendly banking and monetary policies, encouragement to export promotion and foreign direct investment, and relative autonomy to state-owned enterprises though government interference is not unknown.

Huchet identifies many negative factors. They include a highly politicized banking system, high and growing government deficits, soft budgetary constraints on the state enterprises and weak bankruptcy legislation. Other weaknesses in the environment for corporate enterprises include a great lack of trained and experienced managers; an inadequate “soft” infrastructure of chartered accountants, cost accountants, company secretaries, economic, market research and advertising agencies; many institutional and ideological blockages to the private sector; weak observation of contracts and an unreliable legal system; difficult access to the country’s financial system by the private sector. The entry into WTO will compel changes in ownership, open up many sectors to private and foreign investment, increase competition and lead to closure of many state enterprises.

What explains the continuing vitality in the economic growth of China? Studies show improvement in labour and capital productivity since the mid-Nineties. The government has slowly deregulated and encouraged competition in many sectors. It has been cautious in macroeconomic management, for example, maintaining an open trade framework while continuing a closed (regulated) financial system, which saved it from the south-east Asian crisis. A large and growing domestic market (200 million in the middle class) is a magnet for investors. It also balances the domestic economy against risks of export decline.

The government has over the last 10 years invested 8.6 per cent of the country’s gross domestic product in infrastructure. This has created a virtuous cycle of investment and growth. Investment in research and development has also been substantial and is now third only after the United States of America and Japan. Despite this, there is a growing shortage of power and not as much original design and development as might be expected. The dependence on oil and gas imports has made China invest heavily (and apparently not always wisely) in overseas wells. The heavy pollution owing to the use of domestic coal will almost certainly become an issue that will hurt China’s industrial production. India is following China in buying overseas oil and gas fields and will face environmental challenges from the rest of the world because of its polluting coal.

China’s other challenges to economic growth include the work force (aged 15 to 59), expected to decline after 2010, leading to rise in wages. The population will be “old before becoming rich” as the proportion of young people diminishes. The state must speedily build a pension system where none exists. This demographic change will also affect entrepreneurship and dynamism. While India’s work force will continue to rise for a decade or more beyond China, we also must introduce a social security system.

Since 1994 there has been a rising trend of mergers and closures of unprofitable state enterprises. As each province tried to emulate the other, the result has been an excessive number of producers of cars, consumer durables and so on. This has led also to growing bankruptcies (two-thirds of bank losses are due to state enterprises). Even more than India, China has to confront the demands of privatization. There must be a reform of corporate governance to enable greater transparency. The challenge of finding jobs for workers displaced due to closure of unviable state enterprises has yet to be resolved.

The Chinese banking system is badly in need of more reform. Non-performing assets to gross national product have declined from a high of 24.9 per cent in 2000 to 15.2 in 2002 (though some say that the figure today if properly calculated, is 45 per cent). India in 2002 had 1.8 per cent NPAs to GNP. Banks have had fresh infusions of capital in 1997, 1998 and 2004 and more is needed. While asset reconstruction companies in China are to buy weak bank loans and sell them, there has been little result. As foreign banks begin to set up as a result of the WTO agreement, Chinese local banks are likely to be left with weak assets. Here India’s nationalized banks are ahead of China.

China must settle the challenges of energy shortages, growing pollution, regional inequalities that will lead to political instability in the next 20 years before the demographic changes slow down growth.

India has hardly studied China’s economic growth and weaknesses. China, with its centralized system, is able to conduct such studies quickly. Its study of India’s information technology is one such example, and the effort to get people to learn English is another. When China understands a problem it moves swiftly to resolve it. We do not.

China put maximum emphasis from 1978 on exports and on manufactured products. While our exports to GDP doubled in a decade, we are far behind China. Chinese manufactured goods exports went up in GDP from 4 per cent to 18 per cent; in India they were 7.1 per cent. China concentrated on industrial growth. Industry’s share of GDP rose sharply over the 20 years of reform from 1978. In India, it has remained static. Our infrastructure investments are low and inefficient.

With China joining the WTO, there will be more competition for India. China may gain large market shares in cars and other consumer durables. Inside WTO, it will have to play by the rules.

Our weakness is the hypocrisy of our political leadership, poor implementation capability of our administration, speculative mentality of so much of our industry, poor work ethic in the workforce encouraged by legislation, leadership, and public ownership. We need to change our mindset from achieving equality within a small economy to rewarding performance.