Ambassador Zhang Xiangchen
刚才，美国谢伊大使的发言，一下子让总理事会变得火药味十足。我们应该感谢他，是他提醒我们现在处于多边贸易体制的空前危机当中，大家不能再悠闲地坐在湖畔享受夏日微风了。我特别要感谢他，7 月 13 日就把美国拟提交的《中国贸易破坏性的经济模式》文件发给我，使我能够提前消化它。但遗憾的是，这并非是什么佳肴美馔，而是味同嚼蜡。
The remarks by the US Ambassador Shea moment ago have made the air smell like gunpowder in this Council room. We should thank Ambassador Shea, as he reminded us that we are now in an unprecedented crisis of the multilateral trading system, and we can no longer sit leisurely by the lakeside, enjoying the sunshine and summer breeze. I would like to thank Ambassador Shea in particular for sending me a copy of the US submission on China’s Trade-Disruptive Economic Model on 13 July, so that I can digest this heavy cake before I come to this meeting. But much to my disappointment, that to me, it tastes more like a half-cooked dough than a cake.
我该如何回应呢？贸易政策审议是成员间相互评估贸 易政策的机制，世贸组织第 7 次对华贸易政策审议刚刚结束，我的同事王受文副部长已经回答了美国文件中的很多问题。如果有人愿意在别的机制下批评其他成员的贸易政策，我不持异议。你若意犹未尽，我愿洗耳恭听。尽管我不认为世贸组织是讨论成员经济模式的恰当场所，我还是选择不阻拦总理事会议程的通过，阻碍正常程序使一个机构不能正常运转， 那不是中国人的行事风格。
Then, how should I respond? As a matter of fact, the Trade Policy Review is a collective appreciation and evaluation of Members’ trade policy and practices. Two weeks ago, we have just finished the 7th Trade Policy Review of China, during which my colleague, Vice-Minister Wang Shouwen has answered quite many questions including those showed up in the US paper. Should any Members wish to criticize other Members' trade policy under other mechanism, I have no objection. If you feel like having more to say, I am then all ears. Although I do not believe the WTO is the appropriate place to discuss the economic models of Members, I chose not to block the adoption of this agenda item at today’s meeting of the General Council. Because blocking the normal proceedings and forcing a WTO body out of operation is definitely not our way of doing things.
针对美国文件里的指责，我完全可以重申中方在审议中的立场：中国的国有企业是自主经营自负盈亏的市场主体，产能过剩的根本原因是金融危机造成的需求收缩，中国没有强制性技术转让的法律规定，中国的 产业政策是指导性的，中国严格履行了入世承诺，中国执行了所有争端解决的裁决，中国的发展惠及世界，作为发展中国家的中国在解决发展不平衡不充分方面依然任重道远，等等，然后打烊收工。但是这样做好像有些对不住那些起草文件的美国同事，他们毕竟花了不少功夫。来而不往非礼也。美国文件长达十几页，做出回应大约需要 30 分钟。我一向不愿意作冗长发言，但今天恳请大家谅解。
In response to those charges raised by the US in its paper, I can reiterate what China has stated in our trade policy review,that is, the state-owned enterprises in China are market entities, carrying out autonomous operation and assuming sole responsibility for profits or losses; the root cause for overcapacity is contraction of global demand following the financial crisis; China has no legal provisions that impose compulsory requirements on technology transfer; the industrial policies in China are guidance in nature; China has strictly abided by its WTO accession commitments and implemented all dispute settlement rulings; China’s development has benefited the whole world; as a developing country, China still has a long way to go in terms of achieving comprehensive and balanced development and etc. I can go on elaborating all these facts and we can call it a day at the meeting. But for me, this might seem a bit unfair to our US colleagues who have spent many hours in drafting this paper. As we say, it is impolite not to reciprocate. The US submission has a dozen pages, to respond to it might take around 30 minutes. I never liked to make long interventions, but I’ll have to ask for your indulgence today.
I believe there are some basic rules to follow both in terms of giving and receiving criticism. For those who receive criticism, they should have an open mind for any criticism and embrace those criticisms that are fair and just. This should be the case no matter how harsh the criticism is or how much factual it is. We should treat the criticism in the spirit of correcting mistakes if you have made any and guarding against them if you have not. Actually in my Mission we are oftenhaving criticism and self-criticism among our colleagues. So please rest assured that we do have enough courage and broad mind to receive criticisms.
To be fair, for those who give criticism, they should also abide by some basic principles. For example, criticism should be based on facts, should refrain from putting labels on others, should use correct facts and correctly use facts, there should be clear logic in reaching conclusions through analyzing evidence. Only in this way, can criticism be convincing and produce good results.
Unfortunately, the US paper seems to fall short of these principles. Let me just give you a few examples.
First, regard one’s own views as others’ positions or even the multilateral rules.
1992 年，当中国宣布建立社会主义市场经济时，我记得清清楚楚，就在旁边的 RoomW会议厅，当被问及什么是社会主义市场经济，中国代表回答，我们所说的社会主义市场经济就是中国共产党领导的市场经济。26年过去了，我们从未改变过自己的观点。至于有些人认为中国加入世贸组织后 会改旗易帜，那只是他们的一厢情愿而已。世界上市场经济不只有一种模式，中国在努力探索符合中国国情的市场经济道路，并且已经取得了巨大的成就，不管别人说什么，我们都会坚定不移地沿着这条道路走下去。
Back in 1992, when China announced that it would build a socialist market economy, right in the Room W, a question was posed to a Chinese delegate, that is, what is a socialist market economy? I clearly remember this delegate replying that the socialist market economy was the market economy under the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party. 26 years passed since then, we have never changed our position. As for those who speculated that China would change and move onto a different path upon its WTO accession, but that was just their wishful thinking. There are more than one model of market economy in this world. China has been vigorously exploring a road of market economy which suits China’s own national situation and circumstances, and we have made remarkable progress in this endeavor. Whatever others may say, we will march along this road unswervingly.
In his remarks, Dennis mentioned the term “non-market nature of China’s economy”. However, we can't find the definition of “market economy” throughout the WTO rule book. There is no one-size-fits-all “market economy” standard in the world. The WTO rules never authorize any Member to use its own economic model as the template of “market economy”, and to accuse any other Member who would not copy it as a “non-market economy”.
If there is any relevance in the topic of "non-market economy", it reminds us once again that there are certain Members, including US, who, disregarding the WTO rules and their own commitments, are still using the notorious “surrogate country” methodology in anti-dumping investigations according to the “market economy” standards of their domestic laws. I would like to take this opportunity to urge these Members once again, “pacta sunt servanda”. Please honor your commitments 17 years ago.
Paragraph 1.5 of the US paper partially quoted an expression from the Communiqué of the Third Plenary Session of the 18th Central Committee, that is, “the government plays its role better”. The US paper intentionally omitted the rest part of sentence, which says “the market should play a decisive role in allocating resources”. In this regard, it is critically important to recognize the decisive role that market plays in allocating resources, as this is precisely the economic and institutional basis upon which China promotes its economic and trade relations with the WTO Members. Please allow me to give you a full quote of the entire paragraph in the Communiqué. “Economic structural reform is the focus of deepening the reform comprehensively. The underlying issue is how to strike a balance between the role of the government and that of the market, and let the market play the decisive role in allocating resources and let the government play its functions better. It is a general rule of the market economy that the market decides the allocation of resources. We have to follow this rule when we improve the socialist market economy. We should work hard to address the problems of imperfections in the market system, too much government interference and poor oversight.”
Similarly, preamble of the US paper partially quoted the Marrakech Declaration of 1994, that the multilateral trading system should be “based upon open, market-oriented policies”. However, the paper intentionally omitted the rest part of sentence, which says “ (based upon ... ) and the commitments set out in the Uruguay Round Agreements and Decisions”. This second half sentence is extremely important, as each Member has its own domestic policy objectives, and that the results of multilateral negotiations are a balance between Member’s domestic policies and the process of global trade liberalization. Such balance is reflected in the trade rules, the tariff schedules and services schedules of Members, which contain descriptions of Members’ legitimate regulatory policies and measures. To put it simple, the WTO Agreement is a set of contracts achieved through negotiations. Within the scope of those contracts, Members abide by the conditions set forth in the contracts. Beyond the scope of those contracts, Members have their own policy space.
中国宪法第十六条对国有企业的自主经营权做了明确规定。美方文件花了大量笔墨试图说明政府对企业的“控制”， 但却没能提供政府干预企业正常经营活动的证据。我曾就这个问题与一位美国高级官员辩论，他也未能提供证据，最后他说，控制不是科学而是艺术。话说至此，辩论当然无法继续，但我在心里却不能认同成千上万的中国企业是由一群艺术家控制的观点。在座的很多同事都清楚，美国真正的目的不只是想证明中国企业受政府控制，而且希望建立这样一种逻辑关系，即因为企业受控制，所以它们是履行政府职权的“公共机构”，应承担相应世贸组织协定比如补贴协定下的义务。可惜，这种逻辑被世贸组织上诉机构驳回了。上诉机构在 DS379 案的裁决中明确指出，“不能仅仅因为一个实体的所有权性质或者是否受政府控制来认定该实体是公共机构。” 我知道美国同事一直对输掉这个官司耿耿于怀，但上诉机构的裁决不容挑战。
The Article 16 of China’s Constitution clearly states that state-owned enterprises have decision-making power over their operation and management. The US paper spends many paragraphs trying to argue that the Chinese government “controls” enterprises. But the paper failed to provide evidence to prove that the government intervenes in the normal operation of the enterprises. I once had a debate with a US senior official over this point. He later conceded that he was unable to provide evidence. At the end of our debate, he said that control was not science, it was an art. With his such words, the debate was adjourned. But for me, I would not agree with the notion that thousands of enterprises in China are controlled by a group of artists. It is known to many colleagues present today that the real purpose of the US is not only trying to prove that Chinese enterprises are controlled by the government, but also trying to establish kind of logic. That is, so long as enterprises are controlled by the government, they therefore assume and perform part of government functions and therefore should be deemed as “public bodies” in the context of WTO and should undertake obligations under the WTO agreements such as Subsidies and Countervailing Agreement. Unfortunately, such logic was overturned by the Appellate Body. In the US-China Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties case, the Appellate Body stated that “the mere ownership or control over an entity by a government, without more, is not sufficient to establish that the entity is a public body”. I was told that our American colleagues have been quite unhappy with losing this case, but the ruling of the Appellate Body cannot be challenged.
让我再举一个例子，文件第一部分第 1.14 段，美国批评中国将“社会信用体系”作为“监控在华企业的新工具 ”。 而实际上中国探索建立社会信用体系是为了营造公平诚信的市场环境，中国的做法借鉴了德国、法国等 60 多个国家建立公共征信系统的经验。难道仅仅因为这个系统和美国的信用系统有所区别就成了控制企业的工具？
Let me give you another example. In paragraph 1.14 of the paper, the US questioned China for using “Social Credit System” as “new tool to monitor, rate and condition the conducts of all enterprises in China”. But the fact is that such a system is meant to create a fair and credible business environment and prevent fraud and misbehavior. And China’s “Social Credit System” is based on the experiences of over 60 countries that have established a similar public credit system, including in France and Germany. Is it simply because of its differences from that of the US that such system becomes a tool to monitor and control enterprises?
Second, there lacks consistency in the standards used in assessing Members’ policies.
发达国家是产业政策和补贴的发明者和主要使用者。 正是 18 世纪末美国汉密尔顿的《制造业报告》开启了制定产业政策的先河。今天美国的《先进制造业伙伴计划》（AMP）《信息高速公路计划》（NII）等不就是美国的产业政策吗？ 根据美国补贴监控组织“好工作优先”统计， 2000-2015 年这 15 年间，美国联邦政府以拨款或者税收抵免形式至少向企业补贴了 680 亿美元。
The developed countries are inventors and major users of industrial policies and subsidies. It is actually Alexander Hamilton who pioneered the concept of industrial policies in his 1790 Report on Manufactures. Today, the US Advanced Manufacturing Partnership (AMP), the US National Information Infrastructure (NII), to name a few, are key industrial policies in the US. According to the Good Jobs First, a US national policy resource center that tracks subsidies, the US federal government has allocated a total of 68 billion USD in the form of government grants and tax credits from year 2000 to 2015.
Like other countries, China also has developed some industrial policies for strategic and planning purposes. These policies have played certain role in China’s social and economic development. But in the US paper, these policies are described as rocket engines, which is plainly exaggerating. If that were the case, there would be no need for any country to work hard and enhance their productive capacity, rather all countries can simply rush to draw up fancy industrial policies. In this regard I can share some personal experiences. Several years ago, I served as the Director General for the Policy Research Department in the Ministry of Commerce and I had been involved in developing some plans. A former colleague from that Department recently visited me, saying with a bit of surprise and confusion that: “I used to feel frustrated quite often with the actual effect of the plans that I had joined in developing, but happily now some people are saying these plans had changed China and shocked the world. I never realize that I myself and my plan can be so powerful.” I said to him: “Wake up, you should know better what those plans can do.”
Third, there are missing links between evidences and arguments.
Mr. Qu Dongyu is Vice-Minister of Agriculture and Rural Affairs in China and also an agricultural scientist. He is my friend and came to Geneva a few weeks ago. When we met, I asked him what makes a scientist different from an ordinary person. He replied that you seldom hear a Yes or No answer from a scientist. They can talk a lot about facts in a descriptive manner, but they would be very cautious to give you any conclusions. Of course, we cannot use the scientists as a benchmark for everyone. But it is scientifically wise not to draw hasty conclusions before making thorough analysis.
美方文件第二部分第 2.9 段的论点是中国的计划经济越来越多，使用的证据是有多达几千家的机构参与了产业政策的制定过程。在我看来，这个论据只能说明中国产业政策是在广泛征求意见基础上制定的，是公开透明的。
Let us get back to the US paper, the Paragraph 2.9 argues that China’s planned economy “has become more, not less salient over the past 20 years”. The evidence used to support this argument is that thousands of agencies participate in planning industrial policies. To me, these facts only prove that the mechanism for setting industrial policies has become more open and transparent, that government agencies making policies increasingly rely on extensive consultations with stakeholders.
In section 4 of the US paper, entitled “Benefits to China of its economic model”, the US pointed to several facts, such as “China has seized on the benefits of WTO membership to rapidly develop its economy” and the lower cost of China’s manufacturing owes to “economies of scale and more advanced supply-chain development”. But from these facts, this section jumps to questioning China’s status as a developing country and criticizing China as exempting itself from contributing to liberalization of global trade rules, without providing any cause and effect analysis. It is hard to see how China’s development has benefited from its developing country status. All countries and regions join the WTO with a view to developing their economies, and that principle was stated in the Preamble of the WTO Agreement. The reason why China has been able to make contribution to the global development is precisely because that we have achieved growth through developing our own economy, and more importantly, sharing the opportunities and benefits with the rest of the world.
Fourth, there are lack of seriousness in selecting and using evidences.
我不仅读了美方文件的正文部分，也看了它的 88 个脚注，有些脚注里的内容现在还没找到。我的同事说也许因为我是巨蟹座的，所以特别关注细节。但这里的每一个人都知道魔鬼在细节里。一份文件如果脚注有问题，论据就靠不住，论点就值得怀疑。请让我分享几个发现：
I have read very carefully the US paper, not only its main part, but also the 88 footnotes. For some footnotes, I could not find the sources as referred. My colleagues were saying that because I was born in June and I am a Cancer in the Zodiac, so I often pay too much attention to the details. But as we all know, the devil is in the details. If a paper has flaws in its footnote, then its evidence may be called into question and its arguments will be put into doubt. Let me share a few.
文件第一部分第 1.3 段称中国限制市场力量发挥作用，其依据是脚注 2 的中国《物权法》，而《物权法》明明规定“支持、鼓励、引导”非公有制发展。为什么在美国同事的眼里，“支持、鼓励、引导”却等同于打压、限制和干扰呢？
Paragraph 1.3 of the paper says that China limits the power of the market and cites in its footnote China’s Property Law as a source. But the fact is that the Property Law clearly says that China “encourages, supports and guides the development of the non-public economy.” I wonder why in the eyes of our US colleagues, the very words “encourage, support and guide” could be misread as “suppress, limit and intervene”.
文件第三部分“非互惠和封闭的市场”这一节和其他部分有个不同之处，三段文字竟然没有一个脚注。我想可能是不太好找吧，与此结论相反的脚注却很容易找，我忍不住想帮忙提供几个：2017 年中国对世界经济增长的贡献率为 34%。中国是 120 多个国家和地区的最大贸易伙伴。这样的例子在中国刚刚向总理事会提交的《中国与世贸组织白皮书》（WT/GC/W/749）中随处可见。还有，谢伊大使担任美中经济与安全审查委员会副主席时联合签署的委员会 2013 年度报告指出，“中国航空航天、汽车工业和农产品等行业的需求增长支撑了美国出口”。如果中国是一个非互惠和封闭的市场，美国产品是怎进去的呢？
Section 3A of the paper is entitled “non-reciprocal and protected market” of China. But one particularity over this section is that it has not a single footnote. I presume it is difficult to find evidence that can support this argument. However, if we reverse the argument, we can find plenty of evidences. Let me just offer a few. In 2017, China’s contribution to the growth of the world economy is 34%. China is the largest trading partner for over 120 countries and regions. There are plenty more such evidences in the white paper on China and the World Trade Organization that China has recently submitted to the General Council in the document WT/GC/W/749.The 2013 Report to Congress of the US-CHINA Economic and Security Review Commission co-signed by Ambassador Shea stated that “growing demand from China has supported American exports in certain sectors of the US economy, such as aerospace, the auto industry and agricultural products”. If China had been a “non-reciprocal and protected market”, how did those US products enter the Chinese market?
对文件 3.5 段产能过剩这部分，我也愿意贡献一个脚注。圣加伦大学教授伊文尼特（Simon Evenett）5月3日发表了一篇文章《不要对制造业产能过剩问题恼羞成怒》，里面提到中国对G20 成员出口产品的86%都不是来自所谓的产能过剩行业。他所参与的全球贸易预警（Global Trade Alert）项目对 16 家中国和 31 家其他国家的上市钢铁公司财务报告进行了研究，发现中国公司获得的补贴占销售收入的比例只有不到 0.4%，而很多其他国家公司获得的补贴比这高得多。
I would also like to contribute a footnote to paragraph 3.5 on excess capacity. On 3 May, Professor Simon Evenett published an article entitled “Don’t go spare over excess capacity in manufactures”, which provided that 86% of China’s exports to the G20 countries are not coming from the so-called sectors with excess capacity. The Global Trade Alert that he runs has examined financial reports of 16 Chinese and 31 non-Chinese listed steel companies. The figures show that subsidies only accounted for less than 0.4% of sales revenue of the Chinese steel companies, while for many non-Chinese steel companies, that share is much higher.
Mr. Chairman . For comment on the US paper, maybe I should stop here. As for the other submission by the US, which is the 2017 Report to Congress on China’s WTO Compliance, I believe there is no need for me to comment on it. I feel a bit sorry for our USTR colleagues who have worked so hard to produce these documents. In fact, I quite respect them though. The reason why I have identified some questions in their submissions is to help them improve the quality of their criticism. I know for sure that this has nothing to do with their professionalism and diligence. But we all know if we start writing with a preoccupied viewpoint, then the paper’s quality will be less than our expectation.
In China we have an old saying that it only takes three people to make you believe there is a tiger around. The story runs like this. One day, someone told the Emperor that there was a tiger rambling around the Capital. The Emperor did not believe him. Later in the day, another person told the Emperor the same thing. He still did not believe it. But when the Emperor heard the same story from a third person, he ordered his generals to go out and hunt for the tiger. This story tells us that a fiction repeated enough times may become a belief. This is maybe the anticipated results wanted by those who are labeling others. I do not think they have a bigger chance of success, as this may work the opposite way in that those who are labeling others will change from the hired agents in the Strategies of the Warring States to the boy who cried wolf in the Aesop's Fables. This is because the facts and truth can never be covered or altered. As I said in a recent interview, someone criticized China as a Mercantilist country, but have you ever seen a Mercantilist country that cuts tariff voluntarily? Have you ever seen a mercantilist country that hosts an International Import Expo to increase import from around the world?
Currently, the WTO is facing the unprecedented challenges. We have to be fully aware which country’s trade measures are most disruptive. How disruptive are the Section 232 measures that restrict import of steel and aluminum using national security as a pretext? How disruptive are the Section 301 measures that unilaterally impose tariffs on imports? If compared to the FIFA World Cup, these measures have severely undermined the rules of game and deserve a couple of red cards. What is worse, the US is blocking the referees from performing their duties by obstructing the reappointment of the Appellate Body members.
As mentioned in the beginning, I have an open mind for criticisms, even if they maybe unjust attack and not in good faith. We may just laugh it off. For China, holding our feet to the fire never worked. In the past, external pressure only made a nation of generations of hard working people striving for a purpose. And for now, criticisms help us to keep a cool head while moving forward. For the WTO, the only way to resolve differences is through consultations on equal footing, to find out about the root cause, the nature and implications of the problems and explore their relationship with the WTO rules. Extortion, distortion or demonization does no good to resolve the issues.
我们从未否认过中国经济体制中存在的问题，中国进入了改革的深水区，我们的工作还存在许多不足，也面临不少困难和挑战，对有益的批评和建议我们求之不得，如饥似渴。在对华贸易政策审议中，很多成员向中国提出了建设性的意见和建议。在座的同事都听了瑞士大使尚博文（ Didier Chambovey）先生作为引导人的评论，我认为他的评论是建立在深入考察、客观分析基础之上的真知灼见。他给我印象最深的一句话是，“世贸组织成员具有多样性，有着各自不同的经济模式，有着各自不同的管理贸易投资的框架。但在这种多样性当中，有一种共同的东西，即大家都相信市场的力量，尽管程度有所不同。”他指出的从高速度转向高质量发展和处理好市场与政府作用关系方面中国所面临的诸多挑战，正是我们今后改革的重点。对于这种中肯的意见，我们会心悦诚服地接受。对于这种以严谨的态度提出批评意见的人，我们愿意把他们当作我们的先生，随时向他们请教。
We have never denied that there are problems in China’s economic system, and China’s reform is entering into the deep water zones. We face many challenges and there are much more to be done. We readily welcome the constructive criticisms and suggestions, which we are more than happy to consider. In the Trade Policy Review of China two weeks ago, many Members provided constructive comments and suggestions. We have all heard the comments by H.E. Ambassador Didier Chambovey of the Switzerland as discussant in China’s TPR. I commend him on his statement as it is based on in-depth insight and objective analysis. For me, the most impressive sentence from his concluding remarks is this: “Membership at the WTO is multifaceted. We all have different types of economic models, differing frameworks for trade and investment. Yet at the centre of this diverse universe is a more or less common belief in the virtues of market forces.” Ambassador Chambovey rightly pointed out that in the transition from huge quantity to high quality, and in properly handling the relationship between the government and the market, China still has many challenges to overcome. And this is exactly the priority for China’s future reform. With regard to such good faith and objective opinion, we would accept wholeheartedly. And those who kindly give us good faith and just comments, we would regard them as our teachers and learn from them constantly.
Having listened to the interventions of other members and the second intervention by Ambassador Shea, I think I need to make a recap. Members can of course comment on other member’s economic policies and their relationship with the WTO, but to do that, I think we should have the courage to look first into ourselves and also have a sense of where the border line is.
孔子说过“不迁怒”。不能因为自己的问题冲别人发火。任何所谓的结构性问题归根到底都是国内问题。例如，不解决美国储蓄率低的问题，贸易逆差是不可能根本解决的。在批评别人的时候不要忘记自己是怎么走过来的，像发达国家一样，发展中国家保护知识产权水平的提高需要一个过程，发展中国家也需要通过制定产业政策帮助实现工业化，像巴基斯坦的沙淘奇 (Tauqir Shah)大使说的不能做过河拆桥、上房抽梯的事。
Confucius said that we should not vent our anger on others, or blame others for our own failure. We all know that at the end of the day, all structural issues are domestic issues. For instance, if the US does not increase its savings rate, it’s unlikely that it can solve its problem of trade deficit. Before criticizing others, we should think twice if we have done similar things in the past. Like developed counties done in the past, today’s developing countries also need time to enhance their protection of intellectual property right, or develop their industries through strategic planning and policies. As Ambassador Tauqir Shah said during China’s TPR, we cannot burn the bridge after crossing the river.
Laozi, the founder of Taoism, said if you know when to stop, you’ll not face danger. There’re boundaries to both WTO’s functions and our capacities. We should focus on those areas where members have shared concerns and could potentially make progress. We should not get ourselves into debating issues that are beyond the realm of the WTO and beyond our capacities.
That being said, for sure we need to think about the future of the WTO, and explore how to make the multilateral system compatible with the changes in the globalization. China is willing to play a constructive role and make its contribution. However, at the present moment, the paramount task for the WTO is to curb the spread of unilateralism and protectionism, to bring the dispute settlement to its full function and to stop the trade war. We should not waste our time finding scapegoats or look away from these fundamental challenges.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.