NPR:

In the investigation report of Section 301 made by the United States Trade Representative, the "Made in China 2025" program seemed to be riddled with criticism. It put forward the following concerns: First, how can China acquire advanced technologies? Is it through appropriate channels? Second, "Made in China 2025" clarified that Chinese enterprises will account for a certain market share. Will excludability exist? Finally, does the fact that domestic enterprises receive a lot of funding from the government conform to international economic rules? What are your comments on these points? Will "Made in China 2025" adjust itself to conform to international economic rules more strictly?

Wang Shouwen:

Thank you for your question. You speak better Mandarin than I do. As for "Made in China 2025," China proposed it on the basis of open development and win-win cooperation. You have a clear understanding of it, as the initiative itself is open and transparent. It aims to offer some strategic guidance and information for the upgrading of Chinese manufacturing sector. It is transparent, open and does not discriminate. Both Chinese and foreign enterprises, state-owned and private ones, can all take part in it. So we welcome U.S.-funded enterprises to join it, too. In its roll out process, we made stringent examinations to guarantee that it conforms to WTO rules. The Ministry of Commerce fulfilled the duty on the basis of our commitment to the WTO to ensure that we perform our duties as a WTO member. So we maintain that "Made in China 2025" meets the obligations of the WTO framework.

If you think that "Made in China 2025" is inconsistent with WTO obligations and goes against China's commitment in any respect, we can come together to negotiate with the WTO, or we can further bring a lawsuit. But we don't want anyone to artificially create excuses and then unilaterally take steps. Perhaps we have different opinions, but we hope to solve problems in the framework of WTO international rules.

"Made in China 2025" does have some targets, and these goals are predictive, directive and not mandatory. In fact, many countries have also made similar guidance targets and guidance plans. If you don't agree with me, I look forward to receiving your comments and criticism.

The Clinton administration developed a national infrastructure plan which took the information superhighway as an important approach to revitalizing the U.S. economy. We believe that our "Made in China 2025" is similar to that. The Obama administration also launched a national plan aimed at doubling the U.S. exports in five years. That was a guidance plan, too. The European Union also made its "industrial revival" program.

So, I suggest you read the "Made in China 2025" carefully again and don't take it as a terrible thing. I would like to emphasize that it is transparent, open and non-discriminatory. Some of the targets it sets are guiding and leading ones, which only provide some guidance information rather than mandatory tasks. And this practice has been adopted by many countries, including the United States.

Related

Go to Forum >>0 Comment(s)