SOEs not synonym of 'non-market' entity
- By Zhong Sheng
0 Comment(s)
Print
E-mail People's Daily, April 12, 2012
Recently, some countries have raised a tide of trying to resist products made in China.
The Alliance for American Manufacturing, taking Chinese enterprises' participation in the construction of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge as an excuse, is requiring the U.S. Congress to make a law to strengthen "purchasing products made in the United States."
Australia believes that the Huawei Technologies Company is connected with the Chinese government and therefore has refused it to participate in the bidding for constructing the National Broadband Network of Australia.
Not long ago, the U.S. China Economic and Security Review Commission also held a public hearing on Chinese enterprises and state-owned holding enterprises, which took "how the United States should make corresponding laws to deal with the pressure brought by Chinese enterprises to the United States" as the theme.
All these events reflect a new character of some Western countries' measures of dealing with trade frictions with China: Western countries are more and more targeting Chinese enterprises while protecting their own interests.
But China is not the only country with state-owned enterprises.
According to statistics, more than 70 percent of the world's fossil oil resources are controlled by state-owned enterprises of various countries.
It is obviously not reasonable to refuse Chinese enterprises in the name of the so-called "non-market."
Since the start of China's Reform and Opening-up, especially in the 10 years after China joined the WTO, Chinese enterprises have carried out in-depth reforms and connected with the market in all aspects. Chinese enterprises have completed the transformation of diversification, many of them have been listed, and some even have been listed in the United States. Anyone who has studied China's reform a little bit should not ignore this fundamental fact.
For the people who advocate repelling Chinese enterprises, their reason is that Chinese enterprises carry out monopolies. Large-scale state-owned enterprises of China, especially the central enterprises, are actually leaders of many realms in China's economic development. However, China does not encourage monopolization of its central enterprises and always tries hard to guarantee the fairness of enterprise competitions. Facing the Antimonopoly Law, the state-owned enterprises of China do not have any privilege.
One thing that must be pointed out is that Western countries actually have obtained benefits and shared the fruit while they were dealing with state-owned enterprises of China in recent years.
Taking the China Ocean Shipping Group as an example, in 2002, while many foreign shipping companies were withdrawing from Boston, it was the United States that invited them. Their businesses expanded and they also created tens of thousands of jobs for the United States. An expert said that, facing the impact of the international financial crisis, Chinese economy has saved the world economy by bringing along it, and Chinese enterprises' contributions were significant.
"Burning the bridge after crossing the river" is not a right thing to do for developing a healthy economic and trade relationship.
Creating difficulties to stop Chinese enterprises from entering markets of other countries actually is a kind of investment and trade protection. It does not accord with the "freedom of trade" spirit and also goes against the general trend of economic globalization.
Go to Forum >>0 Comment(s)