來源：WTO經濟導刊

據路透社11月20日報道，上週五（16日）的巴黎WTO會議期間，與會外交官和政府官員們就WTO改革進行了討論，其導火索之一就是美國抱怨WTO未能對中國所謂“涉嫌違規行爲”進行監督。

中國常駐世貿組織（WTO）大使張向晨在一場午餐會上表示，中國已決定同意歐盟針對上訴機構改革的提議，且已經和歐盟成立了高級別工作組。

在講話中，張向晨表示：“我們也會很快提出中國對WTO改革的建議。”但他同時警告其他WTO成員，不要將改革視爲可以給中國施緊箍咒的機會，否則他們會“很失望”。

張向晨大使演講全文：

感謝勒梅爾部長和勒穆瓦耶國務祕書對我的邀請。在日內瓦，我和我的廚師在學習法語，我的廚師進步很快，他能記住所有的菜名，因爲他每週都看法國M6的TOP Chef。我的進步很慢，但我喜歡法語，我會堅持學。希望下次能全部用法語發言。

和大多數中國人一樣，我對改革這個詞抱有天然的好感。40年來，中國的改革不僅改變了我的國家，也改變了我的生活軌跡，使我有了接受高等教育和走出國門、瞭解世界的機會。

和一個國家一樣，任何國際組織都需要與時俱進，WTO也不例外。多哈回合久拖不決，十多年來，發達成員數千億美元的農業補貼沒有一絲一毫的削減；電子商務等新興業態在全球市場上風生水起，WTO卻未能提供任何國際規範；更嚴重的是，面對今天甚囂塵上的單邊主義、保護主義狂潮，WTO難以進行有效地制約。

因此，WTO需要改革、必須改革。同時，改革必須堅持正確的方向，採取恰當的方式。

第一，改革必須堅持反對保護主義、單邊主義的方向，必須有助於推進世界範圍的貿易自由化、投資便利化進程，必須堅持非歧視的原則，必須充分發揚民主。

改革不是另起爐竈，對已經制定的規則，大家都要遵守；如有人破壞，應羣起反對之。新的商業領域需要新規則，也應允許部分成員，也許可從志同道合的成員開始進行探索，但要充分聽取和考慮廣大發展中國家的意見和需求，最終形成多邊規則。

第二，改革需要有優先順序，循序漸進，不能好高騖遠。

通過成員間的協商和談判，如果能夠儘快恢復WTO爭端解決機制的正常運轉，如果能夠在2019年如期達成漁業補貼協議，如果能在電子商務、投資便利化、中小微企業等議題的討論上有所進展，如果能夠在透明度等問題上也做出一些改善，對於將於2020年舉行的第12屆WTO貿易部長會議來說，已是功莫大焉。

在上述領域的改革中，中國願意發揮積極的、建設性的作用，並做出與自身能力相稱的貢獻。

第三，WTO改革是一個公共產品，而不是謀取私利的工具。

請恕我直言，如果有人借改革之名，打算爲中國量身定做一套規則來制約中國的發展，其結果註定是徒勞的。

全球化意味着競爭。我們都知道，貿易競爭和體育競爭有相似之處，共同遵守經協商一致達成的遊戲規則是最重要的。在競爭中取得勝利要靠自己的實力，而不是靠改變規則去壓制對方。

我的幾位前任，孫振宇大使、易小準大使、俞建華大使都是乒乓球高手。很長時間以來中國乒乓球水平世界領先，於是有人推動國際乒聯在比賽規則上做了不少針對中國的改革，以削弱中國乒乓球隊的實力。比如，將小球換成大球，把21分制改成11分制，甚至連拋發球的最低高度都做了限制。但這種改革的結果並沒有在多大程度上改變中國的戰績。

當然，我這裏也有相反的例子，中國足球長期落後，只打進過一次世界盃，令人唏噓。於是有人想，如果能允許把中國的武術功夫和足球技術結合起來，或許中國足球在世界上會另有一番作爲，有人還拍過類似題材的電影。顯然，這種想法徒具娛樂上的意義，不可能得到實施。

我舉這樣的例子，是想勸一些人還是做些切合實際的事，不要白費功夫。是真改革，我們一往無前；是陷阱，我們會果斷避開。

至於那些有爭議的領域，如補貼、技術轉讓，我們可以在尊重各自立場的前提下開展不同形式的對話。比如，關於全球產能過剩，是金融危機造成的需求收縮呢，還是有些國家的補貼造成的？我們願意討論，但我們不會接受別人強加給我們的觀點。

聖加侖大學的西蒙﹒伊凡納特教授發表的報告對此問題作了深入分析，我建議大家讀一讀，而不是匆忙得出結論。

本着這種精神，整個上午我都以一種認真和謙遜的態度聽取各方的發言，包括對中國國有企業、產業政策和技術轉讓要求等政策和實踐的評論、關注甚至是抱怨。我們會認真研究這些意見，看看其中是否有一些內容可作爲國內體制改革的借鑑。

中國願意參與各種形式的對話和討論，無論是雙邊的、區域的還是多邊的。實際上，我們與歐盟不久前建立了關於WTO改革的高級別工作組，我和丹尼斯（注：歐盟貿易總司多邊司司長）都是這個小組的成員。中歐已就上訴機構改革形成了聯合案文，我們還將討論更廣泛的WTO改革議題。中國也將在不久後提出自己的WTO改革方案。

在這裏，我需要做一個甄別，即對話、討論不等於談判。在我看來，在上述充滿爭議的議題上，目前在WTO成員間不存在共同的諒解和交集，以啓動相關領域的談判。

有人把WTO比喻成爲一個患了嚴重疾病的人，如果是這樣的話，做出正確診斷比匆忙開出藥方更重要。今天的討論可以算是一次醫生的集體會診，類似的會診也許會以不同的方式進行多次，直到我們確認真正的病源是什麼，然後再對症下藥。

我們每個人都知道WTO的危機來自何方。任何一個國家或者個人對WTO的態度，都只是WTO改革的背景，而不是改革的原因。

當然我們必須要做最壞的打算，但我不想針對假設性的問題花費過多的時間。我只想說，我們會在自己的能力和職責範圍內，努力推動正確的WTO改革。

On the reform of the WTO

Intervention by H.E. Ambassador Zhang Xiangchen

at the Luncheon in Paris Workshop

Je voudrais remercier au Ministre Le Maire et au Secrétaire d′État Lemoyne de m'avoir invité. À Genève. moi et mon culsinler. nous sommes en train d′apprendre le francais. Mon cuisinier a fait des progrès rapides. Il peut retenir le nom francais de tous les plats, car il regarde chaque semaine le programme TOP Chef de la ChaÎne M6. Je progresse lentement, mais j'aime beaucoup la langue francaise et je vais persévére dans mes études. J'espère prendre la parole entièrement en francais à la prochaine fois.

Like the most Chinese, I naturally like the word reform. In the past 40 years, the reform in China has not only changed my country, but also changed my own path in life, allowing me to have access to higher education and travel outside China to appreciate the world we live in today. 

A country needs to keep up with the new developments, and so are the international organizations. WTO is no exception. The Doha Round has been dragging on for years. Over the past decade, the hundreds of millions of dollars in agricultural subsidies in the developed members have remained largely unchanged. But at the same time, new forms of business such as e-commerce, have flourished across the world. WTO is not providing international norms to address any of these issues. What is even more alarming is that the organization seems to be losing effectiveness to rein in the rampage of unilateralism and protectionism.

For all these reasons, WTO needs a reform. But the reform should be in the right direction and taking the right approach.

First, the reform needs to be firmly set in the course of fighting against unilateralism and protectionism. It has to push for worldwide trade liberalization and investment facilitation. It has to stick to the principle of non-discrimination and adopt a democratic approach. Reform is not to reinvent the wheel. The existing rules must be fully respected and faithfully implemented. Reform is not an excuse for not implementing the rules, and any such attempt should be met with resistance from the members.

With respect to making new rules for newforms of business activities, we should allow members, maybe starting with groups of like-minded ones, to explore these issues, but we also need to duly consider the views and needs of the developing members and fully consult with them. Only through an inclusive process, can we maybe eventually reach multilateral outcomes.

Second, we need to prioritize and take a step-by-step approach, and stay away from moonshot targets. If, through consultations and negotiations among the members, we could expeditiously restore the proper functioning of the dispute settlement mechanism, achieve an agreement on fishery subsidies in 2019 as we planned, make progress on the new topics such as ecommerce, investment facilitation and MSMEs, make improvements in terms of transparency. If we can achieve these targets at the MC12 in 2020, I think we can already call it a success. China is willing to play a proactive and constructive role, and to make contributions within its capacities.

Third, the WTO is a public good, not a tool for meeting particular needs of someone or some group of members. Excuse me for being a bit blunt here, but if someone wishes, in the name of reform, put China in a tailor-made straightjacket of trade rules to constrain China′s development, I think they will be very much disappointed at the end of the day.

Globalization means competition. We all know that in competitive sports, abiding by an agreed set of rules of the game is vitally important. Same applies for trade. Winning a game should be done through strengthen and hard work, not by altering the rules. 

My predecessors, Ambassador Sun Zhenyu, Yi Xiaozhun and Yu Jianhua all loved playing ping pong. And we know that for a long time, the world ping pong championship used to be almost dominated by Chinese teams. But some saw this as a problem. To win in the games, some countries have pushed International Table Tennis Federation to make targeted reforms to change the rules of the game for ping pong, so that the Chinese team cannot benefit from the certain so-called "advantages". They have made the ping pong ball larger, changed the 21-point rule to the 11-point rule, and even set the maximum height for a toss serve. However, none of these reforms have changed much the results of the Chinese teams. 

Of course, I also have the examples from the opposite side. China's man’s football team has just made it once to the world cup finals, despite there’re hundreds of millions of football fans in China. So someone thought, what if we could mix the football and Chinese Kungfu, maybe that will help get the Chinese team to the world cup? People actually made a movie on that. Of course, that movie is rather for entertainment than for the reform of the football rules. I'm just giving this example to say that we all have what we want, but we need to be pragmatic, not to waste our time on unrealistic targets. If it is a real reform, we’ll go ahead with it, if it is a trap, it's best for all of us to stay away from it. 

For the issues where members have divergent views such as subsidy, transfer of technology, we can have different forms of dialogues while respecting each other's positions. For example, on excess capacity, we can discuss if the root cause of excess capacity is in the contraction of global demand due to financial crisis, or is it in the subsidies by some countries. We’re willing to discuss these issues, but we'll not take views forced onto us. Professor Simon Evenett from the University of Saint Gallen has done an insightful study on this topic and I advise we could all have a look at his report rather than making a conclusion too fast.

In that spirit, I listened carefully in a humble manner this morning, of the comments, the concerns and even the complaints about China’s policies and practices on state owned enterprise Industrial policies as well as technology transfer requirements. We will study them carefully, and to see if some of them could be taken into account in the process of domestic institutional reform. We would like to be engaged in the dialogue and discussion with our counterparts bilaterally, regionally and multilaterally. Actually, we established a high-level working group on the WTO reform with the EU, and Denis and I are the members of the group. China has already decided to co-sponsor the EU's proposal on the Appellate body, and we will discuss much more broader issues with regard to the WTO reform. We will also put forward China' s WTO reform proposal soon. Having said that, I need to make a clear distinction, i.e. dialogue and discussion are not negotiation. We don’t think there are common understanding and convergence to conduct any Specific negotiation on the controversial issues in the WTO at this stage.

People sometimes say that the WTO is a patient in a critical state with multiple failing organs. If that is the case, urgently resorting the functioning of the organs and making the right diagnostics of the illness is more important that rushing to give prescriptions. Today’s discussion might be a group consultation of doctors to identify what is the cause of the illness and work on a plan for proper treatment. We might have many such group consultations indifferent formats so that we can have the right understanding of the issues and provide the right solutions.

We all know where the crisis of WTO comes from, but whatever a particular country or a particular individual thinks about the WTO, it can only serve as the context rather than the reason for the reform of the WTO. Of course. we have to prepare for the worst, but I don't want to spend too much time on hypothetical scenarios. I just want to say that we will, within our capacities and responsibilities, work hard to push for the right reform of the WTO.

Thank you.

編輯：宋琍琍、羅偉（商務部研究院數據中心）

審校：張鵬、張仙鳳、李君韜、範舒雯（商務部研究院數據中心）