CCG持续对企业全球化、 “走出去”和“引进来” 展开双向研究,以当前国际背景下的中美贸易、国际贸易、来华投资、对外投资、数字贸易为主题,进行分析、研究与解读。CCG 不断寻求更多力量来推动全球自由贸易发展,率先推动中国加入 CPTPP,并发布系列研究报告。此外,CCG 课题组常年编写国内唯一的“企业国际化蓝皮书”《中国企业全球化报告》,并在中国社会科学文献出版社出版。CCG还研发出版了《世界华商发展报告》、《大潮澎湃——中国企业“出海”四十年》、China Goes Global 、The Globalization of Chinese Enterprises 等企业全球化研究中英文图书系列。CCG还创办了国内最具影响力的专注于企业全球化发展的“中国企业全球化论坛”,围绕国际贸易与投资相关国际议题设置多场分论坛,云集国内外极具影响力的跨国公司领袖、驻华大使、前政要官员、国际组织与商会负责人、国际顶尖智库专家及知名学者深度研讨,已发展成为推动企业全球化发展的国际高端论坛。
-
Victor Gao: Here’s a win-win zero-tariffs trade deal
Here’s a win-win zero-tariffs trade deal that Donald Trump and Xi Jinping should shake on By Victor Gao, vice president of CCG How the United States and China deal with each other in 2019 is of vital importance, as it will have an impact not only on these two countries, but on the world as a whole. The US-China trade war, unprecedented in scale and severity, has further increased the risks to peace and development. Fortunately, US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping met in Argentina on December 1, and agreed to a three-month truce before more tariffs would be imposed on Chinese exports to the US. Towards the end of December, Trump and Xi had a pleasant phone call and exchanged New Year greetings. In early January, the Chinese and US teams met in Beijing for extensive dialogue to hash out the details and narrow the differences on trade. Although there was no joint communique after this round of working-level talks, it is expected that Chinese Vice-Premier Liu He will visit Washington before the end of January for higher-level dialogue, and that Xi and Trump will review the results of this dialogue and decide how China-US relations should proceed. The world is holding its breath for what may or may not happen. The general expectation is that, for their mutual benefit as well as global economic peace, it is better for the US and China to move on from the trade war to what matters the most: development. It is important to note that, although the trade war involves mostly tariffs and should be more accurately called the tariff war, the fundamental issue facing the US is equal, unhindered access to the Chinese market, which has become the world’s largest consumer market. To help China and the US strike a better deal, I propose a reciprocal zero-tariff agreement. Some background: In bilateral trade between the world’s two largest economies, there is a huge imbalance against the US. While the exact statistics differ between China and the US (because of the different benchmarks used), for argument’s sake, let us consider the most recent Chinese customs data. In 2018, US imports to China rose to US$155.1 billion and Chinese exports to the US to US$478.4 billion, which means that the US is running a trade deficit of US$323.3 billion (and China, a surplus of US$323.3 billion). Such a large imbalance is obviously not conducive to the constructive development of China-US relations. Yet, while Trump has emphasised the importance of balanced trade, it may not be realistic to expect an instant rebalancing, given the strong interconnectedness between the two economies. Over the past year, the Chinese and US trade delegations have largely been involved in bean counting. As important as that may be, it is high time to get a macro and fundamental perspective of bilateral trade. This is the rationale behind the reciprocal zero-tariff arrangement between China and the US, which would include the following key points. 1. Reciprocity: China and the US would impose zero tariffs on imports or exports between each other, in the amount of US imports to China. The figure would be adjusted every year, according to changes in US imports to China. So, for the past year, for example, China and the US would qualify for zero tariffs on US$155.1 billion of Chinese goods exported to the US and US$155.1 billion of US goods imported to China. 2. Tariff exemption or otherwise: A sizeable amount of Chinese exports to the US (around US$150 billion) are manufactured by US companies operating in China. The US government could use its discretion in granting tariff exemptions to these US companies or levying certain tariffs on their goods. 3. Normal tariffs or otherwise: for the remainder of Chinese exports to the US, the US could levy normal tariffs, the lowest possible tariffs, or zero tariffs. 4. Annual readjustment: As the amount of US imports to China would be used as the benchmark for the reciprocal zero-tariff agreement, the agreement would be adjusted according to the amount every year. Under this arrangement, both the US and China would be winners and there would be more balanced and sustainable trade between them. For the US, one key advantage of this arrangement is guaranteed greater access to the increasingly important Chinese market. There is no doubt that this arrangement would result in more US goods being imported to China, which would help create more jobs in the US. Initially, China could be uneasy about granting zero tariffs to all imports from the US, especially agricultural goods, but let us hope that both China and the US recognise the greater good that could be brought about by this arrangement. If this becomes a reality, both Xi and Trump should get recognition for their wisdom, vision and courage. While former US President Richard Nixon has been hailed as the leader who opened the door to China, Trump could go down in history as the one who opened up a zero-tariffs Chinese market for US goods, thanks to his repeated emphasis on reciprocity and fairer access to the Chinese market. This could be a happy, win-win arrangement for the people of China and the US, who would be able to put the trade war behind them and rededicate themselves to expanding economic engagement between China and the US for mutual benefit. There is no doubt the world will be a better and safer place with more trade, and fairer and more sustainable trade, between the two largest economies. About Author Victor Gao, vice president of Center for China and Globalization(CCG), the chairman of China Energy Security Institute.
2019年1月22日 -
庞中英 |“贸易磋商”治理“贸易战”:中美需达成《中美贸易协定》
庞中英,CCG特邀高级研究员,中国海洋大学海洋发展研究院院长 摘要:从1979年起,40年来,中美贸易关系几乎从很低的起点“崛起”为全球经济中最大的一组双边贸易关系;然而,与世界上最大经济体之间的双边贸易关系不同,中美之间居然没有贸易协定!目前,中美试图通过“贸易磋商”治理“贸易摩擦”或者“贸易战”。这次贸易磋商可能会在2019年3月1日前达成一项贸易协议。需要不误解的是,这一协议并非《中美贸易协定》。本文呼吁,在走出“贸易战”后,为了治理中美贸易关系,两国政府需要早日启动谈判以达成《中美贸易协定》。 在贸易方面,加拿大、欧盟、日本等军事上的盟国是美国的主要贸易伙伴。保障或者管理美国与其主要贸易伙伴关系的是双边的贸易协定或者条约。美国也与其他主要贸易伙伴(如墨西哥)签有贸易协定或者条约。我们知道,特朗普政府的美国正在与欧盟和日本等谈新的贸易协定。与这些美国的主要贸易伙伴不同,中国这个美国最大的贸易伙伴却与美国之间并没有正式的贸易协定贸易条约。2017-2018年,特朗普政府要求修改1992年签署、1994年生效的《北美自贸协定》(NAFTA)。加拿大和墨西哥在美国重压之下不得不同意,2018年与美国一起签署了《美墨加协定》(USMCA)。中美之间没有《贸易协定》却有着巨大的贸易关系本身就是一个大问题,这意味着两国关系的基础之一的贸易并没有获得国际法治(international rule of law)或者国际治理(international governance)。 在特朗普政府之前,中美两国曾试谈《双边投资条约》(BIT)。在没有《贸易协定》的情况下谈判BIT本身就是奇怪的。自2017年1月特朗普上台后,没有听说中美继续BIT谈判,却在2018年发生了震惊世界经济的“贸易战”(尽管这个“贸易战”是雷声大雨点小)。 表面上,目前中美在通过达成某种协议缓解甚至结束“贸易战”。不过,我们要问,这样的协议是中美之间好不容易才有的管理整个贸易包括投资的协定,还是仅仅是就事论事解决一些美国方面这次“控诉”的与中国之间的“贸易逆差”以及结构问题? 2019年1月10日,王岐山副主席“在纪念中美建交40周年招待会”上的致辞指出:“建交时,中美双边贸易不足25亿美元,相互投资几乎为零;2017年,双边贸易超过5800亿美元,各类投资累计超过2300亿美元”。 中美之间的贸易关系如此巨大是与中国的“改革开放”(1978-2018)分不开的。“改革开放”即中国发展或者中国现代化。中国的改革开放之所以是可持续的,是因为中国在与美国建交后即谋求恢复或者加入现有的国际经济组织(国际经济制度),这一加入在2001年达到高潮:中国加入WTO(“入关”)。中国本来是WTO的前身关税与贸易总协定(GATT)的创始国。在WTO取代GATT前,中国的谈判地位是恢复在GATT的席位(“复关”)。 尽管中美之间并无贸易协定,但是,中国加入代表现存的国际秩序的国际经济组织,为中美经济关系提供了国际制度或者全球治理的保障。 人们常用地质地理突变之如山如岭之“崛起”(the rise)来形容快速的中国经济和科技的发展(增长)带来了中国在国际体系或者国际格局中的地位或者作用的上升。“崛起”意味着变化之快、变化之复杂性,意味着大多数的或者主导性的预测并没有料到这一情况,而别的国家对这一变化的有效的系统的反应或者回应尚未形成。所以,“崛起”带来了新的问题,而且是重大问题。“中国崛起”(the rise of China)是冷战结束后出现的话语,且得到了持续不断地研究。 中美贸易等关系在“中国崛起”过程中不断膨胀,我把其叫做“中美相互依存的崛起”。这种情况就是中国方面一再说的中美关系成为世界上“最重要的双边关系之一”。然而,我们知道,“中国崛起”带来的中美关系的变化——中美相互依存的崛起尚未获得有效的治理(effective governance of the new China-US relations)。 我在上周的专栏文章指出,治理中美关系的首要工作是面对中美关系的基础之危,寻求中美关系的新基础,以及重建或者更新中美关系的基础。如果做不到这一基础之定,中美关系可能会失去基础,而失去基础的中美关系未必是随波逐流回到两国不相往来的状态,而是可能意味着许多人民不希望的更大冲突,甚至战争。 中美和平的基础之一是共享的国际体系和共存的国际秩序,而如今,美国对待现存国际体系和国际秩序的态度正在发生大的变化,中美之间对待国际体系和国际秩序的态度和政策之间的差异正在扩大。 2018年,中美“贸易战”的一大战场是WTO,中美在WTO和围绕WTO议题展开了激烈争论。这个争论反映的正是中美两国对待现存世界秩序的立场和政策之间的分歧和冲突。 中国政府在2018年6月首次发表了关于中国与世界贸易组织之间关系的《白皮书》(本来,中国应该在2001年加入WTO后之后就应该年度地发表这类白皮书)。这一《白皮书》指出:“以世贸组织为核心的多边贸易体制是国际贸易的基石,是全球贸易健康有序发展的支柱。中国坚定遵守和维护世贸组织规则,支持开放、透明、包容、非歧视的多边贸易体制,全面参与世贸组织工作,为共同完善全球经济治理发出中国声音、提出中国方案,是多边贸易体制的积极参与者、坚定维护者和重要贡献者。” 在《第二十次中国欧盟领导人会晤联合声明》中,中国与欧盟“双方坚定致力于打造开放型世界经济,提高贸易投资自由化便利化,抵制保护主义与单边主义,推动更加开放、平衡、包容和普惠的全球化。双方坚定支持以世贸组织为核心、以规则为基础、透明、非歧视、开放和包容的多边贸易体制并承诺遵守现行世贸规则。双方还承诺就世贸组织改革开展合作,以迎接新挑战,并为此建立世贸组织改革副部级联合工作组。” 2018年11月22日,中国、欧盟、印度等成员向WTO提交关于WTO争端解决机制(Dispute Settlement Body)的联合提案。2018年12月12日,包括中国、欧盟、加拿大等在内的数十个世界贸易组织(WTO)成员在WTO总理事会会议上发表联合声明,敦促尽快启动WTO上诉机构(Appellate Body)成员遴选程序。中方提出了“对世贸组织的改革中方提出三个基本原则和五点主张”。 在中国等通过支持WTO及其改革而“捍卫自由贸易,反对贸易保护主义”的同时,美国政府却站在了多边自贸体制的对立面。2017年,特朗普政府上台后,美国阻止任命WTO上诉机构新法官。2018年11月22日,在WTO争端解决机制例会上,墨西哥代表71个成员再次提出倡议,建立上诉机构新法官甄选委员会。但这一倡议再次被美国以目前机制未能解决系统性关切等理由否决。特朗普总统本人以及特朗普政府的内阁成员甚至多次威胁,美国退出WTO也不是没有可能的。 不过,如果中国真的坚持“规则为基础”的世界经济秩序在治理世界经济问题中的中心性,特朗普政府对待WTO的态度与政策反而为中国在维护WTO代表的现存世界贸易秩序和全球贸易治理上可能提供了重大机会。澳大利亚前总理陆克文观察到了这一点:“中国可能不仅向美国,也向世界贸易组织所有成员国,做出在一段时间内将关税降至零的重大承诺。这将是中国捍卫全球自由贸易、遏制保护主义趋势的一个几乎不可抗拒的机遇。” 最近有多位学者和智库(如由著名学者王辉耀领导的中国与全球化智库)建议中国加入美国退出的但日本等11个亚太地区国家达成的《跨太平洋伙伴关系》(CPTPP)中。这确实是一个重要建议。 中国也在积极推动有日本和印度参加的《区域全面经济伙伴关系协定》(RCEP)等早日达成协议。 总的看,中国需要三管齐下治理中国与世界的贸易关系:第一,通过有效的WTO改革挽救WTO,为美国留在WTO和美国走出WTO做两手准备;第二,如果目前的中美贸易摩擦得到缓解,应该抓住机会,启动中美《贸易协定》谈判。第三,要积极参与高质量的、代表全球化4.0和未来全球贸易治理的区域性贸易协定。转变对原TPP、现CPTPP的态度和政策是一个关键。有关中国参加CPTPP我将另文专论。 文章选自华夏时报网,2019年1月15日
2019年1月16日 -
何伟文: 政治风浪无法阻挡中美经贸合作
专家简介
2019年1月14日 -
基于三条理由,魏建国预判中美经贸磋商会有积极成果
专家简介
2019年1月7日 -
Harvey Dzodin: Will China’s steps for the economy pay
By Harvey Dzodin,a senior research fellow at the Center for China and Globalization(CCG). Just as the year 2018 is fast winding down, significant policy decisions proposing economic reforms affecting the economy in China, and therefore the global economy, have considerably been ramped up. While most consequences won’t be felt for some time, there is a strong sense of positive movement on the Chinese side as we head into 2019, the 70th anniversary year of New China, and into 2020 when China’s goal of building a moderately prosperous society in all respects is expected to be achieved. Taken as a whole, these decisions should not only stabilize and energize China’s economy but also further open China’s vast market to foreign and multinational companies. The annual Central Economic Work Conference (CEWC) that included top central government leaders, and other leaders and experts met in Beijing from December 19 to 21 to set economic policy for the coming year. The CEWC report made specific recommendations for both stabilizing the Chinese economy and further developing its domestic market as the top priorities. Chinese Premier Li Keqiang will announce detailed recommendations and implementation strategies at the two sessions in March. A man walks through an Apple Store in Beijing, China, November 30, 2018. /VCG Photo A few days after the CEWC adjourned, the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), China’s economic planning agency, in cooperation with the Ministry of Commerce, released a draft Foreign Investment Law (FIL) that has the potential to significantly open up much of China’s domestic markets to foreign investment and at the same time promises intellectual property protection and bans forced technology transfers from foreign companies to domestic Chinese entities. The CEWC recommendations were made in light of the current ongoing trade dispute between China and the U.S. The draft FIL, although part of a longer-term process begun before U.S. President Donald Trump took office, are also made in light of the trade dispute. Even though it’s the Christmas-New Year holiday season in Washington, D.C., and parts of the U.S. federal government are currently shut down and will remain so for some time due to a domestic political matter, active and robust bilateral negotiations are being held with progress being reported. Several steps could influence a more positive outcome of these negotiations in the bilateral trade dispute before the truce expires on March 2, 2019. Draft laws deliberated upon by the National People’s Congress (NPC) often take three or more readings, so normally the proposed FIL might not be passed until 2020 at the earliest. Some legislators, however, are calling for speedy consideration no later than the next NPC plenary session in March. This is possible although enactment is complicated by the unusually long comment period for this legislation runs until February 24. Of course, it will take months or years to see if the law’s promises are fulfilled, but this legislation is a potential giant step in the right direction. Tiananmen Square, Beijing, China /VCG Photo Intellectual property disputes are complex and often not easy to resolve. The U.S. side will be looking to see if enforcement provisions can be expeditious, fairly and expertly handled by the Chinese judicial system. In a lucky coincidence effective this Tuesday, a new branch of the Chinese Supreme People’s Court (SPC) dedicated to resolving IP disputes will open under the leadership of a respected SPC IP judge, Luo Dongchuan and is best suited to professionally resolve these complicated disputes. I believe these steps represent a good-faith effort by China to address U.S. concerns. It will be up to the U.S. side to also show good faith, something that often has been in short supply for the past 23 months. From CGTN, 2018-12-29
2019年1月2日