世贸组织总理事会中美辩论实录
（2018年5月8日日内瓦）
2018年5月8日，世贸组织总理事会召开年内第二次会议，中方提出三项议题：上诉机构成员遴选、美国在“232条款”下对钢铝产品的措施、美国《1974年贸易法》“301条款”。
本文为“议题二: 美国在“232条款"下对钢铝产品的措施”中英文实录。
议题二: 美国在“232条款"下对钢铝产品的措施
Agenda Item 5: US Section 232 Investigations and Measures on Steel and Aluminium Products
张向晨大使发言：
Ambassador Zhang Xiangchen:
感谢主席先生。
Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
中方重申3月7日总理事会上的发言，对美国的“232条款”措施深表忧虑。该措施严重扰乱国际贸易，损害多边贸易体制，具有明显的歧视性，而且严重缺乏透明度。
China would recall its statement made at the General Council meeting on 7 March. We would reiterate our grave concern over the Section232 measures taken by the United States, because these measures are distorting trade, lacking transparency, and they are discriminatory and will severely damage the multilateral trading system and the world trade.
然而，美国不顾诸多成员明确反对，在上次总理事会的次日，即3月8日决定对进口钢铁和铝产品分别征收25％和10％的额外关税。该措施不仅损害了出口方的利益，而且严重扰乱了现存的钢铁和铝产品国际贸易秩序。
Unfortunately, despite the strong objections from the Membership, the US issued presidential proclamations on the following day,8 March, deciding to impose25 percent and10 percent of additional import duty respectively on certain steel and aluminum products. These measures not only seriously impair the interests of all the exporting Members to the US, but also seriously disrupt the existing order of international trade in steel and aluminium products.
中国在4月5日向美国提起了《争端解决谅解》项下的磋商请求。这不仅是为了维护中国自身的出口利益，更是为了保卫世贸组织的基本原则和价值。
In order to defend the legitimate rights under the WTO Agreements, as well as to safeguard the fundamental values and principles of this Organization, China requested for consultations with the US under the DSU on 5 April.
在我们看来，美国“232条款”措施并非基于“国家安全”的考虑，而是为了保护其国内产业，实质上构成了《保障措施协定》项下的保障措施，应当符合该协定下规定的必要条件。
The purpose of the Section232 measures by the US against steel and aluminium products according to our understanding is not to protect so-called "national security" of the US, but rather it serves to protect the commercial interests of the domestic industries. As such, such measure should be considered as safeguard measures under the Agreement on Safeguards, and meet necessary requirements as set in that agreement.
根据美国商务部的调查报告和美国国防部的数据，我们可以清楚地看到，“232条款”措施根本不是为了维护所谓“国家安全”。美国国防工业需要的钢铁仅占其国内消费量的3％，而美国国内钢铁产量占其国内消费量的84％，是其国防工业需求的28倍。进口量仅占其国内消费量的16％，而进口量中的接近70％来自获得美国暂时或永久豁免的成员。
According to the report by the US Department of Commerce and statistics provided by the US Department of Defense, it is obvious that the reason of these measures is not "national security". The steel used by the US defense industry only accounts for 3% of the domestic steel consumption of the US, while the output of the US steel industry equals to 84% of its domestic consumption, that is, roughly 28 times of its defense demand. On the other hand, the US import of steel accounts for around16% of its consumption, and about 70% of its import comes from the Members exempted, temporarily or permanently, from the Section 232 measure.
也就是说，“232条款”措施真正限制的进口仅占美国国内钢铁消费量的5％左右。而且，美方的调查报告也没有提及这些受到限制的进口钢铁是否与其国防工业需求有关。
That means the imports subject to the restriction of the Section232 measure on steel accounts for only 5% of the steel consumption of the US. It was not mentioned at all whether these restricted imports are related with the US defense industries.
那么，我们要问，这些仅占美国国内市场5％的进口钢铝----据我们了解其绝大部分是普通的中低端产品，为什么会影响美国的国家安全？如果仅仅占国内市场5％的进口普通钢铝产品都会威胁到“国家安全”，我们只能假定这个超级大国的“国家安全”是非常脆弱的，那么多大比例的进口对于“国家安全”才是“安全”的？如果根据这样的“国家安全”调查提高关税是合法的，那么关税减让表还有没有约束。
Here my question is, why these imports, which accounts for merely 5% of US consumption and are mostly ordinary mid-and-low end products, will threaten the "national security" of the US?
如果说钢铁和铝产品事关国家安全，那么从农产品、所产品、纺织品到高科技产品，有哪一类产品与“国家安全”没有关系？
If steel and aluminium products will affect so called "national security", can anyone find any group of products- from agricultural products to minerals, from textiles to high-tech products- that have no linkage with "national security"?
If an import of ordinary steel and aluminum products which equals to 5% of the domestic market is a threat to the "national security", we can only assume that it is a very precarious security for a super power, and what proportion of imports is "safe" to national security?
If it's justifiable to raise tariffs according to such "national security" investigations, are the WTO Schedules of Concessions still binding?
我们还注意到，美国在与其他成员的豁免谈判中寻求世贸规则禁止的“自愿出口限制”。据报道，5月1日，白宫贸易顾问纳瓦罗称，“所有豁免于额外关税的国家或实体，都必须接受配额以及其他为了维护国家安全、保护钢铁和铝产业免受进口冲击所必须的限制措施。”
We further noticed that the United States is seeking quotas or voluntary export restraints, which are explicitly prohibited by the WTO rules. It is reported that Mr. Peter Navarro, the White House Trade Assistant, said on 1 May that "any country, or entity like the EU, which is exempted from the tariffs, will have a quota and other restrictions which are necessary to defend the aluminum and steel industries from imports in defense of our national security.
这明显是违反世贸组织规则的。让全球贸易回到配额时代，这显然是在开历史倒车。
This is obviously violating the WTO rules. And this is back-tracking the train of history, and simply puts the global trade back to the old era of quotas.
中方呼吁全体成员共同敦促美方遵守世贸组织义务，立即撤销对钢铁和铝产品实施的“232条款”措施，维护正常的国际贸易秩序。
Here, China would call on the whole Membership to urge the US to honour its obligations under the WTO Agreements and to immediately withdraw its Section232 measures, so that the normal order of international trade can be restored.
感谢主席先生。
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
谢伊大使发言：
Ambassador Dennis Shea:
主席先生，美国对中国要求将此项议题列入今天会议议程感到奇怪。
Mr. Chairman, the United States finds it curious that China has asked to place this item on the agenda for today's meeting.
因为，事实上，如果不是中国出于自身利益所制定的政策造成全球大规模钢铁和铝产能过剩，目前的状况也不会发生。这项政策已经在无视对全球造成影响的情况下实施多年，中国对不断增加担忧的回应大多是空话，并未采取太多行动。
For, in fact, we would not find ourselves in the current juncture were in not for China's own self-interested policy of contributing to massive global overcapacity in steel and aluminum. This policy has been carried out over a period of many years, without regard to global impacts, and China has responded to mounting concerns with considerable talk but not much action.
在这种背景下，中国目前声称它是受害者，对此我们感到不解。无论如何，我很高兴有机会请成员们一起回顾一下美国维护重要国家安全利益的根本原因。
Against this backdrop, we are perplexed that China now asserts its status as a victim. In any event, I am happy to have this opportunity to recall to Members' attention the reasons underlying the United States' defense of critical national security interests.
美国此前向成员通报过美国总统依据修订后的《1962年美国贸易扩张法》第232条发布的公告。
The United States has previously informed Members about the proclamations issued by the President pursuant to Section232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended.
我们不会重复我们在此问题上的先前立场，但请成员参见我们在3月23日货物贸易理事会上的发言，该发言与1982年11月30日关于 GATT第21条的 GATT理事会的决定相一致。
I won't repeat our previous intervention on this issue, but will refer Members to our statement at the Council for Trade in Goods meeting on March23— a statement we provided consistent with the Decision Concerning Article XXI of the General Agreement taken by the GATT Council on 30 November1982.
自那以后，一些成员就总统公告要求与美国进行磋商。这些成员得到了我们的回应。
Certain Members have since sought consultations with the United States with regard to the President's proclamations. Those Members have our responses.
我们注意到一些成员企图以符合他们期望的方式来解读总统公告，试图借此来诉诸WTO特定条款。这些企图没有依据，我们不会任他们为所欲为。
We note the attempt by some Members to cast the President's actions in terms that suit their desire to pursue a particular WTO recourse. These attempts are without valid foundation and we will not entertain them.
在总统法令、有害的国家干预、市场扭曲和在某些经济体中存在的大量持续的产能过剩等方面，我们愿意和任何（对上述）有问题的成员开展讨论，这些都需要（我们）采取行动。
We are, however, willing to discuss with any Member questions they may have about the President's actions, as well as the circumstances of pernicious state intervention, market distortion, and massive and persistent overcapacity in certain economies that necessitated the actions.
根据美国《1962年贸易扩张法案》第232条，总统发布了钢铁和铝的公告，确定有必要通过关税对威胁美国国家安全的进口钢铁和铝制品进行调整。
The President issued the Steel and Aluminum Proclamations pursuant to Section232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, determining that tariffs are necessary to adjust imports of steel and aluminum articles that threaten to impair the national security of the United States.
美国没有根据《1974年贸易法》的第201条采取行动，该贸易法是美国实施保障措施的法律。我们最近对（进口）太阳能产品和大型家用洗衣机的通报就是证明，美国充分认识到什么构成保障措施及《保障措施协定》规定的通报义务。
The United States did not take action pursuant to Section201 of the Trade Act of1974, which is the law under which the United States imposes safeguard measures. And as evidenced by our recent notifications with respect to solar products and large residential washers, the United States is well aware of what constitutes a safeguard as well as what its notification obligations are under the Agreement on Safeguards.
此外，《保障措施协定》第12．3条规定，“提议实施或延长保障措施的成员应向作为有关产品的出口方对其有实质利益的成员提供事先磋商的充分机会”。但是，美国并不是对钢铁或铝提出“实施或延长保障措施”，因此，第12．3条不适用。中国根据该协定第12．3条提出的磋商请求，如其对关税的初步描述，在《保障措施协议》中没有任何依据。
Moreover, Article12.3 of the Agreement on Safeguards states that a "Member proposing to apply or extend a safeguard measure shall provide adequate opportunity for prior consultations" with Members having a substantial interest in exports of the product concerned. However, the United States is not "proposing to apply or extend a safeguard measure" with respect to steel or aluminum and, therefore, Article12.3 does not apply and China's requests for consultations pursuant to Article12.3, like its initial characterization of the tariffs, have no basis in the Agreement on Safeguards.
由于我们对钢铁和铝的（232）措施不是保障措施，因此，美国认为《保障措施协定》第8·2条不能成为中国停止关税减让或其他义务的依据。中国对其措施没有引用任何其他理由，美国也认为中国的措施没有任何其他依据。因此，中国的做法看起来没有世贸规则依据。
Because the steel and aluminum actions are not safeguard measures, the United States considers that Article8.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards does not justify China's suspension of concessions or other obligations. China has asserted no other justification for its measures, and the United States is aware of none. Therefore, it appears that China's actions have no basis under WTO rules.
（中美发言后，南非、俄罗斯、巴西、乌干达、委内瑞拉、古巴、玻利维亚、日本、卡塔尔、巴基斯坦、柬埔寨、欧盟、土耳其、瑞士、中国香港、印度、挪威相继发言）
(Interventions by South Africa, Russia, Brazil, Uganda, Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia, Japan, Qatar, Pakistan, Cambodia, EU, Turkey, Switzerland, Hong Kong China, India, Norway)
张向晨大使发言：
Ambassador Zhang Xiangchen (Second Intervention):
主席先生，我想就“232条款”措施与“产能过剩”的关系发表评论。在此之前，我要就之前的讨论做两点回应。
Thank you Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry to take the floor again. I would like to make a comment on the relationship between Section232 measures and overcapacity and to make our discussion more interactive. But before that, let me briefly react with two points.
第一，“232条款"措施属于保障措施。
First, on the nature of Section232 measures.
从美国商务部关于钢铁和铝产品“232条款"措施的调查报告以及总统文告来看，其内在逻辑是清楚的：进口产品持续增长，对国内产业造成严重损害，因此要对来自全世界的进口产品采取加征额外关税的措施。
From the investigation report by the US Department of Commerce and the Presidential Proclamation on the steel and aluminium Section232 measures, we could find a clear inherent logic: the continued growth of imported products has allegedly caused serious injury to domestic industries, and therefore it is necessary to raise tariffs against imports from all over the world.
在我们看来，这一内在逻辑与《1994年关贸总协定》第19条和《保障措施协定》关于保障措施的定义和实施条件的规定相符。
Such logic, according to our understanding, complies with the definition and conditions for implementing safeguard measures stipulated in Article19 of the GATT1994 and the Agreement on Safeguards.
第二，中国提出的中止减让措施符合世贸规则。
Second, on China's suspension of concession measures.
中方依据《保障措施协定》第8条和《1994年关贸总协定》第19．3条的规定，在迟延会造成难以补救的损害的紧急情况下，于3月29日向货物贸易理事会通报了相应的中止减让措施，并于4月2日开始实施。
According to Article 8 of the Agreement on Safeguards and Article19.3 of the GATT1994, because a delay would cause irreversible damages, China notified the Council for Trade in Goods on 29 March and implemented suspension of concessions on 2 April.
在实体方面，中方严格遵循了《保障措施协定》第8．2条关于中止减让应与保障措施“实质相等"的规定。我们采取的措施是对称、有节制的。
In terms of substantial aspect, China strictly follows the provisions of Article8.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards that the suspension of concessions should be "substantially equivalent" to safeguard measures. The measures we took are symmetrical and restrained.
主席先生，中方将“232条款"措施列为讨论议题不是为了自身利益，而是为了整个多边贸易体制。
Mr. Chairman, China raised the issue of section232 measures not for our own self-interest, but for the interest of the system.
有人为了摆脱孤立和转移矛盾，试图建立这样一种逻辑：贸易保护主义措施源于世界产能过剩，产能过剩源于中国的补贴，因此应当联手向中国施压。显然，这种逻辑是不成立的。
However, it seems that someone has attempted to sell a flawed logic that trade protection is a response to overcapacity, and overcapacity is caused by the intervention and subsidies of the Chinese government. Therefore, it is China's responsibility to address the issue of overcapacity.
中国总体上处于全球价值链的中低端，很大程度上根据跨国公司的订单，为目标市场加工生产所需产品。2008年以来，中国政府采取了积极的财政政策和货币政策，扩大投资，为挽救金融危机做出了巨大贡献，得到了很多国家的赞扬。
Why I said this logic is a flawed one? Overall, China is at the middle and low end of the global value chain. To a large extent, China's production is determined by the others from the multinational corporations, and China produces, assembles products according to the demand in the international market. Since 2008, Chinese government has adopted proactive fiscal and monetary policies, expanded investment, in order to mitigate the shock wave of the global financial crisis. China has made significant contribution and its efforts were praised by many countries.
现在，时过境迁，一些国家走上复苏道路，当年扩大的产能却已找不到世界市场的需求。为了消化当年刺激政策的后果，中国政府和人民正在承受着巨大的调整的痛苦，成千上万的工人失去了工作，但我们仍然在力所能及的条件下努力削减过剩产能。而一些健忘者却把世界性的产能过剩归咎于中国。
A decade from then, as soon as some countries stepped onto the path of recovery, they seem to have quickly put that history behind. It now becomes China's problem to absorb increased capacity, which is essentially the product of stimulus policies in response to the financial crisis. Chinese government and people now bear tremendous adjustment pains. Tens of thousands of workers have lost their jobs. Nevertheless, we are doing what we can do to reduce excess capacity.
我们愿意和其他世贸成员在世贸组织框架下讨论如何使世贸规则更加适应新的形势，更好地维护公平合理的国际贸易秩序。
China stands ready to discuss with other Members within the framework of the WTO on how to keep the WTO rules more adaptable to the new situation, and on how to better safeguard a fair and reasonable international trade order.
但我不同意随意给中国扣上几顶帽子，把中国的发展战略描绘成扭曲世界市场。这完全不符合事实，在当前贸易保护主义盛行的情况下，中国更是一个错误的攻击目标。
However, we do not agree to arbitrarily throw several "hats" onto China and describe China's strategy as distorting the world market, because this is completely not true and will make China a wrong target in the current situation when trade protectionism is prevalent.
感谢主席先生。
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
