Phoenix TV:

Some media outlets have recently said that the current "trade war" between China and the U.S. was incited by China, because China undertook actions like forced technology transfer, which threatens the protection of intellectual property rights. How would you comment on this? 

Wang Shouwen:

Thank you for your question, Phoenix TV. I think it would be appropriate to respond to the media report you quoted with what President Trump gets used to say, that it's "fake news".

The U.S. investigated this so-called matter of "China's theft of intellectual property rights" and proposed a specific tax list yesterday based on its domestic law. First, the U.S. violates its own commitments. When the U.S. passed the WTO Agreement in 1994, the President submitted a Statement of Administrative Action to the Congress, and the U.S. promised not to decide whether other countries' practices are against the WTO rules or not unilaterally through the Section 301 Investigation. So the U.S. must handle disputes related to the WTO according to the WTO rules and the final decisions of dispute settlement bodies. Without the WTO's mandate, the U.S. government has no right to terminate its obligations under the WTO, nor can it conduct cross sector retaliation. The U.S. violated its own commitments first. Then, in 1998, the E.U. sued the U.S. for its Section 301 Investigation into the WTO. The case was called DS152. The U.S. made another international commitment to the process of the litigation, saying that it would handle relevant trade disputes in strict accordance with WTO dispute settlement procedures, rather than adopting the Section 301 Investigation and its conclusions unilaterally. Therefore, the U.S. has violated its commitments to its domestic law and international law, so who would you say has incited this "war"?

Second, the U.S. accused China of its "forced technology transfer" in the Section 301 Investigation, which was completely baseless because China has no law stating that foreign companies must transfer their technology to their Chinese partners. There is no law making such requirements either. There are certain industries in China where joint ventures are required for foreign investment, which is in line with WTO rules. As a developing country, China hopes that foreign investment and Chinese companies can make joint ventures, which is completely in line with WTO rules as well. So in this circumstance, it is baseless for the U.S. to say that the Chinese government has forced technology transfer. Technology transfer between companies is completely based on contracts. One company is willing to transfer, and another is willing to accept and pay an appropriate amount, which is a voluntary action that the government should not intervene in. In fact, some U.S. companies have realized huge gains in China by means of joint ventures. For example, a well-known American automobile company established a joint venture in China, and now the automobile production of the company in China is more than its automobile production in any other place in the world, including the U.S. The profits the joint venture obtained exceed those obtained in the U.S. or any other country in the world. These are the benefits of joint ventures, which benefit both China and the U.S. How could such practices be regarded as forced technology transfer?

Third, China is committed to the protection of intellectual property. General Secretary Xi put forward a new development philosophy in his report delivered at the 19th CPC National Congress. The first principle of which is development driven by innovation. Without the protection of intellectual property, there is no space for innovation-driven development. We have improved the IP protection system through legislation and established a series of mechanisms for administrative enforcement and judiciary. We have set up trans-provincial IP courts. An American transnational corporation told me that one of its companies in China won 28 out of 31 cases here. You can search for the judgments of IP disputes. More than 80 percent of lawsuits filed by American clients were ruled in their favor. This shows that China's court system and administrative enforcement provide strong protection for IP rights.

China is a developing country. We are not perfect regarding IP protection. But we must admit the progress has been made in this regard. When China entered the WTO in 2001, China forked out only US$1.9 billion to foreign IP owners, but the amount had risen to $28.6 billion by 2017. Certainly, we should intensify IP protection. President Xi said property protection, especially IP protection, is important in building a good business environment. We should introduce harsher punishments for IP infringements and make the violators pay a higher price. Despite the progress we have made, we will endeavor to improve our protection of intellectual property. China cannot accept the practices of some countries that adopt discriminatory measures against China that breach the WTO commitment and its own domestic laws, based on nothing more than groundless reports, accusations and complaints from corporations. It's self-evident who started the "trade war." Thank you.   

Related

Go to Forum >>0 Comment(s)