俞建华大使在第36次TNC会议上发言

Statement by Ambassador YU Jianhua

at the 36^th TNC Meeting

Geneva, 27 April 2015

Thank you Mr. Chairman.

First of all, let me join you and other colleagues in sending, my deepest condolence to those killed and injured in the tragic earthquake in Nepal last weekend. The Chinese government has provided emergency aid of 20 million RMB to Nepal, and it will do more according to the request of Nepali government, providing all necessary assistance.

I also would like to join others in welcoming Seychelles to this big family.

My delegation associates itself with the statements by Indonesia on behalf of G33, Brazil on behalf of G20 and Saudi Arabia on behalf of RAMs.

We appreciate the tremendous work you and Chairs of respective negotiating bodies have done since last TNC meeting. Through waves of intensive consultations, we have had a better understanding of each other’s positions, difficulties and particularly the political sensitivities. However, having listened to reports by Chairs and interventions of colleagues this morning, it seems hard to say that we have achieved the most-wanted progress in the negotiation.

The summer break is just around the corner and countdown clock on the MC 10 is ticking. With less than three months left before the July deadline, I am much concerned. The question is, will we be able to live up to the Mandates by our Ministers and deliver a clearly defined, modality like Post-Bali Work Program on time?

Here I would take this opportunity to share with colleagues some of our observations that I believe are essential for the negotiations.

First, given the convergence and divergence among Members, Rev.4 and Rev.3 should be the basis and benchmark for negotiations. Yes, it is true that those Texts are not in final agreement. But, what is equally true is that, after the several months of heated discussions and the test of a handful of new approaches, we still haven’t found any more viable approach that can gather more support and consensus than Rev.4 and Rev.3.

Second, some members are talking about recalibration on Rev.4 and Rev.3. We cannot prevent those from exploring new ideas, but any calibration can’t move away from the negotiating mandate established by the previous Ministerial Conferences, such as Doha Declaration, July Package, Hong Kong Declaration and Bali Declaration. As a matter of principle, whatever the new approaches may be, it is always important to ensure all members to move in the same direction. In other words, we cannot afford having a scenario where some members are given more flexibilities, while some other members are having less or even required to do more than what is required by the 2008 modalities.

Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, we notice with grave concern that this is exactly what is happening in the Domestic Support pillar of agriculture negotiations, where some members are allowing themselves to do less while requesting others to do more. In this sense, is the recalibration collective or selective? We must answer this question.

In the case of Market Access in agriculture negotiation, should the existing simplified approach be adopted, some major members would have such flexibilities that they could do less cutting in tariff reduction by 20 percentage points, while other members have to contribute as much as what is required by Rev.4. Evidently, such approach will neither build consensus nor lead to any meaningful outcome.

Likewise, if recalibration serves to reduce the level of ambition, then, such recalibration has to properly tackle three fundamental questions: How much is the level of ambition to be reduced? Where should be the reduction, in which sectors and pillars? For whom and on what basis the level of ambition will be reduced? The bottom line is, the final result of calibration must be impartial and balanced. In the process of so-called recalibration, every member holds the key, but we believe the demandeurs of recalibration should turn the key first.

Third, DDA is a development round and such theme should be truly reflected in every aspect of and throughout the entire negotiations. Special situation of LDCs, SVEs, etc, should be taken good care of. In no circumstances should development dimension be denied and direction of DDA be changed merely by the assumption that “the world has changed”. China believes that the central theme of this round is simple, that is, to let developing members gain more benefits with less contribution.

Take RAMs for example. It is widely recognized that RAMs joined this Organization after Uruguay Round with more substantive and extensive commitments compared with other members. They have lower tariff rate, no water in tariff structure, and limited policy toolbox. For RAMs, any cut in tariff will be real cut in flesh and even in bones. That’s why there are some special arrangements for RAMs in all existing negotiating mandate and the 2008 modality texts, which should be respected and inherited.

Another example is domestic support pillar in agriculture negotiations. It is neither reasonable nor scientific to merely calculate the amount of subsidies and arrive at a conclusion without differentiating supports of different nature, purposes, history, and size in terms of per capita. Such over-simplified comparison is unjustified. Any accountable government with limited policy toolbox will not jump into a political decision when implication of its future policy is entirely uncertain. This is just like asking a person to jump into an unknown river or lake with a blindfold. Trade is getting free, but not all elements of production related to trade yet move freely across borders such as labor force. Therefore, it’s up to the governments to take care of their own small farming and subsistence farmers of hundreds of millions. How can we expect such governments to make a decision regardless of all the above responsibilities?

Fourth, it is hard to envisage a scenario where any key negotiating areas such as Services, Rules and Development will be excluded from the final package. Our Ministers have clearly instructed us to make progress in these areas in line with the negotiating mandate. We encourage Members to have more substantive discussions in the coming months and reach a negotiating outcome with a level of ambition comparable to that of agriculture and NAMA.

Last but not the least, the Doha Round is far more complex than any of the previous Rounds, while each Member is the stakeholder. It is unfair and unreasonable to expect one or two or three or four members to make contribution to save the Round, as none of them is the Superman with a Magic Stick. What we really need now is to avoid any finger pointing and to join hands together to find the really doable solution. If we continue haggling over one or two issues, I am afraid, we would never be able to achieve the goal set by our Ministers. The management of the process was correct in the previous months. The question is whether we will go on with this approach or be more creative. We believe that the latter is more relevant.

Mr. Chairman,

We all need to face up the reality and build up mutual trust. Only in such way can we properly manage the process and accelerate our work with a sense of urgency, while guaranteeing the transparency and inclusiveness. China is fully committed to working with you DG, Chairs and all the other members to conclude this negotiation as per the Mandate by our Ministers.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman.