The core of the U.S. 301 investigation report is to focus on China's hi-tech industrial policy
The first chapter of the U.S. 301 investigation report closely focused on the two core documents of China's National Medium- and Long-Term Scientific and Technological Development Planning Outline and China Made 2025, summarizing the policy framework of the Chinese government’s leading scientific and technological advancement, and discussing these industrial policy objectives. The damage to the US innovation ecosystem, with special emphasis on China’s policy discrimination, has deprived US companies of their rights to benefit from their innovative technologies. The major policies of the United States focused on “Made in China 2025” include: First, the Chinese government has strengthened strategic research. And planning and guidance, improve related support policies, create a good environment for the development of enterprises. Second, we must strengthen key technologies for key technologies, speed up the industrialization of scientific and technological achievements, and increase innovation capabilities in key areas and key areas. Third, promote the deep development of civil-military integration. We will vigorously promote the adoption of advanced civilian standards for national defense equipment, and promote the transformation and application of military technology standards into civilian use. Fourth, we will reduce the external dependence of key core technologies and high-end equipment, and strengthen the construction of a manufacturing innovation system based on enterprises. V. The government's support for brand building and the support of the industry's backbone enterprises Holding subsidies, etc.
The second and third chapters of the 301 survey report focused on the analysis of the 'discriminatory nature' of China's technology transfer mechanism. At present, foreign investors can operate in China in the form of sole proprietorship, joint venture, and cooperation. 301 The survey report believes that China is guided by foreign investment. In the form of “Catalogue”, restrictions are imposed on a number of industries including high-tech industries. China’s industrial access requirements require foreign investors to transfer technology to joint ventures, thereby enabling Chinese joint venture partners to obtain advanced technologies from the United States. Meanwhile, 301 investigation reports It also pointed out that China’s administrative review is China’s main means of obtaining US company’s technology. The report believes that China’s technology transfer mechanism imposes two burdens and restrictions on American companies: First, US companies will lose if they do not transfer technology. The world's fastest growing Chinese market; Second, if the transfer of technology, will harm the global technology competitiveness of US companies.
In the U.S. 301 investigation report, China’s aerospace, automotive, and cloud computing industries were given great attention. We use these three industries as examples for detailed analysis.
The aerospace industry is a type of industry that has been dominated by independent development throughout China. Since the large aircraft research and development began in 1971, the history of aircraft R&D and manufacturing in China has been devious. It was not until the establishment of the ARJ21 aircraft type project that was established in 2002 that my civil aviation aircraft was able to Officially opened the road of independent research and development. In 2017, the successful flight of the C919 passenger aircraft marked a new stage of development for China’s civil aviation industry. The number of new public patents related to passenger aircraft in China was 146. The aviation industry is one of the most active sectors in the United States. From the perspective of the United States, whether it is the level of advanced technology, the scale of production, the type of product, or the number of employees, the American aviation industry is the most powerful aviation industry in the world.
Automobiles, especially new energy vehicles, are a type of industry that China has developed with the introduction of foreign advanced technologies. The United States is one of the world’s largest producers of new energy vehicles. The government attaches great importance to polluting gas emissions. In recent years, the government has promoted new energy vehicles. There is no shortage of problems. It is with the strong support of the U.S. government that the U.S. has achieved technological superiority in the field of new energy vehicles. While China’s new energy vehicles have developed relatively late and some key technologies are not too rigid, China’s new energy vehicles are still in their infancy. .
Cloud computing is a new technology field. China and the United States are relatively on the same starting line. Even so, the domestic cloud computing industry started in 2007, lagging behind the United States in about five years, and has not yet completed the construction of a complete industrial ecological chain. In 2009, the federal government’s cloud computing development plan was released to guide government departments to use cloud computing to improve work efficiency and reduce IT investment. In 2010, a 'cloud priority' strategy was proposed; in 2011, the “United States Federal Cloud Computing Strategy” was issued; and in the United States in May 2012. Digital government strategy. These measures have enabled the United States to quickly become a leader in a completely original industry. In addition, the U.S. federal government spends about $20 billion a year on cloud computing procurement and R&D, which accounts for almost 40 U.S. cloud computing output values currently. %. In contrast, the Chinese government’s systematic support for the cloud industry began in 2015. In this year, the State Council issued the “Opinions on Promoting the Innovation and Development of Cloud Computing to Cultivate New Formats for the Information Industry”.
The Use of Policy in the Development of Hi-tech Industry in the Framework of WTO Law
WTO laws mainly involve trade policies, but there are also certain regulations on the use of industrial policies. After China's accession to the WTO, the United States had been sued in the high-tech field in the United States. For example, the China-US IC VAT case, China's tariffs on imported automobile parts. The following analysis of the possible legal space for the development of hi-tech industries under the WTO framework is based on WTO law and existing cases.
First of all, with respect to the regulations on childish industries, in the legal framework of the WTO, childish industries are the objects of reasonable and legitimate protection. Article 18 of the GATT (hereinafter referred to as 'GATT') stipulates that developing countries can serve a specific industry. The establishment of the protection provides for protection measures such as tariff protection. For the infant industry, the GATT interpretation is: (1) the establishment of a new industry; (2) the establishment of a new branch in the existing industry; (3) the existing (4) Industrial reconstruction due to war or natural disasters destroyed or damaged. Many scholars defined the infant industry as a new, reconstructed and rebuilt industry based on the definition of WTO legal documents. Both industries and new energy industries have the characteristics of childish industries.
Secondly, with regard to subsidy issues, export subsidies and import substitution subsidies are banned subsidies of the WTO. Since China's accession to the WTO, China’s export subsidies have been basically cleared up. Currently, the industrial policies that may constitute a suitability subsidy must be carefully studied. Complex and most difficult to grasp are the various industrial subsidies that may constitute a suitability subsidy. At present, China's policy to support the science and technology industry should try to avoid constituting a suitability subsidy. The WTO law allows countries to use certain non-litigation subsidies, such as R&D. Subsidies. In general, the amount of subsidies for R&D in China should not exceed 75% of the cost of industrial research or 50% of the cost of pre-competitive development activities. It is also necessary to pay attention to the WTO's specific application of R&D subsidies in the project of cost and expenditure. Provisions.
Once again, regarding intellectual property policies, the development of China's high-tech industry is inseparable from the protection of intellectual property rights. In this field, developed countries such as the United States and other countries restrict China’s trade, and there are many restrictions on technology transfer. Therefore, China has proposed a development path for independent innovation. On the issue of intellectual property rights, while complying with WTO regulations, enterprise innovation must understand and grasp the supply and demand conditions and development trends of high-tech products in the world through multiple channels, seek to identify entry points and breakthrough points, and improve the level of independent innovation.
Finally, on the issue of dispute settlement, facing the trade sticks of the US 301 investigation, China will initiate WTO procedures to resolve disputes, but even if bilateral disputes are settled, it is also necessary to pay attention to policy techniques in dispute settlement. According to WTO law, one The United States can only use safeguard measures if the same domestic industry is damaged. The US 301 investigation report provided reasons for the damage to its industry when it stated that China’s technology transfer policy. As mentioned earlier, the China proposed in the 301 report. The reason why the technology transfer mechanism has caused two damages to U.S. companies is relatively broad and persuasive. Therefore, when China uses the WTO dispute settlement mechanism, it can defend against these two points.
Countermeasures for the Development of High-tech Industry in China
First, Chinese and US companies are facing a period of competition, and China's hi-tech industry will face a more difficult competitive environment. This is because developed countries will continue to restrict certain technology exports in order to maintain their international competitive advantages. Technical tracking and learning are bound to be hindered; in addition, because the market is more open, the 'market-for-technical' role is bound to weaken. This time the United States launched a 301 survey, indicating that developed countries will use various tools to directly suppress. Therefore, increase independent innovation With the protection of independent intellectual property rights, it is a necessary way to achieve the rise of China's manufacturing industry and industrial upgrading through self-struggle.
Second, China’s development of high-tech industries is a legitimate development aspiration. Facing the suppression of trade protectionism, China must be emboldened. It can be said that China’s hi-tech industry belongs to the early stages of development, and even belongs to the infant industry. Then, the United States has hit the Chinese infant industry. Its purpose is to curb the future competitiveness of Chinese manufacturing. Such trade protection is unreasonable. In the 1980s, the United States proposed a theory of strategic trade policies. The so-called strategic trade policy means that a government is incomplete. Under the conditions of competition and economies of scale, measures such as production, export subsidies, or protection of the domestic market will support the growth of domestic strategic industries and gain economies of scale. To enhance their competitiveness in the international market, the United States can use strategic trade policies. Why China cannot use it? For China, both strategic trade theory and infant industry protection theory can provide theoretical support for China's development of high-tech industries. China's launch of the China Manufacturing 2025 plan should be justified.
Thirdly, the development of hi-tech industries should adhere to international rules and make full use of policy space. China should pay attention to the policy of refining high-tech industries, and should make full use of industrial policies and trade policies under the WTO framework. Observe the intellectual property rights agreement and actively create a soft environment for intellectual property rights in China's industrial development. On the other hand, we can appropriately use policy space to win opportunities for industrial development. For example, the use of non-litigation subsidies under the Subsidies and Countervailing Measures Agreement is subject to strict restrictions. However, assistance for the company's research activities, or assistance subsidies for research activities signed by the higher education institution or research institution and the company is allowed. Therefore, China can take appropriate measures to support the hi-tech industry and create an external economy. effect.
Fourth, to strengthen the protection of intellectual property protection. In his keynote address at the Boao Forum in April 2018, Chairman Xi Jinping mentioned in a very specific manner, 'We will reorganize the State Intellectual Property Office, improve law enforcement, and increase the cost of illegality. Significantly put forward to fully play the role of legal deterrence. We encourage Chinese and foreign companies to carry out normal technical exchanges and cooperation to protect the legitimate intellectual property rights of foreign-funded enterprises in China'. From the mechanism to the system, the promotion of intellectual property protection requires such a policy of landing. Protecting intellectual property rights is not a passive behavior that has been suppressed. It is an endogenous driving force for the growth of enterprises and economic development.
Finally, the strategy for responding to the 301 investigation should be proactive and even more wise. It is necessary to resolutely resist the unilateralism of the United States and not to recognize its legitimacy under the WTO framework; since the 301 investigation is not legal, then The Sino-U.S. negotiations should not be conducted under the framework of the 301 investigation. Instead, they should negotiate on the basis of the framework of equality and protection of intellectual property rights and the establishment of a healthy industrial development mechanism. If the negotiations are not going well, China should not easily make concessions. It should be made clear that China Made 2025 is an inevitable choice for China's economic development, and it does not allow other countries to contain it.