全球观察：知识产权申诉，显示美对华策略变化
美提出两项申诉，中国表示强烈不满美国贸易代表施瓦布于4月9日宣布，将就中国违反知识产权保护规则问题，向WTO提出两项申诉。长期以来，美国娱乐产品在中国市场上遭受大范围侵权的问题一直是两国关系中的难题，据称这个问题每年给美国造成了数十亿美元的损失。
针对此问题，中国政府采取了一系列措施，但至今成效有限。
在第一项申诉中，美方认为，中国的一些现行规定违反了WTO《与贸易有关的知识产权协定》的规定：
——美方称，根据中国法律，盗版数量超过一定数字才会受到刑事指控。这就构成了一种“安全港”，盗版制品的批发商和零售商可以借此逃脱刑事责任。
——另一项质疑涉及中国海关对其收缴的假冒产品的处理方式。美国指责说，许多被收缴的假冒产品在去除假冒商标和其他侵权标志后，又被投放到市场中。
——美国称，外国产品在进入中国市场之前的审核期间，版权所有者无法对侵犯其知识产权的行为提出申诉。
——美国还声称，中国法律存在灰色区域，因此不从事销售的单纯制假者不会受到法律制裁。但美国也承认，中国最近的裁决有助于澄清这个问题。
第二项申诉涉及市场准入问题。美国声称，由于中国的进口控制和国内销售壁垒，美国出版商和合法音像制品的制造商无法享受正当的市场准入。所有进口音像制品都要由政府专门指定的渠道销售，这样，美国公司就失去了对其产品进入中国的时间、地点与方式的控制权。此外，中国对外商经营活动的严格限制也妨碍了其产品分销。这些障碍降低了新产品的销售速度，并扩大了盗版品的潜在市场，因为盗版产品能够较快地投放市场。美国表示，这些市场壁垒都违反了中国入世承诺以及《服务贸易总协定》所规定的义务。
可以想见，中国对美国的申诉做出了愤怒的反应。中国商务部发言人宣布，中方表示“非常遗憾和强烈不满”。
增大对华压力，美是否改变了策略
无论美国政府怎样解释，其对华策略显然发生了变化。总体上看，近年来布什政府一直力求将摩擦保持在最低水平，并抵制了国会施加的巨大压力。今年之前，布什政府指责中国的措辞往往非常尖锐，但很少采取实际的法律行动。任命擅长对华交往的保尔森出任财长表明，布什政府倾向于“平静外交”的方式。保尔森启动了两国间的战略经济对话，并在6个月之内3次访华。美国政府的许多官员主张与中国进行幕后合作，以推进中国的经济改革。他们认为这种建设性的做法要胜于制造摩擦的举动。他们还认为，中美两国经济已经紧密交织在一起，因此狂热的举动将令双方深受其害。此外，在朝鲜问题等领域，美国还需要中国的帮助。
那么，目前美国政府是否已经放弃了其此前采取的“温和”式对华策略？从今年以来的情况看，布什政府的策略确实出现了很大变化。这已经是美国第三次针对中国向WTO提出申诉。看起来布什政府中的许多人已经对“平静外交”失去了耐心。他们认为，美国需要发出更强硬的信号。3月份，美国针对所谓中国的出口补贴采取了行动。虽然第一步是对铜版纸征收反补贴税，但也有可能将其他产品作为打击对象。此前的2月份，美国则就中国制造业的出口补贴问题向WTO提出申诉。
尽管如此，施瓦布竭力否认美国政策有变。她在宣布提出申诉的消息时表示，最近的举措并非针对中国的敌对性举动，向WTO提出申诉则是“成熟的贸易伙伴”之间解决分歧的“正常方式”。对于施瓦布关于提出申诉的声明，商务部长古铁雷斯表示了赞许。但令人瞩目的是，财长保尔森却没有表态。尽管如此，据报道，这项举动得到了保尔森的同意。
美采取“好警察、坏警察”策略，战略对话吸引各方关注
中国把美国政府的做法视为不必要的挑衅性举动。这些做法确实有风险，但布什政府也有自己的考虑。首先，由于中国方面进展缓慢，因此这些警告信号是必要的。其次，这些举措有助于抑制美国国会的“反华大合唱”，而且可能有助于预防国会采取危害性更大的举动。随着总统大选的临近，中国有可能成为竞选之中的一个焦点，每一个总统候选人都可能会力争在反华声调上压倒对手。第三，对华强硬可能有助于说服国会延长布什的贸易谈判快速审批权，而这项权力是多哈回合贸易谈判成功的先决条件。
用电影的情节套路作类比，可以说当前美国政府的对华贸易策略类似于“好警察，坏警察”的策略。保尔森扮演前者，施瓦布则扮演后者。美国政府可能希望中国认识到，如果保尔森的“平静外交”被抛弃，那么取而代之的对华新交往方式会糟糕得多。如果中国认识到这一点，那么“平静外交”或许能够取得更大成果。不过，现在还不清楚，当前美国政府究竟是否采取了这样的策略。
迄今为止，中国一直力图避免对美国的行动做出机械式反应，参加5月份战略经济对话的中国代表团将吸引所有的目光。届时，会谈的气氛将显示出，今年美国政府的一连串法律行动究竟造成了多大伤害。
英文原文：United States - China: U.S. Lodges Two More Complaints Against China at the WTO
After trying a more subtle approach with China over the past year, the United States has resorted to a more muscular policy, adding two intellectual property-related challenges to several already in motion.
Global Insight Perspective
Significance
This is the third time this year that the United States has lodged unfair trade complaints with the World Trade Organization （WTO）, each time eliciting angry responses from its key trading partner.
Implications
The challenges set a lengthy legal process in motion that will see rife intellectual property （IP） violations come under the spotlight. The United States is challenging both the allegedly permissive legal environment that Chinese IP pirates operate in, and the obstacles U.S. firms face in importing and selling their legitimate material.
Outlook
The shift in U.S. strategy has been widely welcomed back home, where the bilateral trade deficit is a key political issue, but there are concerns that the United States stands to lose more than it gains if relations are strained with such a key commercial partner.
Combative Move
U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab yesterday announced that the United States is launching two legal challenges at the World Trade Organization （WTO） over China's alleged infringement of intellectual property （IP） protection rules. One challenge relates to pirated copies of music and movies, and the second to market access barriers erected against U.S. companies offering legitimate IP products. The rife piracy of U.S.-produced entertainment titles has long been a thorn in the countries' relations and is said to cost the United States billions of dollars a year. The Chinese government has announced a range of measures to crack down on the problem, but only with limited success. The United States argues that several key outstanding measures have yet to be undertaken by the Chinese, all of which are in contravention of Chinese undertakings under the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights （TRIPS）.
-- Certain provisions of Chinese law allegedly create a \"safe harbour\" for wholesalers and retailers to avoid criminal liability. Quantitative thresholds for the amount of goods produced before legal action is taken effectively exempt many players.
-- The United States is also challenging the way in which seized goods are disposed of by Chinese customs authorities. The United States charges that these are often released back onto the market once fake labels or other infringing features are removed.
-- Chinese rules allegedly mean that for works poised to enter the market but awaiting censorship approval the copyright holder has no means of complaint in the event of IP violations. Chinese producers apparently do not face the same problem.
-- A grey area in Chinese law has allegedly exempted producers of counterfeit material from legal action if they are not the distributors. However, the United States acknowledges that a recent Chinese ruling has helped to clarify this issue.
The second challenge relates to market access. The United States argues that its publishers and producers of legitimate audio-visual goods do not have proper access to the Chinese market, obstructed by import controls and internal distribution barriers. All such imports have to be channelled through specially authorised state-approved companies, thus denying the U.S. firms control over when, where and how their products enter the country. Distribution is, moreover, hindered by tight restrictions on foreign players' operations. The obstructions slow the distribution of new titles and increase the potential market for pirates who are quicker off the mark. The United States argues that such barriers are inconsistent with China's obligations under its WTO Accession Protocol, as well as under the General Agreement on Trade in Services （GATS）.
The Chinese reaction was predictably angry yesterday. A spokesperson from the Commerce Ministry spoke of the government's \"great regret and strong dissatisfaction at the decision of the United States to file WTO cases against China over intellectual property rights and access to the Chinese publication market...,It's not a sensible move for the U.S. government to file such a complaint. By doing so, the United States has ignored the Chinese government's immense efforts and great achievements in strengthening IPR protection and tightening enforcement of its copyright laws.\"
Ratcheting Up the Pressure
Whatever the U.S. administration might say, it certainly seems that its diplomatic tactics are shifting. For years the administration of President George W. Bush has generally sought to keep confrontations at a minimum, resisting stiff pressure from Congress （particularly from the Democrats who recently took control）. There has been plenty of official rhetoric goading China, but actual legal challenges were few before this year. The appointment of Hank Paulson, a seasoned China operator, as Treasury Secretary last summer appeared to confirm the administration's preference for quiet diplomacy. He launched a \"strategic economic dialogue\" and has visited the country three times in the last six months. Many in the U.S. government argue that it is much more constructive to work with China behind the scenes to achieve economic reform, rather than creating confrontation. They also argue that China is now becoming so entwined with the U.S. economy that a rupture would be hugely damaging to both. There are, moreover, other areas where the United States needs China's help, most notably on North Korea.
So has the \"softly-softly\" approach now been abandoned? The signs so far this year would suggest that there has been a significant change in tack. This is the third time that WTO challenges have been lodged, each time provoking Chinese ire. It seems many in the administration have lost patience with the quiet approach, and they argue that tougher signals are needed. Last month a challenge was lodged over alleged export subsidies, initially targeting glossy paper. Tough new duties are threatened. The other, in February, targeted China's alleged subsidies of manufactured goods more widely. Schwab was nonetheless at pains yesterday to deny that policy has changed, saying that the latest steps \"should not be viewed as hostile actions against China\" and that WTO challenges are \"the normal way for mature trading partners\" to resolve differences. Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez praised Schwab's announcement, but Paulson was notably mute. Reports suggest that he nonetheless signed off on the move.
Outlook and Implications
The legal challenges are seen as unnecessarily provocative in China and they certainly carry risks. However, the administration calculates that warning signals are warranted given the slow progress on China's part. The moves also help to dampen some of the anti-China chorus in Congress and possibly forestall more damaging moves. Without a response to the chorus, China threatens to become a key issue in the upcoming presidential election, where candidates may seek to outdo one-another with their China rhetoric. A tougher China approach may also help to convince Democrats to extend Bush's all-important fast-track trade negotiation powers. These are pre-requisites for the troubled Doha Round of multilateral trade negotiations. Using a movie analogy, one might see the China strategy as akin to \"good cop, bad cop\", where Paulson plays the former role and Schwab the latter. Paulson's quiet diplomacy might achieve more if China sees a much worse alternative should it be abandoned. Whether such strategy works in practice is not clear, however. All eyes will be on the Chinese delegation that visits Washington in May, led by Deputy Prime Minister Wu Yi. The mood at this second session of Paulson's strategic dialogue will show how much damage has really been done by the succession of legal challenges seen this year. So far, China has tended to avoid knee-jerk reactions to the United States' legal moves.
页:
[1]