China Claims The US Poultry Restriction Case Wins &Nbsp; Trade Complementarity Far Exceeds Competition.

According to the voice of China "7:21 news" 7:21, yesterday (16) evening, sources said, China's prosecution of the United States poultry restriction measures in the World Trade Organization won the case.

This is China's first challenge to US congressional legislation and the first victory of China's prosecution of US Congress legislation.

A few days ago, the expert group of China on WTO v. poultry restriction measures released the interim report.

The report ruled that the US import restrictions on Chinese poultry were in violation of the relevant rules of WTO on animal and plant quarantine measures, and also violated the provisions of WTO most favored nation treatment and the abolition of quantitative restrictions.

Almost all of the litigation requests filed by the Chinese side were supported by the group of experts, and they were a great victory.

From 4:30 p.m. on April 17, 2009, China formally submitted a request for consultations to the US delegation to the WTO. The battle for the export of poultry meat has sounded the clarion call.

In the 14 months since then, the 727th provision of the comprehensive appropriation Act 2009 has become the focus of the case.

The "727 clause" is the 727th section of the 2009 comprehensive appropriation Act signed by President Obama in March 11, 2009. Its content is "any appropriation provided under this Law shall not be used to formulate or execute any rules that allow the United States to import Chinese poultry products".

After the adoption of this clause, the two governments could not negotiate the import of poultry meat, which fundamentally blocked the possibility of Chinese poultry returning to the US market.

In fact, the United States has been fooling China for several years in poultry trade.

As early as the 2005 avian flu spread around the world, various countries have issued an import ban on poultry products.

Since then, China and the United States have agreed to release the import ban on poultry products.

6 years after the abolition of the ban on poultry imports in China, Chinese enterprises were still prohibited from exporting poultry to the United States.

China has fulfilled its promise, but the United States has broken its promise.

As a "vanguard" of protectionism, it is common for US congressional legislation to be challenged in WTO, but few are successful.

Dr. Tu Xinquan, vice president of the WTO Research Institute of China University of foreign trade, said in an interview with the voice of China last night that the United States was defeated this time because the 727 clause was obviously discriminatory.

Tu Xinquan: the poultry case is related to the legal nature of the United States.

The "727 clause" is more discriminatory and violates the most favored nation treatment principle of WTO.

The "727 clause" prohibits USDA from using fiscal appropriation to lift restrictions on China's poultry imports and discriminates against China.

At that time, the Chinese government adopted a very strong stance against the United States on the one hand, and on the other hand resorted to the WTO rules to fight for rights.

From the result, the position and attitude adopted by the Chinese government are very correct.

Zhou Shijian, executive director of China WTO Research Association and senior researcher of Sino US relations research center of Tsinghua University, was once one of the negotiators of China's entry into the world trade organization.

During his exclusive interview with China News last night, he said that this case is a good encouragement for China and even developing countries to take up WTO's weapons to defend their own interests.

Zhou Shijian: the WTO dispute settlement body is to safeguard free trade.

In recent years, the United States has engaged heavily in trade protectionism.

Some time ago, the Cotton Subsidy case in Brazil won.

Developing countries should take more WTO to uphold justice and achieve a fair solution. This is also a way to solve the current trade friction.

It is understood that the current case is still at the trial stage of the expert group, and if the United States disagrees with the ruling, it can appeal.

If the United States does not appeal, the panel report will become the final ruling.

Zhou Shijian believes that even if the United States appeals, it will win time and lose face.

Zhou Shijian: from the past experience, especially the European Union led eight countries and regions jointly prosecuted the United States, in early 2003, the WTO dispute settlement body's decision, the eight Party victory.

But the United States appealed that by the end of 2003, the dispute settlement body dismissed the appeal from the United States.

The United States will take advantage of the right to appeal, though it may not win, but it will win time for the poultry industry in the United States.

Chinese people face their faces in diplomacy. Americans do not speak face, so long as they are interested, they will appeal.

Chinese people should be patient with this matter.

{page_break}

In Tu Xinquan's view, because of the special nature of this case, it is unlikely that the United States will appeal.

Tu Xin Quan: the comprehensive appropriation Act 2009 has expired.

Similar provisions did not appear in the US comprehensive appropriation act 2010.

WTO dispute settlement requires that the losing party withdraw relevant measures.

In fact, the measure has been withdrawn.

From the point of view of necessity, the United States does not seem to have to appeal again.

Does this mean that from now on, China's processed poultry products will be able to reach the other side of the ocean and serve on the table of the American people? Dr. Tu Xinquan believes that the friction caused by the chicken will not end, because, according to the contents of the bill itself, the lifting of the ban is not a lifting of the ban on China's export of poultry to the United States, but rather the release of the Ministry of agriculture's use of financial appropriation to carry out the investigation of the abolition of China's poultry import restriction, so the final result will depend on the relevant findings of the US Department of Agriculture.

Tu Xin Quan: as to whether or not to cancel the import restrictions on Chinese poultry depends on the findings.

China's victory is more likely to create conditions for solving the Sino US poultry trade issue at the macro policy level. The final result may depend on the relevant consultations and negotiations between the two governments, especially the agricultural departments of the two countries.

Can the Chinese government exert enough pressure on the United States to provide enough evidence to enable the US Department of agriculture to launch an investigation as soon as possible to ensure that the import of Chinese poultry products is safe and environmentally friendly?

In this way, China's export of poultry to the US can really recover.

As a big poultry country, the poultry trade between China and the United States often sparks "sparks of love and hate".

Even in order to win the Chinese market, the American chicken Association, the US chicken Association, also issued a voice to stand up to China's 727 clause in prosecuting the United States.

An interesting phenomenon is that American consumers prefer chicken breasts, while Chinese consumers prefer chicken legs, chicken feet and chicken wings.

The natural differences between the two countries in terms of chicken consumption habits make trade complementarities between the two countries far greater than competition.

Therefore, Zhou Shijian believes that whether the chicken feet of the United States or China's chicken breasts, the pursuit of maximization of efficiency across the sea should be their common goal.

Zhou Shijian: China and the United States are both big producers of poultry meat, but Chinese and American people have different habits of eating poultry.

Chinese people are willing to eat chicken wings and chicken feet. Americans are willing to eat chicken breast.

Under the condition of fair competition between China and the United States, free trade is mutually beneficial to both sides.

In addition, the United States is heavily subsidized in agricultural products, which should be abolished.

In the case of massive subsidies, Sino US trade is unfair.