启动中国-东盟自由贸易区：几家欢喜几家愁？.doc

启动中国-东盟自由贸易区：几家欢喜几家愁？中国-东盟自由贸易区（CAFTA）正式启动，体现了中国政府为推动区域贸易自由化和国内西南地区发展而做出的积极努力。新建成的自贸区由中国和东盟十国组成，惠及19亿人口，贸易额高达4.5万亿美元的区域。中国-东盟自贸区成员国之间九成商品（大约7000种）将实现零关税。到2015年，其他几类高度敏感商品的关税将降至50%以下，包括中国产卫生纸、印尼产爆米花和泰国产的滑雪板靴等。“显然，中国希望通过建立中国-东盟自贸区来推动区域贸易自由化发展。特别是当目前WTO多哈回合谈判（Doha Round）陷入僵局，自贸区至少可以实现中国和东盟双边贸易自由化。”上海复旦大学金融学教授郑辉指出，“但由于中国与东盟各国之间的贸易结构的竞争性大于互补性，因此要具体实施自贸协议，仍面临重大挑战。”另一方面，东盟内部也存在对自贸区前景的担忧；同时，随着中国对世界贸易的影响力与日俱增，也让美、日等国感到不安。困难处境2000年，中国时任总理朱镕基首先提出建立中国-东盟自贸区的构想。两年后，中国与东盟各国领导人在柬埔寨首都金边签署了初步合作框架协议，商定逐步减免双方贸易关税。除了要实现区域贸易自由化，中国积极推进自贸区的另一动因是为了让西部欠发达地区成为更具吸引力的国际贸易中心。“2000年中央政府之所以决定建立自贸区，主要源自广西、云南、重庆和四川等西南地方政府的强烈要求。”郑教授说，“中国西部内陆地区的物流成本要比上海、广州等东部沿海城市高得多。在出口利润不足5%的情况下，西南地区的产品在对日本和美国贸易时就失去了价格优势。此时，中国唯一的贸易选择就只有邻近的东盟各国。”“不断加快西南地区公路建设表明国家要降低当地的物流成本。”上海社科院信息科学教授王贻志说。他预计随着自贸区的启动，中国西南地区将因其邻近老挝、越南、柬埔寨等贸易伙伴国而成最大受益者。此外，广西和云南两省还积极要求被列为人民币跨境贸易结算试点。“这可降低交易成本，从而进一步推近中国与东盟间的经贸关系。”王教授说。 而东盟在向更多中国产品敞开大门时有何收益？东盟的新加坡、马来西亚、印尼和菲律宾是中国四大主要贸易伙伴。“新加坡一直是贸易自由化的坚定拥护者，其大部分产品都已接近零关税。”郑教授说。而大量的原材料出口也使马来西亚对华保持贸易顺差。但另外两国的情况则大为不同。“中国与东盟各国都以低端制造业见长。”郑教授指出，“如果大部分产品都实行零关税，则像印尼和菲律宾的纺织与电子等高税率产品将遭受来势汹汹的中国廉价产品的沉重打击。”因此，印尼国内强烈反对实施中国-东盟自贸协议，其政府要设法安抚那些可能会受中国廉价进口商品影响的行业，包括纺织、钢铁和电子产品等。印尼已向东盟理事会提交了报告，希望就自贸协议相关内容进行重新谈判，对8部门共228项产品推迟削减关税，让当地相关产业有更多准备时间来应对大量中国廉价商品的冲击。2009年之前，中国东盟经贸合作发展迅速，贸易额由2003年的780亿美元猛增至2008年的2310亿美元。但2009年双边贸易额下降了8%，接近2120亿美元，预计今年还将继续下滑。中国主要从东盟进口原料及半成品，包括机械设备、矿物燃料、塑料、动植物油脂、橡胶和有机化学品等。华盛顿战略和国际研究中心（Center for Strategic and International Studies）中国项目主任、前美国助理贸易代表傅瑞伟（Charles Freeman）称，“中国用这些原材料加工廉价产品，然后主要销往美国和欧盟地区。”但经济衰退对此造成了沉重打击。傅瑞伟还指出，未来的中国东盟贸易模式主要有赖于“中国能否扩大消费市场，消化更多产品。”鉴于有限的国内需求，如果中国仍难抵御外部经济冲击，那么“中国和东盟要想开展进一步经贸合作就会困难得多。”傅瑞伟说。各国顾虑中国和东盟双边贸易自由化还面临着日本和韩国的压力。目前东亚区域贸易格局是10+3的合作机制，即东盟与中日韩分别建立自由贸易区。“日韩两国都急于将东盟纳入自己的势力范围。”上海社科院的王教授说，“例如，日本政府一直试图与东盟实现生产制造一体化。由于日本善于制造高科技电子产品，而东盟主要提供半成品和廉价产品，因此双方贸易模式的互补性很高，实现一体化就相当容易。中国-东盟自贸区的建立，加重了日本对东盟会逐渐变为中国附庸的担忧。”东盟则越来越担心随着中国在东亚的崛起，东盟各国将沦为中国的附庸。据悉，所有东盟领导人在迎接美国总统奥巴马亚洲之行访问时都提到了贸易问题，他们都希望美国能够积极介入实现区域制衡，以免形成中国一枝独大的局面。此外，美国在中国-东盟自贸区面前也处于不利处境。“如果中国在东盟有更便利的入市条件，将使美国处于经济劣势。”马里兰大学公共政策学院的麦克戴斯勒（I.M. Mac Destler）教授说。但他又补充到，这主要“取决于中国-东盟自贸协议的实施程度和完整性，以及是否会囊括韩国和日本，并最终发展成东亚自由贸易协定。”“美国不应对抗中国的贸易举措，而应努力参与其中。此外，美国要通过泛太平洋伙伴关系协定谈判，建立包括美国、新加坡、越南、澳洲和新西兰在内的自由贸易区。”但戴斯勒强调，奥巴马政府能否开展自贸区建设，取决于“政府能否促成国会更新贸易促进授权法案（Trade Promotion Authority, PDA）。”贸易促进授权法案规定由国会授予总统参加谈判并签署新贸易协定的权利。行政部门完成谈判后，国会必须在一定时间内对这些贸易协定进行表决，并不得修改其内容。该法案自2007年到期后，国会未再授予总统这项权利。没有这项法案，即使美国贸易代表与别国完成了协定谈判，国会也会将其束之高阁不加表决。马里兰大学公共政策学院教授苏珊施瓦布（Susan Schwab）大使，曾于布什在任总统期间担任美国贸易代表。她指出，中国-东盟自贸区的成立削弱了中国对WTO多哈回合谈判的热情，因为中国发现开展区域性双边自由贸易谈判要更加容易。施瓦布认为，这些区域贸易协定对美国以及较小的发展中国家有不利影响。她指出，业务遍布国内和东盟的美国跨国公司为保持其竞争力，将不得不依靠东盟地区的工厂进行生产和销售，从而损害了美国本土工人利益。施瓦布还表示美国中小企业也会受到负面影响，因为跨国公司可通过对当地投资来逃避对外关税，并继续与中国和东盟开展贸易，但美国中小企业对此却无能为力。关于美国应该采取何种策略，施瓦布建议，首先要继续努力推进多哈谈判破冰，鼓励中国和其他发展中国家积极参与到多边贸易谈判中来。其次，奥巴马政府应竭力促成国会批准同韩国、秘鲁和哥伦比亚之间的自由贸易协定，并加快促进美国与其他东亚国家间新贸易协定的谈判。然而，她也指出，因其与反对贸易协定的工会组织的密切关系，奥巴马政府在采纳这些策略时面临政治障碍。华盛顿战略和国际研究中心的傅瑞伟表示，“在美国本土，贸易自由化的理念并不受欢迎。如果东盟真的成为中国的后院，美国则可能会在东亚地区更积极地推进自己的贸易日程。但美国如果不从根本上转变政治策略，就将在这个领域无所作为。”以下是外文原文The China-ASEAN Free Trade Agreement: Whos Happy, Whos NotOn January 1, 2010, the China-ASEAN Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) came into force, part of the Chinese governments effort to promote the idea of trade liberalization as well as to facilitate the development of the countrys southwestern region. The new FTA includes China and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations 10 member countries, covering a population of 1.9 billion and involving about US$4.5 trillion of trade volume.CAFTA will allow 90% of all goods - that is, around 7,000 items traded between China and ASEAN countries - to be zero-tariff. Meanwhile, by 2015, duties on other “highly sensitive” commodities will be cut to no more than 50%, which would include toilet paper in China, popcorn in Indonesia and snowboard boots in Thailand.“Clearly, China is hoping that the implementation of the China-ASEAN free trade area could serve as an impetus to promote regional trade liberalization, at least between China and the ASEAN countries, especially since the recent multilateral trade negotiation under the WTO auspices - the Doha Round - went into an impasse,” notes Zheng Hui, a finance professor at Fudan University in Shanghai. “However, China is now facing a great challenge in getting the agreement formally implemented, since the trade structure between China and the ASEAN countries is mainly competitive rather than complementary.” On the other side of equation, there are growing anxieties from ASEAN countries on the prospects brought by the implementation of CAFTA, and there are concerns from other countries, such as Japan and U.S., about the growing clout of China in world trade.Help WantedThe idea to establish CAFTA was first proposed in 2000 by Chinas Prime Minister Zhu Rongji. The initial framework agreement was signed two years later in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, with the intention of gradually reducing tariffs on tradable commodities. In addition to fostering regional trade liberalization, another incentive for China to push CAFTA was that China wants to make its underdeveloped western region a more attractive international trade hub. “The central governments decision to propose CAFTA in 2000 was strongly driven by the provincial government leaders in the southwest, mainly Guangxi, Yunnan, Chongqing and Sichuan,” says Zheng. “Compared to the coastal cities in eastern China, such as Shanghai and Guangzhou, the internal logistics cost is much higher for the inner western regions. With profit margins of less than 5% for exports, the goods produced in the inner southwest lost their price competitiveness when Japan and the U.S. became trading partners. Against this backdrop, the only alternative is the neighboring ASEAN countries.” “Facilitating the construction of highways in southwest China is evidence of Beijings intention to reduce the internal logistics cost in the region,” notes Wang Yizhi, professor of information science at the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences. He anticipates that with the implementation of CAFTA, the southwest would benefit the most because of its geographic proximity to neighboring trading partners, such as Laos, Vietnam and Cambodia. On top of that, he says, provincial leaders in Guangxi and Yunan are also lobbying Beijing, hoping that Beijing authorities will allow the two provinces to become a pilot area to settle cross-border trade deals in renminbi. That would push the development of a closer trade relationship between China and ASEAN countries, because transaction costs in trade would fall even further,” he notes.But whats in it for the ASEAN countries, as they open the door wider to “Made in China” goods? Among the ASEAN members are four of Chinas major trading partners: Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia and Philippines. Singapore has always been a firm supporter of trade liberalization, and most of the tariff is already near zero, says Zheng. Malaysia also has a trade surplus with China, thanks to its raw materials exports.Its a different story with its other two trading partners. “China and ASEAN countries both specialize in producing low-cost manufactured goods, notes Zheng. If the tariff of most of the tradable commodities is down to zero, the high-tariff industries such as textiles and electronics in Indonesia and the Philippines would be hit hardest by the blitz of low-cost Chinese manufacturing goods.”For that reason, there is a strong opposition to the implementation of the FTA in Indonesia. The government has sought to soothe concerns that industries including textiles, iron and steel as well as electronics would suffer from the onslaught of cheap Chinese imports. Indonesia has notified the ASEAN council of its plan to modify the implementation of the FTA by renegotiating 228 tariff categories in eight sectors to offer local industries more time to prepare for the flood of cheap Chinese imports.Prior to 2009, China-ASEAN trade expanded rapidly, with volume skyrocketing from US$78 billion in 2003 to US$231 billion in 2008. However, China-ASEAN trade in 2009 shrank 8% from the previous year, to US$212 billion, and it is expected to fall further this year. The major goods China imports from ASEAN countries are intermediary goods, such as machinery, minerals and fuels, plastics, fats and oils, rubber and organic chemicals. According to Charles Freeman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington, D.C.-based public policy research institute, and a former assistant U.S. trade representative for China affairs, “China uses these goods to produce low-cost products and sell them mainly to the United States and the European Union, which were hit by the economic downturn. Freeman adds that the future trade pattern between China and ASEAN countries will mainly rely on “whether China could increase its role as a consumer to absorb the goods it produces.” With limited domestic demand, if China continues to be vulnerable to the external economic shocks, “further collaboration on trade issues between China and ASEAN countries would become more difficult,” says Freeman.Worried BystandersTrade liberalization between China and the ASEAN countries is also under pressure from Japan and South Korea. Currently, the regional trade framework in East Asia - called “10+3” - is based on setting up free trade zones with Japan, South Korea and China. “Japan and South Korea are eager to integrate ASEAN countries into their political sphere,” notes Wang from the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences. “For instance, the Japanese government has always tried to integrate ASEAN countries into its manufacturing system, which is much easier since the trade pattern between Japan and ASEAN countries is mainly complementary, because Japan specializes in producing high-tech electronic products and ASEAN countries produce intermediary and low-cost manufacturing goods. With the implementation of CAFTA, there is a growing fear in Japan that ASEAN countries will gradually become Chinas backyard.”On the part of ASEAN countries, there is growing nervousness that ASEAN nations would become Chinas backyard due to Chinas rising role in East Asia. Reportedly, every ASEAN nation leader to sit with President Obama during his Asia trip asked questions about trade, and they all hope for a more active American presence in the region to strike a balance, so that the ASEAN nations would not be pulled into a China-dominant landscape.Meanwhile, the U.S. could also find itself in a more disadvantageous trading position because of CAFTA. “If China has better market access to ASEAN countries, it would put the United States at an economic disadvantage, says I.M. Mac Destler, a professor at the School of Public Policy at the University of Maryland, College Park. However, he adds, a lot depends on how fully CAFTA is implemented, how complete it is and whether it would involve Korea and Japan and finally become an East Asian Free Trade Agreement.” “The United States should not oppose the trade initiatives China is taking, but needs to look to be part of them. Moreover, the U.S. should start its own FTA initiative, building on the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations, which include the U.S., Singapore, Vietnam, Australia and New Zealand.” However, Destler notes that whether the Obama Administration could launch its own FTA initiatives depends on “whether the administration could push the Congress to renew the Trade Promotion Authority.”The Trade Promotion Authority was an act that allows the Congress to grant the U.S. president the authority to negotiate FTAs. After an FTA deal is closed by the Executive Branch, Congress must vote on it within a certain time frame without amendments. The authority expired in 2007 without being renewed by Congress. Without it, even if U.S. trade representatives could successfully negotiate an FTA deal with other countries, Congress could “put the deal on the shelf” without voting forever.Ambassador Susan Schwab, a former trade representative under the George W. Bush Administration and a professor at the School of Public Policy at the University of Maryland, College Park, notes that CAFTA makes China less interested in the Doha Round, the multilateral trade negotiation within the WTO Framework, because it is now finding it much easier to negotiate regional FTAs.Schwab suggests that such regional agreements can have a negative impact on the U.S. and on smaller developing countries. She predicts that U.S. workers would suffer to the extent that U.S. multinational companies with branches both in the US and in ASEAN countries could now be forced to produce and sell goods from their