?。ㄒ唬└鶕?jù)美國國內(nèi)法單方面挑起貿(mào)易摩擦

　　美國現(xiàn)任政府以產(chǎn)業(yè)損害和保護(hù)知識產(chǎn)權(quán)為由，繞開世界貿(mào)易組織爭端解決機(jī)制，單純根據(jù)美國國內(nèi)法挑起國際貿(mào)易摩擦，以“232條款”、“201條款”和“301條款”名義發(fā)起一系列調(diào)查。在調(diào)查中選擇性使用證據(jù)材料，得出武斷結(jié)論，而且未經(jīng)世界貿(mào)易組織授權(quán)，非法使用懲罰性高關(guān)稅對待世界貿(mào)易組織成員，嚴(yán)重違反世界貿(mào)易組織最基本、最核心的最惠國待遇、關(guān)稅約束等規(guī)則和紀(jì)律。這種單邊主義行為，不僅損害了中國和其他成員利益，更損害了世界貿(mào)易組織及其爭端解決機(jī)制的權(quán)威性，使多邊貿(mào)易體制和國際貿(mào)易秩序面臨空前險(xiǎn)境。

1. Unilaterally provoking trade friction on the pretext of US domestic law

Citing industrial injuries and protection of intellectual property rights, the current US administration regularly circumvents the WTO’s dispute settlement system and provokes international trade friction merely using US domestic law as a pretext, initiating a host of investigations under the auspices of Section 232, Section 201 and Section 301. These investigations involve selective use of evidence and arbitrary conclusions. Without WTO authorization, the US has illegally imposed punitive, hefty tariffs on other WTO members, which is a serious breach of the most fundamental and central WTO rules and disciplines, including the most-favored-nation treatment and tariff binding. Such unilateralist actions have harmed the interests of China and other WTO members. More importantly, they have undermined the authority of the WTO and its dispute settlement system, and exposed the multilateral trading system and international trade order to unprecedented risks.

　　對多國產(chǎn)品開展“232調(diào)查”。美國政府濫用“國家安全”概念推行貿(mào)易保護(hù)措施。2017年4月，美國政府依據(jù)本國《1962年貿(mào)易擴(kuò)展法》第232條款，以所謂“國家安全”為由對包括中國在內(nèi)的全球主要經(jīng)濟(jì)體的鋼鐵和鋁產(chǎn)品發(fā)起“232調(diào)查”，并依據(jù)單方面調(diào)查結(jié)果，于2018年3月宣布對進(jìn)口鋼鐵和鋁分別加征25%和10%的關(guān)稅，招致各方普遍反對和報(bào)復(fù)。2018年4月5日，中國率先將美國鋼鋁232措施訴諸世界貿(mào)易組織。美國宣布自6月1日恢復(fù)對歐盟鋼鋁產(chǎn)品加征關(guān)稅后，歐盟也予以反擊并向世界貿(mào)易組織申訴，指責(zé)美國的措施違反世界貿(mào)易組織規(guī)則。歐盟貿(mào)易專員馬姆斯特羅姆稱，美國正在進(jìn)行“危險(xiǎn)游戲”，歐盟如不作回應(yīng)將等同于接受這些非法關(guān)稅。截至2018年8月，已有9個世界貿(mào)易組織成員向世界貿(mào)易組織起訴美國鋼鋁232措施。2018年7月，美國政府又以所謂“國家安全”為由，對進(jìn)口汽車及零配件發(fā)起新的“232調(diào)查”。

The US administration has conducted Section 232 investigations against the products of multiple countries, abusing the concept of “national security” for trade protectionism. In April 2017, on the basis of Section 232 of its Trade Expansion Act of 1962, the US administration initiated Section 232 investigations  against the steel and aluminum products of China and other major economies, citing “national security” reasons. In March 2018, based on the conclusions of these unilateral investigations, the US announced 25 percent tariffs on steel and 10 percent on aluminum imports, incurring widespread opposition and retaliation. On April 5, 2018, China took the lead to bring the case of US Section 232 measures against steel and aluminum to the WTO. Following the US announcement on the resumption of tariffs against EU steel and aluminum products effective from June 1, the EU struck back and appealed to the WTO, charging the US with violation of WTO rules. European Commissioner for Trade Cecilia Malmstr?m said that the US was playing “a dangerous game”, and the EU would be accepting these illegal tariffs if it did not respond. By August 2018, nine WTO members have litigated at the WTO over the Section 232 measures on steel and aluminum. In July 2018, the US administration initiated another round of Section 232 investigations on imported automobiles and auto parts, again on the grounds of “national security”.

　　眾所周知，鋼、鐵等屬于一般性生產(chǎn)資料，汽車屬大眾消費(fèi)品，與“國家安全”建立聯(lián)系非常牽強(qiáng)。美國彼得森國際經(jīng)濟(jì)研究所高級研究員查德·鮑恩認(rèn)為，美國汽車產(chǎn)能利用率超過了80%，美國約98%的乘用車進(jìn)口來自歐盟、日本、加拿大、韓國和墨西哥，以汽車危及美國國家安全為由開展調(diào)查是站不住腳的。美國政府隨意擴(kuò)大國家安全概念范圍，毫無理論和歷史依據(jù)，其實(shí)質(zhì)是利用相關(guān)法條賦予總統(tǒng)行政權(quán)力，繞過常規(guī)法律限制實(shí)施貿(mào)易保護(hù)（專欄6）。

　　圖表：專欄6 美國單邊主義行為引發(fā)多國譴責(zé)和共同反制 新華社發(fā)

It is self-evident that steel and iron are basic raw materials for manufacturing, and automobiles are ordinary consumer goods. It is absurd to link them to “national security”. Chad Bown, senior fellow of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, noted that the capacity utilization rate of the US automobile industry was over 80 percent and about 98 percent of US passenger vehicle imports were from the EU, Japan, Canada, the ROK and Mexico. Therefore, initiating the investigations on the ground that automobile imports impair US national security is baseless.  The US administration’s arbitrary expansion of the scope of national security has no theoretical or historical logic. Essentially, it is all about using the executive power of the US President provided for by the relevant sections of certain law to circumvent regular legal restrictions to practice trade protectionism (Box 6).