“The U.S. is not changing China’s status as a non-market-economy,” a senior U.S. administration official said in an interview. “China’s protocol of accession to the WTO doesn’t require the U.S. or any other WTO member to automatically grant China market-economy status after December 11, 2016.”
China contends Washington and other members of the World Trade Organization should grant it market-economy status on Sunday, the 15th-anniversary of its WTO accession, under the terms of its joining the group.
The incoming Donald Trump White House isn’t likely to reverse the Obama administration’s decision. Mr. Trump, at a rally in Iowa on Dec 5, said: “China is not a market economy.” He cited alleged dumping of artificially low-price goods on the U.S. market and theft of intellectual property by Chinese companies. “They haven’t played by the rules, and they know it’s time that they’re going to start,” he said.
“If China wants to benefit from treatment as a market-economy country, it must change its own practices to let the market play a decisive role in the economy,” the official said.
U.S. Won’t Grant China Market Economy Status, Senior Administration Official Says, Wall Street Journal, Dec 9, 2016
China’s WTO Complaint Against U.S. NME Treatment, Dec 16, 2016
The Myth of China and Market Economy Status in 2016,
This Tietje and Nowrot analysis makes good points. And the points deserve substantive comment. However, the comment goes beyond what the ‘myth’ blog proposed. The myth blog sought to make the point a) that there is nothing in the China Accession Protocol granting MES automatically and b) China will have to show that it is a market economy under the domestic law of the importing WTO Member, even after 2016. The Tietje and Nowrot Policy Paper agrees with this proposition from a theoretical perspective. They state: Article 15 of the Accession Protocol of China to the WTO ‘itself does not explicitly bestow NME- status on China’. And further on: ‘Again, the second sentence of paragraph 15(d) of the accession protocol itself does not explicitly grant China MES from the “magic” date onwards.’