BEIJING: A European Parliament vote against granting China market economy status in the World Trade Organization was “not at all constructive”, Beijing’s foreign minister said Monday as he met his French counterpart.
The designation would make it much harder for Brussels to fight Beijing over alleged unfair trading practices.
China joined the WTO in 2001, and argues that accession protocols dictate it will automatically switch over to market economy status by this December, 15 years later.
But European lawmakers in Strasbourg last week voted overwhelmingly against issuing the designation, concerned that doing so would cost Europe job losses in key industries such as steel.
“We believe that this European Parliament decision was not at all constructive,” Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi said at a joint press conference with his visiting French counterpart Jean-Marc Ayrault.
Wang urged the EU to take an “objective look” at the issue and respect WTO rules.
“As a member of the WTO, the EU must fulfil its promises and not deny or avoid the issue,” he said, adding: “China’s wish is clear, simple and reasonable: that everyone should remember the commitments they have made.”
China is the world’s second-largest economy, and is the EU’s second-largest trading partner, with daily trade flows of over $1 billion.
It is also the world’s top steelmaker, producing more than half of global output, and has been accused of flooding the world market with oversupply sold at below cost, in violation of global trade rules.
In the non-binding resolution, MEPs urged that Chinese exports be treated in a “non-standard way” so as to “ensure a level playing field for EU industry and defend EU jobs”, the European Parliament said on its website.
The European Commission, the EU’s executive arm, has given itself until this summer to decide on whether China should be granted the status.
Commissioner Vytenis Andriukaitis, Lithuania’s representative to the EU executive, told MEPs that the Commission all but ruled out doing so, saying that “any such move would be untenable”.