【Text by Observer Net Columnist Peng Bo】

On September 23 local time, Chinese Premier Li Qiang, while attending related activities of the 80th United Nations General Assembly, solemnly declared to the world that as a responsible developing major country, China will not seek new special and differential treatment in the World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations currently and in the future.

The declaration made by Premier Li Qiang on behalf of China has attracted great attention and interest from both domestic and international people.

What is "Special and Differential Treatment"?

"Special and Differential Treatment" (S&DT), which is a key principle in the World Trade Organization (WTO) rules system, aims to acknowledge and accommodate the objective gaps between developing members and developed countries in terms of economic development level, management capacity, and institutional construction. It allows developing countries to enjoy certain preferential treatments when fulfilling WTO obligations. It mainly manifests in the following aspects:

Author's compilation and diagram

"Special and Differential Treatment" is a mechanism set up based on historical experience in the WTO agreement system, widely enjoyed by developing countries. Its legal basis is found throughout various multilateral agreements, such as Article 18 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 (allowing developing countries to take measures to protect infant industries), Article 4 of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) (promoting participation of developing countries in trade in services), and Article 66 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) (granting the least developed countries longer transition periods). Decisions and declarations from various ministerial conferences (such as the Nairobi Decision, the Bali Package, etc.).

In a sense, "Special and Differential Treatment" can be understood as a "support mechanism" within the multilateral trading system, aiming to help developing countries better integrate into the global economy, benefit from trade liberalization, and promote development. At the same time, it avoids unnecessary and significant shocks to their fragile economies due to rapid or strict adherence to universal obligations.

For countries with strong economic power, this mechanism arrangement is also beneficial. From an economic perspective, it benefits developed countries to have developing countries better integrated into the global economy, enabling them to conduct trade more effectively and develop together. According to economic principles, the larger the market, the more extensive the exchange, and the greater the economic benefits.

The political significance is even more prominent. For developed countries, it helps to attract developing countries to join their camp and maintain consistency politically. Otherwise, if developing countries and developed countries participate in international trade under the same conditions, it would be detrimental to its development and might force them to seek other political avenues, which would be unfavorable for developed countries.

For example, in 1946, the Kuomintang government of Chiang Kai-shek signed the Sino-American Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation with the United States, stipulating that both sides would conduct trade under basically equal conditions. This agreement was formally equal but essentially unfair because at that time, China's economic strength could not withstand competition with the United States under the same conditions. The obvious result was that after the treaty was signed, American products flooded into the country, and the national bourgeoisie could not survive, eventually turning to socialism. For the United States, it had to bear the significant political consequences of "losing China," suffering heavy losses.

Why does China enjoy special and differential treatment?

The fundamental reason why China has long enjoyed "Special and Differential Treatment" in the World Trade Organization (WTO) is that China's economic and social development level was generally recognized as a developing country by the international community when it joined the WTO. This identity recognition is the result of multiple factors working together. Specifically, it can be understood from the following aspects:

1) Basic national conditions support this reasonable demand

When China joined the WTO in 2001, despite being a major trading country, it was still a typical developing economy, with a huge gap in overall economic development levels compared to developed countries.

First, per capita GDP was low; in 2001, China's per capita GDP was only $890 (ranked 138th in the world), generally considered to belong to the "low-income country" category. It was far below the world average and could not compare with developed economies such as the US, Europe, and Japan.

Second, the industrial structure was unbalanced; the economy was still primarily composed of labor-intensive industries and manufacturing, while the service sector and high-tech industries were relatively weak.

Third, regional development was extremely imbalanced: while the eastern coastal areas were rapidly developing, the vast central and western regions remained very backward. There was a huge economic gap between the two, difficult to overcome.

2001, Doha, China joins the World Trade Organization

Based on these objective realities, both China itself and the international community consistently recognized China's "developing country" status during negotiations and reviews. Therefore, China obtained corresponding transitional arrangements and flexibility-related preferential treatments in its accession protocol.

2) China accepted relatively strict conditions upon joining

However, the S&DT arrangements that China received were not a "free lunch," but rather a result of China bearing significant opening pressure in other areas to gain access to the WTO.

In the accession negotiations, China actually undertook higher obligations than those of general developing members. For example, China's average binding tariff for industrial products was 9.1%, higher than the open level of most developing countries at the time. At that time, South Korea, Argentina, Brazil, and South Africa had average binding tariffs for industrial products of 10.1%, 30.8%, 30.8%, and 15.7%, respectively, all significantly higher than China's. Agricultural sector obligations were even more stringent. The average tariff on agricultural products was reduced to 15.2%, far lower than the 56% average for developing members. China was the first to bind its Aggregate Measurement of Support (AMS) to zero, giving up the right to use agricultural "development box" subsidies and agricultural export subsidies. This meant that China could not provide high subsidies to its agricultural sector like other developing members. China also made high-level opening commitments in many service sectors such as finance, telecommunications, and distribution, with openness levels and breadth far exceeding those of general developing members. In addition, although the WTO allows developing members to have longer transition periods when fulfilling obligations, China actively shortened or gave up transition period arrangements in many areas to adapt to international rules faster.

The Ministry of Commerce and relevant experts clearly stated: "China has made commitments and obligations consistent with its development stage and economic level when joining the WTO, and its openness level in many areas is higher than that of general developing members." In short, China's accession to the WTO was not due to the favor of a certain country, but rather came at a great cost.

Under such harsh conditions, China was able to join the WTO and obtain legitimate arrangements related to "Special and Differential Treatment." Therefore, China's right to enjoy this privilege is completely reasonable.

3) The U.S. believes China's accession was beneficial to it

A more important reason is that relevant data indicate that when China joined the WTO, the U.S. government represented by then President Clinton believed it was beneficial to the United States.

First, it catered to the interests of domestic businesses and capital. For a long time, China's reform and opening-up have attracted a large amount of American capital. American companies have earned substantial profits using the model of "R&D in the U.S., production in China, and selling back to the U.S. at high prices." After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Americans generally believed in the "end of history," promoted neoliberal economic theory, and believed in free trade. They also anticipated the potential of China's vast market. An open China would provide huge export opportunities for American goods and services, promoting U.S. economic growth. Therefore, supporting China's accession was a direct choice to maintain the interests of American businessmen and investors.

Second, as a means to change China. Clinton and a considerable number of Americans believed that once China became a WTO member, it would have to abide by these rules, providing the U.S. with a legitimate way to constrain and regulate China's economic behavior, making it follow "American rules." A China deeply integrated into the world through trade was considered more conducive to world peace and stability. Clinton also believed that through engagement, China could be changed. That is, accepting China's WTO membership would increase the possibility of America's "peaceful evolution" of China.

Overall, promoting China's integration into the global economic system was seen as a forward-looking diplomatic strategy by the U.S. Under such circumstances, China's accession to the WTO and obtaining certain preferential treatments could be accepted by the U.S. and other Western countries.

4) China actually enjoys few privileges

Since China joined the WTO in 2001, it was recognized as a "developing country" and therefore had the right to enjoy the aforementioned "special and differential treatment." However, in practice, China did not widely use these privileges. Especially in tariff reductions and service sector openness, China's commitment levels have approached or even exceeded some developed countries. As of 2025, China's average tariff has been reduced from 15.3% before accession to about 7.3%, close to the level of developed countries. Moreover, there are many import preference policies in actual work, so China's actual tariff level is much lower than the nominal level. Service sector openness exceeds 120 sub-sectors, far exceeding that of general developing members. WTO Trade Policy Review (TPR) reports have repeatedly pointed out that China's openness commitments exceed those of general developing members.

China has proactively opened its market extensively in agriculture, manufacturing, finance, and telecommunications, and has not frequently invoked S&D clauses. According to statistics from the WTO Secretariat, there are approximately 155 S&D clauses in WTO agreements. By 2020, China benefited from only 14 S&D clauses, accounting for 9% of the total clauses. This data indicates that China has a low dependence on S&D treatment in practice.

China has actively abandoned some S&D benefits in recent years. For example, in 2022, during the negotiation on the waiver of intellectual property rights for COVID-19 vaccines, China announced it would not seek flexibility.

In 2021, on the occasion of China's 20th anniversary of joining the WTO, China announced: It has fully fulfilled its commitments at the time of accession.

China's Role and Position Enter a New Historical Stage

In recent years, the unprecedented changes of the century have accelerated, and the international landscape has undergone profound adjustments. The domestic and foreign situations have undergone drastic changes, and many practical developments have deviated significantly from initial expectations. This macro background has profoundly influenced China's position and responsibilities in the World Trade Organization (WTO), pushing its role and position into a new historical stage.

1) International Trade Environment Faces Severe Challenges

In recent years, the multilateral trade system has faced unprecedented challenges. Unilateralism and protectionism have continued to rise globally, with individual major powers frequently provoking trade wars and imposing tariffs, seriously undermining the rule-based international trade order. The WTO dispute settlement mechanism has fallen into paralysis due to the suspension of the appellate body, and the reform process has been stagnant for a long time, severely weakening its authority and effectiveness. In this context, the international community generally expects major economies to demonstrate leadership, take concrete actions, and revitalize confidence in the multilateral trade system.

2) China Transforms from "Adaptor" to "Shaper"

Since joining the WTO in 2001, China has actively seized the opportunities of globalization, relying on its institutional advantages and relentless efforts, achieving leapfrog economic development. Now, China has become the second-largest economy and the largest goods trading country in the world, and its position in the global economic framework has undergone a fundamental transformation. Although per capita GDP is still in the middle-income level, the problem of uneven regional development still exists, but China's overall economic scale, market depth, and global influence have far exceeded traditional developing countries, even surpassing most developed countries.

In some high-tech fields, such as 5G communication, photovoltaic industry, and new energy vehicles, China has already gained global leading advantages. In 2024, China's current account surplus reached 422 billion USD, with a merchandise trade surplus of 767.9 billion USD, and a full-year trade surplus of 992 billion USD. These data fully demonstrate the strong international competitiveness of China's manufacturing and its critical position in the global supply chain. This development achievement has given China the strength and confidence to bear greater international responsibilities, and requires it to play a more active and proactive role in international rule-making.

3) Adapting to Global Initiatives, Demonstrating the Responsibility of a Major Country

In recent years, some developed countries, especially the United States and the European Union, have continuously questioned the rationality of large-scale economic countries such as China continuing to enjoy "Special and Differential Treatment" (S&DT) under the WTO framework. They believe that China's economic volume, trade share, and industrial competitiveness have far exceeded general developing countries, and that long-term enjoyment of policy flexibility and transition period arrangements is not in line with reality and undermines the fairness of the multilateral trade system.

The United States, during the Trump administration, repeatedly publicly pressured to reform the WTO's S&DT rules, demanding the cancellation of the "self-declaration" approach for developing country status, proposing the establishment of a "graduation mechanism" based on objective indicators (such as per capita GDP, global trade share, and industrial competitiveness), to prevent high-income or high-competitiveness economies from abusing developing country treatment. The EU also supports modernizing S&DT, emphasizing that benefits should be more targeted, transparent, and effective, avoiding blanket, non-discriminatory preferential arrangements.

At the same time, some emerging economies have already adjusted their positions. For example, South Korea announced in 1996 that it would no longer seek S&DT in WTO negotiations; Brazil made a similar commitment in 2019; and countries such as Singapore, Chile, and Saudi Arabia have also declared in specific trade agreements or negotiations that they will not seek new special treatment. However, they have not completely abandoned the "developing country" identity or exited all existing benefits.

Under this context, China's announcement of not seeking new special and differential treatment in WTO current and future negotiations is both a pragmatic move in line with the trend of international rule evolution and in line with the general practice of major economies. This decision is not an isolated act but a significant manifestation of China's active shaping of the image of a responsible major country and promoting the reform of the multilateral trade system.

What does "not seeking new special and differential treatment" mean?

1) Official Interpretation: A Key Measure to Firmly Uphold the Multilateral Trading System, Implement Global Development and Security Initiatives

On September 23, Premier Li Qiang of the State Council publicly announced that China will not seek new special and differential treatment (S&DT) in the World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations currently and in the future. Subsequently, the Ministry of Commerce provided authoritative interpretation, stating that this position statement is a major decision made by China based on the overall situation of domestic and international affairs. It is a key measure to firmly uphold the multilateral trading system, implement the global development initiative and the global security initiative, and help inject strong momentum into the liberalization and facilitation of global trade and investment, promoting the reform of the global economic governance system towards a more just and reasonable direction.

Currently, the rule-based multilateral trading system is facing severe challenges. In this context, China's proactive proposal to not seek new special and differential treatment further demonstrates its firm stance in supporting multilateralism and the responsibility of a major country.

For this, the Ministry of Commerce also clarified three things that will not change: China's status as a developing member will not change, the determination to safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of developing members will not change, and the position to promote the liberalization and facilitation of global trade and investment will not change.

The Ministry of Commerce clearly stated that China is still the largest developing country in the world, always an important member of the "Global South," and always stands with developing countries. China will continue to comprehensively and deeply participate in the WTO reform process and the reconstruction of international economic and trade rules, striving to achieve more development-oriented results, and promoting the global economic governance system to be more inclusive, fair, and sustainable.

Additionally, China clarified that this commitment applies only to the WTO's "current and future" negotiation agenda, and does not affect the rights and flexibility China enjoys under existing agreements. In other words, China has not given up its legitimate space for development, but has taken a more proactive, pragmatic, and responsible attitude in new topics.

On September 24, the Ministry of Commerce held an important press briefing to explain the "three things that will not change": China's status as a developing member will not change, the determination to safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of developing members will not change, and the position to promote the liberalization and facilitation of global trade and investment will not change.

2) Policy Analysis: China's Statement Has Benchmark Significance

a. International Strategic Considerations

First, promoting WTO reform and revitalizing the multilateral trading system. China's move sends a strong signal of firm support for multilateralism, responding to the widespread concerns of the international community about the stagnation of WTO reform. By taking on greater responsibilities, China provides political momentum to break the negotiation deadlock and rebuild consensus, helping to enhance confidence in the multilateral trading system.

Second, responding to long-standing criticisms from developed countries. In recent years, the United States, the European Union, and other major economies have continuously criticized China for enjoying special treatment under the "developing country" identity, believing that its massive economic scale and export competitiveness far exceed traditional developing countries, and that continuing to enjoy S&DT is unfair. China's active announcement of not seeking new preferential arrangements essentially resolves this point of contention, reducing external accusations of China "free-riding" and clearing the way for substantive WTO reforms, while helping to ease the North-South divide.

Third, playing a leading and exemplary role. As the world's largest developing economy, China's statement has benchmark significance. This move is expected to inspire other emerging markets and developing countries to take on corresponding international responsibilities when possible, jointly promoting the construction of a more fair, reasonable, and inclusive international economic and trade order, enhancing the overall voice of developing countries while avoiding the abuse or overuse of the "developing country" identity.

b. Domestic Policies and Economic Reality

First, a strategic choice to proactively assume international responsibilities. Although China's economic size ranks among the top in the world, its per capita GDP is still in the middle-income level, and issues such as urban-rural disparity and uneven regional development remain prominent. In this context, China's proactive decision to give up some policy space in new negotiations is a demonstration of China's ability to go beyond its own development level and capabilities, proactively assuming international responsibilities. It reflects a sense of responsibility that looks beyond short-term interests and focuses on the long-term pattern, a strategic awareness of "doing what one is capable of and what is morally required."

Second, serving the internal needs of high-level opening-up. Currently, China is accelerating the construction of a new development pattern and advancing institutional opening-up. Proactively reducing reliance on special treatment helps to enhance the international community's trust in China's compliance with international rules and deepened market openness, creating a more favorable external environment for Chinese enterprises going global, attracting high-quality foreign investment, and participating in high-standard international economic and trade cooperation. At the same time, it also forces domestic industries to accelerate transformation and upgrading, enhance their position in the global value chain, and help achieve high-quality development.

Overall, this decision is both a positive response to international expectations and an inevitable result of China's evolving development stage, reflecting the unity of principle and flexibility, and the balance of moral responsibility and practical interests.

China's Actions Inject Positive Energy into Containing the Global "Anti-Globalization" Trend

China's announcement that it will not seek new special and differential treatment (S&DT) in the World Trade Organization (WTO) current and future negotiations is a decision with far-reaching strategic significance. This move not only demonstrates China's sense of responsibility as a responsible major country but also reflects China's practical choice based on its improved development level and profound changes in the international environment. This move helps to promote the reform process of the WTO, enhance the authority and vitality of the multilateral trading system, respond to the international community's expectation for a more fair and just trade rule, and also help consolidate the solidarity and cooperation between China and developing countries.

Certainly, this decision also faces certain challenges. China hopes to respond to the criticism of some countries. However, in the eyes of some Western countries, China's development itself seems to have become a "original sin"—as long as China continues to develop, the criticism will never stop.

China also hopes that its open posture will lead more countries to openness and cooperation. This wish is reasonable and will definitely produce a positive impact. From historical experience, a country's openness often leads other countries to follow, forming a virtuous cycle. For example, Britain's promotion of free trade in the 19th century drove the global trade liberalization process. However, not all countries will respond synchronously—America at that time chose to do the opposite, using Britain's open policy to strengthen its own trade protection, leveraging development of its own industry, and ultimately surpassing Britain.

Today, as China continues to expand its openness, including actively giving up new special and differential treatment, it undoubtedly injects positive energy into curbing the global "anti-globalization" trend. But this effort is bound to face resistance, especially from the U.S.'s systemic containment and sabotage. In recent years, the U.S. has pursued unilateralism, protectionism, and the "small yard, high fence" strategy, constantly weakening the foundation of the multilateral trading system.

Despite this, China's expansion of openness fundamentally stems from its own long-term development needs, and its benefits not only benefit the Chinese people but also make an important contribution to the stability and prosperity of the global economy. The obstruction from individual countries may delay the process, but it cannot reverse the tide of history. Looking ahead, China will continue to firmly uphold the multilateral trading system, promote high-level opening-up, deepen South-South cooperation, and take concrete actions to promote the construction of an open world economy, and promote global inclusive and sustainable development.

This article is an exclusive article by Observer Net. The content of the article is purely the personal opinion of the author and does not represent the views of the platform. Unauthorized reproduction will result in legal liability. Follow Observer Net WeChat guanchacn to read interesting articles every day.

Original text: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7555730694043943439/

Statement: This article represents the personal views of the author. Please express your attitude by clicking on the 【top/down】 button below.