中国商务部国际贸易谈判副代表 张向晨
2015年6月22日，华盛顿

　　主席先生，我准备用英语来发言，因为我讲话的对象主要是美国同事，中国同事对我的观点都非常熟悉。
　　我对技术转移并没有特别的研究，但是我想从一个贸易政策官员的角度比较一下中美在创新上的特点，这是双方发生技术转移问题的大背景。
　　如果你问一百个人，美国是不是一个创新型国家，那么这一百个人的答案都会是肯定的；如果你问这一百个人，中国是不是一个创新型国家，那么答案会有所不同。
　　在世界历史上，中国曾经长期是科技领域的领先者，为什么中国落后了？很多学者进行过研究，我曾经当面请教过哈佛大学珀金斯教授，他认为中国明朝的土地和农业制度限制了农业技术发展。也有学者认为中国教育制度存在问题，包括难学难懂的中国文字束缚了学生的创新潜能。我不是这方面的专家，但我是一个中国传统书法的爱好者，从小被要求大量地临习古人的作品。一件书法作品成功与否在中国取决于两个标准，第一，是否很好体现出传统的功力，并使观众能够辨识出作品的源流；第二，是否在传统之上有所创新，形成自己的面目。两个标准缺一不可。据我所知，在别的国家艺术领域的创造中并不都存在这种现象，所以有人说这是一种戴着镣铐的舞蹈。当然，反复临习的确有可能造成思维上的束缚，但也不能简单地认为它仅仅是一种负担，这里面包含着独特的文化传承关系，而且我自己有体会，在临帖过程中，你会从古代大师的作品中发现在自己的缺点，并在随后的创作中予以纠正。千百年来在中国，在反复的临习前人过程中那些没有能力驾驭传统和没有能力创造的人被残酷地淹没了，脱颖而出的都是从浩瀚典籍和如林大师中突围的人。
　　当然，艺术创新和科技创新的规律不完全一致。就国家层面而言，能否成为创新型国家取决于很多因素：比如，民族的创新基因、教育体系、国家的创新政策和环境等等，同时，也和这个国家在全球价值链上所处的位置有关。总体而言，美国处于价值链的高端，中国处于价值链的中低端。美国要保持高端地位，中国要向上攀升。美国是领先者，中国是追赶者。美国不努力创新，就无法保持领先地位；中国不鼓励创新，不向上攀升，就会被后面的国家赶上甚至超越，就会陷入中等国家的陷阱。中国身后有众多的追赶者，中国的华为、中兴在全世界获得越来越多的电信装备市场的同时，越南的电信运营商已经在拉美国家开展业务了，我们也有很强的危机感。因此，两国都有进行创新的动力。
　　从创新的内容看，美国更多的是原始创新，中国的创新特点被美国学者Dan Breznitz称为“二次创新”，包括整合创新（混合已有的技术和产品以提出新的解决思路）、渐进式创新和工艺创新。二次创新也是创新。举个例子，中国目前在同时进行十几台核电机组的建设，拥有一批非常杰出的工程技术人员，他们能够解决建设过程中的一切技术难题，解决这些难题的过程就是创新的过程，因此这批人才在任何国家都会是非常稀缺的资源。同时，中国的二次创新能力并不妨碍中国部分企业从事原始创新。我相信今后这种创新会越来越多。
　　由于双方所处的价值链的地位不同和创新水平和能力的差异，中美两国在创新过程中，不可避免既有合作也有竞争。面对合作和竞争的关系，双方都应该有一种健康的心态，我们应该努力让合作成为商业成功的催化剂，让竞争成为保持创新和实现超越的动力。
　　领先者有领先者的权利，但这种权力不应该被滥用。美国有权判断哪些产品与国家安全有关从而拒绝向中国出口，但这种判断应当是谨慎的，而不是武断的，否则就会损害美国自己的商业利益，也无益于维护所谓的国家安全。我以前的老板，中国前任商务部长陈德铭先生曾经举过一个例子，美国拒绝向中国出口航空模型飞机，而陈先生本人十几岁的时候就已经能够制作非常复杂的航模飞机了。美国有权依法维护专利人的权利，但是对于知识产权滥用问题，也应该严肃地对待，知识产权被滥用是客观存在的，Michael Heller教授指出，专利滥用可能构成“创新障碍”，美国有不少这方面的案例。双方应该平等、坦诚地讨论这些问题。
　　追赶者有追赶者的自由，但自由的界限需要合理地划定。这个界限就是知识产权的国际规则和中国政府的对外承诺。我们既然承诺平等地对待国内外的知识产权，不强迫企业转移技术就会努力做到。不需要美国同事提醒我们也知道，没有一个企业会把自己的核心技术轻易地转移给别人。我们也清楚在创新方面，由政府指定技术路线难以获得成功，依靠补贴不可能产生强大的企业，仅仅靠追随战略最终会在国际市场上被淘汰。
　　最后，如果由我来回答我一开始提出的问题，即中国是不是一个创新型的国家，我的回答是，中国是一个有着创新基因的民族，中国现在正由一个学习型的国家向创新型的国家转变，中国愿意通过和美国的互利合作和公平竞争加快实现这种转变。

Address at the 6th China-US Innovation Dialogue

Zhang Xiangchen, MOFCOM
June 22, 2015, Washington DC

Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak in English, because I would like to speak mainly to US colleagues as Chinese colleagues are already familiar with my views.

　　I do not have special expertise in technology transfer, but I will compare from the perspective of a trade policy official the different features of innovation for China and the US, which I assume is the background of technology transfer among different countries.

　　If you ask one hundred people whether the United States is an innovative country, they will all say yes; but if the same question is asked about China, the answers will be mixed.

　　In the world history, China had been a leader in science and technology for centuries. Why did China fall behind? Many scholars have studied this issue. I once consulted Prof. Perkins of Harvard University and he believed that the land and agricultural systems in the Ming Dynasty of China hindered the development of agricultural technologies. Some other scholars believe the problem lies in China’s education system. And Chinese characters are so difficult that they restrain students’ potential to innovate. I am not an expert on that, but I love traditional Chinese calligraphy. When I was a child, I was asked to imitate ancient calligraphy works. A piece of successful calligraphy work in China has to meet two criteria: first, it must represent traditional accomplishments, which enables the audience to recognize the origin of the work; second, it must innovate on the basis of tradition and forms its own style. Both criteria are essential. As far as I know, artistic creations in other countries do not always share these two criteria, so some say that calligraphy is a dance with shackles. Of course, repeated practice may restrain the mind, but that should not simply be considered as a burden because it carries unique cultural heritage. I have first-hand experience in it. When imitating and practicing, I can find my own weaknesses when comparing my work with those of ancient masters’. This helps improve my work. For thousands of years in China, in imitating predecessors, those who were unable to master tradition and innovate fell into oblivion, which is a bit cruel; only those who transcended classic works and great masters could outshine their peers.

　　Of course, the rules of artistic creation and scientific creation are not identical. Many factors would determine whether a country is innovative, such as innovative genes, education system, and national innovation policies and environment. A country’s position in global value chain is also relevant. Generally speaking, the US is at the upper end of the value chain, while China is at the medium and lower end. The US wants to maintain its position while China seeks to move up the value chain. The US is a leader and China tries to catch up. Without innovation, the US cannot remain a leader; if China does not encourage innovation and move up the value chain, it will be overtaken or even exceeded by other countries and fall into the middle income trap. Many countries are working hard to catch up with China. For example, when Chinese companies like Huawei and ZTE are gaining more global market share for their telecom equipment, telecom operators from Vietnam are already doing business in Latin American countries. We also have a strong sense of crisis. Therefore, both China and the US have motivations to innovate.

　　For the contents of innovation, the US has more original innovation; while according to the US scholar Dan Breznitz, China’s innovation can be described as second-generation innovation, including integrated innovation (a mixture of existing technologies and products as a new solution), incremental innovation and process innovation. Second-generation innovation is also a form of innovation. For example, China is building a dozen of nuclear power generation units at the same time. We have many excellent engineers who can resolve all technical difficulties in this process, so these talents are scarce resources for any country. Meanwhile, this does not stifle some Chinese enterprises’ original innovation. I believe that China will have more such innovations in the future due to the improvement of more open, global innovative environment.

　　Since the two countries are in different positions of the value chain and differ in their innovation strength and capacity, China and the US, inevitably, will have both cooperation and competition on innovation. Both sides need to develop a positive attitude towards this relationship, and strive to turn cooperation into a catalyst for commercial success, and make competition a driver for sustained innovation and transcendence.

　　The leading players have their rights, but such power should not be abused. The US has the right to determine which products are related to its national security and deny their export to China accordingly. However, such judgments should be cautious, not arbitrary. Or it will damage America’s commercial interests and do no good to the so-called national security. My former boss, former Chinese Minister of Commerce Mr. Chen Deming once gave an example: The US denied the export of model planes to China, but Mr. Chen himself could already make very sophisticated model planes when he was a teenager. The US has the right to safeguard the rights of patent holders, but it should also take seriously IPR abuses, which indeed exist. Prof. Michael Heller pointed out that IPR abuses may cause innovation gridlock and the US has many such cases. We need to discuss these issues candidly.

　　The players that are catching up such as China have their own freedom, but the boundaries of freedom should be reasonably defined. For China, this boundary is the international rules on IPRs and international commitments of the Chinese government. Since we have already promised to treat domestic and international IPRs equally, we will strive not to force mandatory transfer of technologies from enterprises. We don’t need our US colleagues to remind us that no enterprise would easily transfer their core technologies to others. We also know that in terms of innovation, technological strategies designed by the government are unlikely to succeed. Subsidies will not build strong enterprises and followers are doomed to lose in international market competition.

　　In the end, if I am to answer the question I mentioned at the beginning, whether China is an innovative country, my answer will be that China, a nation with innovative genes, is transforming itself from a country that learns to a country that innovates, China stands ready to speed up such transformation through mutually-beneficial cooperation and fair competition with the US.

　　Thank you.