Department of Commerce Seal 
2019年6月3日
美国对于中方选择在昨日发布的“白皮书”中以及最近的公开声明中进行一种指责游戏，就两国之间贸易谈判的性质和历史做出失实性陈述表示失望。要了解各方现在所处的位置以及他们会走向何处，就有必要了解导致了当前僵局的历史。
特朗普总统决心采取行动，着手解决中国数十年来一直采取的不公平贸易做法，这些做法导致了始终存在并且不可持续的贸易逆差，在去年几乎达到4200亿美元，并且给美国的工人、农业工作者、农场主和企业造成了严重伤害。2017年8月，在总统的指示下，美国贸易代表针对中国有关知识产权、创新和技术开发的做法开展了调查。经过一场持续七个月的调查，在收到并考量大量听证证词和其他证据之后，美国于2018年3月发布了一份200页的报告，记录了中国如何采取包括强制技术转让在内的不公平贸易做法、未能保护美国的知识产权并且从事和支持针对美国公司的网络盗窃，盗取了他们的敏感商业信息和商业机密。这些不公平贸易做法以及中国的其他行动已经每年给美国和美国企业造成了数千亿美元的损失。
基于这些调查的结果，总统指示他的行政当局采取有效的行动，既根据美国法律也根据其他适用的国际协议，着手解决中国有害的和扭曲性的行动。总统指示美国贸易代表对中国在世界贸易组织的不公平贸易做法提出异议，同时也对中国征收关税以抵消中国的所作所为对美国产业造成的损害。作为回应，中国不是通过建设性的方式着手解决我们的关切，而是通过对美国出口商品征收不正当关税来进行双倍下注和报复，美国则以额外的关税予以回应。
2018年12月，特朗普总统和习近平主席在布宜诺斯艾利斯同意启动目前的谈判后，特朗普总统将计划于2019年1月1日生效的对中国进口商品加征的关税推迟了90天。3月，总统再次延长截止日期，因为双方似乎在他们的谈判中取得了进展。经过数月的努力以及坦诚和建设性的讨论之后，双方就若干重要事项达成了一致。然而，在结束最后的重要问题时，中方放弃了先前商定的条款。为了回应中国的这次后退，美国开始推进此前宣布的针对中国进口商品的税率上调，并公布了针对额外中国进口商品的关税。
需要注意的是，讨论的原动力是中国长期以来的不公平贸易做法。贯穿这些会谈中，我们的谈判立场一直是一致的，而中国却在双方已同意的重要因素上变卦。一个这样的立场是需要有强力执行性，这一立场是有必要的，因为中国有未履行所做承诺的历史。但我们坚持中方给出详细的、可强力执行的承诺绝不构成对中国主权的威胁。相反，所讨论的问题是贸易协议中常见的，并且对于着手解决导致了始终存在并且不可持续的贸易逆差的系统性问题是必要的。
301条款简报

06/03/2019
The United States is disappointed that the Chinese have chosen in the “White Paper” issued yesterday and recent public statements to pursue a blame game misrepresenting the nature and history of trade negotiations between the two countries.  To understand where the parties are and where they can go, it is necessary to understand the history that has led to the current impasse.
President Trump is committed to taking action to address the unfair trade practices that China has engaged in for decades, which have contributed to persistent and unsustainable trade deficits, almost $420 billion last year, and have caused severe harm to American workers, farmers, ranchers, and businesses.  In August 2017, at the President’s instruction, the United States Trade Representative conducted an investigation of China’s practices relating to intellectual property rights, innovation, and technology development.  After receiving and considering extensive hearing testimony and other evidence over an investigation that lasted seven months, the United States issued a 200-page report in March 2018 documenting how China had engaged in unfair trade practices, including forced technology transfer, failed to protect American intellectual property rights, and conducted and supported cyber theft from American companies, robbing them of sensitive commercial information and trade secrets.  These unfair trade practices and other actions by China have cost the United States and its businesses hundreds of billions of dollars every year.
Based on these findings, the President directed his Administration to take effective action to address China’s harmful and distortive actions under both U.S. law and any applicable international agreements.  The President directed USTR to challenge China’s unfair trade practices at the World Trade Organization but also to impose tariffs on China to offset the damage to U.S. industry caused by China’s conduct.  In response, rather than working constructively to address our concerns, China doubled down and retaliated by imposing unjustified tariffs on American exports, and the United States responded with additional tariffs.
After Presidents Trump and Xi agreed to launch the current negotiations in Buenos Aires in December 2018, President Trump postponed for 90 days the increase in tariffs on Chinese imports that was scheduled to go into effect on January 1, 2019.  The President extended the deadline again in March because the parties appeared to be making progress in their talks.  Following months of hard work and candid and constructive discussions, the parties had reached agreement on a number of important matters.  In wrapping up the final important issues, however, the Chinese moved away from previously agreed-upon provisions.  In response to this Chinese backtracking, the United States moved forward with the previously-announced rate increase on Chinese imports and announced tariffs on additional Chinese imports.
It is important to note that the impetus for the discussions was China’s long history of unfair trade practices.  Our negotiating positions have been consistent throughout these talks, and China back-pedaled on important elements of what the parties had agreed to.  One such position was the need for enforceability, a position necessitated by China’s history of making commitments that it fails to keep.  But our insistence on detailed and enforceable commitments from the Chinese in no way constitutes a threat to Chinese sovereignty.  Rather, the issues discussed are common to trade agreements and are necessary to address the systemic issues that have contributed to persistent and unsustainable trade deficits.
Section 301 Fact Sheet