By Li Hongmei People's Daily Online

Today, they lodge a complaint against China, will OPEC possibly their next target?

On the one hand, they may impose a strictly limited quota on China's iron and steel, agricultural produces, and many other primary products, while on the other hand, they are trying their utmost to seize China's rare metals. That is what the U.S. and the E.U. members have done these days, and they even went so far last week as to file complaints with the World Trade Organization (WTO) over China's restrictions on exports of some industrial raw materials, which are literally vital strategic resources to China.

The move initiated by the U.S. and the E.U. is simply unacceptable, as it is evidently a practice of exerting double standards on China's resources, and in defiance of WTO trade rules. In light of the WTO dispute-resolution framework, the U.S. and the E.U. will first seek consultations with China. If they cannot reach consensus within 60 days, they have the right to ask the WTO to appoint a panel to hear the complaint. However, under the WTO framework, the so-called openness of the domestic market to others still remains a regulation in principle, but very flexible in practice, which conveys a normally accepted idea that different economies preserve the right to make an adjustment according to their varied economic conditions.

In fact, both the U.S. and E.U. have also set restrictions upon exports of many of their edge products, such as the long-disputed technology transfer and export within their Hi-tech industries. But in line with the Principle of Comparative Advantage seen in the international trade theory, developing nations like China will provide the developed countries with labor-intensive primary products in return for their Hi-tech products and sophisticated technology with the aim to realize mutual benefit and conclude a basically fair deal. But in actuality, the developed economies like the U.S. and the E.U. have insistently set barriers to the exports of their cutting-edge technology to emerging economies.

Not accidentally, the U.S. and the E.U. have also continually limited the quotas to bring in the primary products which China enjoys the comparative advantages. For instance, the U.S. discriminatory measure on imports of Chinese poultry has been lingering on long since China lifted its ban following the 2004 outbreak of bird flu. And the E.U. decided recently to levy 24% anti-dumping duties on China's metal rods. Misdeeds of the kind have already slipped into some political misconduct running counter to the WTO basic principle which encourages 'discarding backward industries and expanding free trade.'

Generally speaking, it is almost a standard practice for governments and economic blocs to defend the non-renewable resources by setting some necessary export curbs. If China should be accused in its restrictions on some nonrenewable rare metals of being part of 'acts of state', then what is the basis for the international institutions like OPEC to be built on? What's more, if they think China should be the provider of the precious raw materials like rare earth, they should also admit the fact that China is also an export country for ferrous metals and primary meat products. And therefore, it seems outrageous that they refused these inexpensive and quality products. Their selective free trade is actually in violation of the WTO spirit of 'freedom and equality.'

On top of that, even if WTO rules demand that members should not set barriers on imports and exports, some specific cases concerning national security, environmental protection and natural resources are still considered exceptions. Previously, China's rare metals had been sold out at an unreasonably low price, which led to huge losses in precious natural resources. China is now bent on transforming and upgrading its industrial structures, cutting down exports of its rare natural resources will comply with the development trend for the country's industrial economy.

Last but not the least, China is increasingly held responsibility for environmental protection. The previously cheap mode in resources exploitation and development would mean a costly environmental price. Also in accordance with the WTO spirit and other relevant international conventions for environmental protection, China is right in correspondingly raising the export prices for some products related to natural resources. To safeguard a truly free and fair trade environment, the pitfall of developed economies thriving on China's cheap resources while staying away from their liability for emission should be steered clear of.