The European Airbus and the US Boeing recently took the issue to the WTO about which has taken government subsidies. Apart from the merits of the dispute what deserves our reflection is the reason for these countries of market economy to aid their civil aviation manufacturers, over a long period of time, with indirect subsidies or even direct financial assistance which amount to as much as hundreds of millions of US dollars each year, no to mention the fact that these companies have long passed their childhood and have become well established and vigorously developed "giants" with formidable strengths.

The reason, of course, is manifold. But there is one thing not to be ignored, that is, each party looks on the civil aviation manufacturing industry as one of strategic importance and supports it this way. After we look back over the development of Airbus this impression is felt especially true. At the end of the 1960s many European countries had their own aircraft manufacturing companies whose total market share, however, was less than 10 percent of the global market. Europe needed its own aircraft manufacturing industry. Therefore initiated by France, Germany, Britain and Spain Airbus was founded by consolidating aircraft manufacturing companies in Europe. Combining several companies belonging to one country is already a ticklish business, to say nothing of combining companies of several countries. Nevertheless, all these countries realized that without the alliance there was no way they could compete with their rivals, and civil aviation manufacturing is an industry no big country or region could afford to give up.

By way of contrast Chin's civil aviation manufacturing is still in its weak stage - China has had no trunk airliners of its own make and regional airliners of independent brands are still being developed. Meanwhile arguments about whether China should vigorously develop civil aircrafts of independent intellectual property rights, whether the production of large aircrafts should be the objective have long been debated in recent years.

The opponents believe China has made many attempts at developing and producing civil aircrafts, particularly large civil aircrafts, but has been unable to find a successful model. Calculating by simply comparing investments and output China has made a bad bargain and little hope of success is seen in the future. What is more, whether or not consumers and airline companies will accept domestic civil aircrafts is far from certain. For this reason there is no necessity to invest huge financial and material resources into developing large civil aircraft industry.

Now, the Europe and US' insisting on presenting the civil aviation manufacturing industry with "generous gifts" effectively rebuts this view. Full support given by Western developed countries to the aviation manufacturing industry not only illustrates the importance of civil aviation industry to the national economy but also the fact that without government support and preferential policies the high-investment and high-risk aviation manufacturing industry has little chance of getting anywhere. China's total aviation transportation turnover is already among the top five in the world. Looking from a strategic angle China's aviation industry should in no case give up such a huge market. Besides, civil aircraft industry is both an aviation hi-tech industry and a development carrier of advanced technologies such as engine technology, control technology and electronic technology. It is different from ordinary manufacturing industries in that it is becoming a symbol of a country's technological level, industrial level and overall national strength, whose significance has gone beyond the realm of civil aircraft industry itself.

Judging from this point of view not only can we not give up developing our own civil aircrafts and large aircrafts but we also should build a congenial policy environment for it by, for example, providing more support in industrial policy, finance and credit and taxation etc. There are bound to be failures and setbacks in the process, but we should not quit so easily. Nor should we judge its success simply by its profits and losses since its strategic significance and pulling effect are hard to measure.

This is an article carried on the 6th page of People's Daily on October 22 and translated by People's Daily Online