Home
News
In Focus
Business
Metro
Nation
World
Sports
Feature
Opinion
View more »Opinion Columns
Wan LixinOpinion deputy editor of Shanghai Daily
Forum emphasizes BRI cooperation between China and Arab countries
Rights to lower sleeper berths should be softened by empathy for fellow passengers
Sunday
- Subscribe
Home » Opinion » Chinese Views
WTO decision flies in face of convention
By John Gong |
August 25, 2009, Tuesday
|
Print Edition
Print Edition
WHEN France spearheaded the battle against Hollywood's invasion of Europe, it was generally seen as the "lunatic fringe."
France was so labelled for its strenuous opposition to bringing cultural products within the scope of trade negotiations, during GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) talks in the 1990s.
Overwhelming international opinion has gradually swung into line with the French, as Hollywood's domination of the world's film markets has reached an alarming degree, now accounting for 85 percent of box office sales globally.
Canada then joined the battle, and had its way against the "giant sucking sound" from Hollywood in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), by preserving "cultural exceptions" in the agreement.
The Canadian cultural policy unabashedly supports "requiring and legitimating insulation of Canadian cultural products from unfettered competition under a liberalized trade regime."
By 148 votes to 2, UNESCO passed the "Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions" in October, 2005.
Thus last week's WTO dispute panel ruling that China's mechanism for importing and distributing audiovisual material breaks WTO trade rules flies in the face of the UNESCO cultural convention, which not only "reaffirms sovereign rights to formulate and implement cultural policies and to adopt measures to protect and promote the diversity of cultural expressions," but also takes aims at other international instruments that might impede the exercise of such a right, widely understood to mean the WTO framework.
This is a treaty to which most European Union countries are signatories, and by its terms became binding international law for countries ratifying it. China's national legislature ratified it in 2007.
The center of the dispute regards China's practice that imports of products from Hollywood studios such as CDs, DVDs and video games be distributed by a limited number of companies designated by the relevant government regulatory body.
The complaint to the WTO, brought by the United States in 2007, alleges that such practice cuts too steeply into Hollywood's profits and violates the "National Treatment" principle embodied in the two most important WTO protocols, the GATT and the GATS (General Agreement on Trade in Services).
"National Treatment" means imported and locally-produced goods and services should be treated equally.
Free trade is a laudable cause, but the commercial progressive liberalization must be promoted in respect of special cultural characteristics of each country.
Diversity
Thus trade in cultural goods must not be treated as solely having commercial value, as protection of national culture is important for public morals, social cohesion and national heritage. UNESCO's cultural convention emphasizes the need to protect the diversity of cultural expression.
Even the WTO itself recognizes that audiovisual goods are no ordinary commodities for trade, demanding special treatment.
GATT Articles IV ostensibly points out the different nature of audiovisual products and provides for a departure from Article III (the National Treatment article) by allowing special treatment of cinematographic films through the use of a screen quota for imports, a practice widely used in France, Spain, Mexico and South Korea, just to mention a few. GATT article XX created a general exception for measures necessary to protect public morals and those imposed for the protection of national treasures of artistic, historic or archaeological value.
GATS adopted an agree-to-disagree approach to the issue. According to article XVII of GATS, a member country is only obliged to apply the principle of National Treatment to individual sub-sectors categorized in a list.
China's WTO case is covered by a sub-sector called motion picture and video tape production and distribution services. Only a handful of countries, including the US of course, made a commitment under that sub-sector. China, together with Canada, France, the UK, Germany and virtually every European country said a resounding "No" to this.
Since the WTO's dispute panel ruling, the Ministry of Commerce in Beijing has said that it might appeal.
I would suggest that China follow a two-pronged strategy.
On the WTO side, China should try to exploit the juridical implications of GATT Article IV, pushing for an extended interpretation of screen quota to reflect years of advancement in video technologies.
China should also partner with France and Canada in pushing the UNESCO Cultural Convention venue as an alternative framework for dealing with trade in cultural goods.
Strategy
Canada already announced that it will not make any liberalization commitment in the audiovisual sector until a new international instrument specifically related to this matter is adopted outside the WTO, pointedly making reference to the Cultural Convention.
Article 20 of the Cultural Convention addresses its relationship to other international instruments, implicitly the WTO.
Although its language is still convoluted, and by no means indicating that it is on a collision course with the WTO to replace its existing trade obligations, China's bold reference to the fact that only two countries oppose an international treaty covering trade of cultural goods, greatly enhances China's negotiating capacity under the GATS regime.
The case needs to be made clear to the Europeans that upholding the American position at the WTO sets a dangerous precedent that runs contrary to the UNESCO cause.
(The author is an associate professor of economics at the University of International Business and Economics. His email: johngong@gmail.com)
France was so labelled for its strenuous opposition to bringing cultural products within the scope of trade negotiations, during GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) talks in the 1990s.
Overwhelming international opinion has gradually swung into line with the French, as Hollywood's domination of the world's film markets has reached an alarming degree, now accounting for 85 percent of box office sales globally.
Canada then joined the battle, and had its way against the "giant sucking sound" from Hollywood in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), by preserving "cultural exceptions" in the agreement.
The Canadian cultural policy unabashedly supports "requiring and legitimating insulation of Canadian cultural products from unfettered competition under a liberalized trade regime."
By 148 votes to 2, UNESCO passed the "Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions" in October, 2005.
Thus last week's WTO dispute panel ruling that China's mechanism for importing and distributing audiovisual material breaks WTO trade rules flies in the face of the UNESCO cultural convention, which not only "reaffirms sovereign rights to formulate and implement cultural policies and to adopt measures to protect and promote the diversity of cultural expressions," but also takes aims at other international instruments that might impede the exercise of such a right, widely understood to mean the WTO framework.
This is a treaty to which most European Union countries are signatories, and by its terms became binding international law for countries ratifying it. China's national legislature ratified it in 2007.
The center of the dispute regards China's practice that imports of products from Hollywood studios such as CDs, DVDs and video games be distributed by a limited number of companies designated by the relevant government regulatory body.
The complaint to the WTO, brought by the United States in 2007, alleges that such practice cuts too steeply into Hollywood's profits and violates the "National Treatment" principle embodied in the two most important WTO protocols, the GATT and the GATS (General Agreement on Trade in Services).
"National Treatment" means imported and locally-produced goods and services should be treated equally.
Free trade is a laudable cause, but the commercial progressive liberalization must be promoted in respect of special cultural characteristics of each country.
Diversity
Thus trade in cultural goods must not be treated as solely having commercial value, as protection of national culture is important for public morals, social cohesion and national heritage. UNESCO's cultural convention emphasizes the need to protect the diversity of cultural expression.
Even the WTO itself recognizes that audiovisual goods are no ordinary commodities for trade, demanding special treatment.
GATT Articles IV ostensibly points out the different nature of audiovisual products and provides for a departure from Article III (the National Treatment article) by allowing special treatment of cinematographic films through the use of a screen quota for imports, a practice widely used in France, Spain, Mexico and South Korea, just to mention a few. GATT article XX created a general exception for measures necessary to protect public morals and those imposed for the protection of national treasures of artistic, historic or archaeological value.
GATS adopted an agree-to-disagree approach to the issue. According to article XVII of GATS, a member country is only obliged to apply the principle of National Treatment to individual sub-sectors categorized in a list.
China's WTO case is covered by a sub-sector called motion picture and video tape production and distribution services. Only a handful of countries, including the US of course, made a commitment under that sub-sector. China, together with Canada, France, the UK, Germany and virtually every European country said a resounding "No" to this.
Since the WTO's dispute panel ruling, the Ministry of Commerce in Beijing has said that it might appeal.
I would suggest that China follow a two-pronged strategy.
On the WTO side, China should try to exploit the juridical implications of GATT Article IV, pushing for an extended interpretation of screen quota to reflect years of advancement in video technologies.
China should also partner with France and Canada in pushing the UNESCO Cultural Convention venue as an alternative framework for dealing with trade in cultural goods.
Strategy
Canada already announced that it will not make any liberalization commitment in the audiovisual sector until a new international instrument specifically related to this matter is adopted outside the WTO, pointedly making reference to the Cultural Convention.
Article 20 of the Cultural Convention addresses its relationship to other international instruments, implicitly the WTO.
Although its language is still convoluted, and by no means indicating that it is on a collision course with the WTO to replace its existing trade obligations, China's bold reference to the fact that only two countries oppose an international treaty covering trade of cultural goods, greatly enhances China's negotiating capacity under the GATS regime.
The case needs to be made clear to the Europeans that upholding the American position at the WTO sets a dangerous precedent that runs contrary to the UNESCO cause.
(The author is an associate professor of economics at the University of International Business and Economics. His email: johngong@gmail.com)
- About Us
- |
- Terms of Use
- |
-
RSS - |
- Privacy Policy
- |
- Contact Us
- |
- Shanghai Call Center: 962288
- |
- Tip-off hotline: 52920043
- 沪ICP证：沪ICP备05050403号-1
- |
- 互联网新闻信息服务许可证：31120180004
- |
- 网络视听许可证：0909346
- |
- 广播电视节目制作许可证：沪字第354号
- |
- 增值电信业务经营许可证：沪B2-20120012
Copyright © 1999- Shanghai Daily. All rights reserved.Preferably viewed with Internet Explorer 8 or newer browsers.
