International Law

Protectionism? Censorship? U.S. Papers Not Sure How To React to WTO Case

By Stan

A few editorials today about the WTO A/V case won by the US against China. Seems like the major papers prefer the theme to be anti-protectionism:

It should serve as a warning to the Chinese government to restrain its growing economic nationalism, which poses a serious threat to international trade and the chances of a global recovery.

In the midst of the global recession, China has taken increasingly unfair steps to protect its industries. It has given tax rebates to exporters and barred government entities from buying foreign goods if there are domestic substitutes. It has again intervened heavily in currency markets to halt the rise of the renminbi. (NYT)

Wednesday’s World Trade Organization decision against Chinese media protectionism is good news for U.S. exporters, but even better news for Chinese consumers and industry. The case, involving U.S. entertainment and media exports, illustrates the benefits of a rules-based global trading system, particularly at a time of rising protectionism. (WSJ)

This all sounds like a good way to link the case to current events (i.e. the recession), but of course you can’t really take a restrictive foreign investment policy that pre-dates China’s WTO entry and call it part of the recent rise in protectionism. Kind of a time problem with that.

Plan B:

Limits on the distribution of media content lie at the heart of the Communist Party’s attempts to regulate what ideas can reach Chinese eyes and ears. That may partly explain why, unlike in earlier WTO cases, including one over distribution of financial news, Beijing wasn’t able or willing to negotiate a settlement before this complaint went to a dispute panel. (WSJ)

Um, OK. So it’s not so much about protectionism as it is about censorship?

I’m confused.

© Stan for China Hearsay, 2009. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags:

Full post as published by China Hearsay on August 17, 2009 (boomark / email).