Guest
Contributor
Neil Hrab
CALIFORNIA
EXPORTS: Entertainment
The
New Protectionism
International
restrictions on "cultural" exports...
[Neil Hrab] 1/15/04
By all indications, 2004 should be a banner year for America’s
movie, TV show and music producers. DVD players continue to become
more popular around the world, and this increases chances for
consumers everywhere to enjoy recordings of American TV programs,
rock videos and films. The International Recording Media Association
projects global
production of DVDs could grow from 2.7 billion discs in 2003
to 7 billion discs by 2008. If that forecast holds true, that
means that before the first decade of the 21st century is up,
American movie studios, singers and others could be earning as
much as $70 billion per year from global DVD sales alone.
Most Americans
see the billions of dollars in entertainment that the US exports
each year as a benign form of free exchange.
Foreign consumers can buy copies of American motion pictures,
concerts, etc., and absorb American culture without having to
leave home. The money they spend supports American jobs and bolsters
the US’ balance of trade. Everybody wins.
But a growing
number of foreign governments, in developed and Third World
countries
alike, don’t see this as a win-win
situation. While consumers everywhere from Tokyo to Timbuktu
may lap up American popular culture, many of their rulers and
leaders see it as an annoying form of cultural pollution. As
one former Canadian prime minister put it, “images of America
are so [globally] pervasive…that it is almost as if instead
of the world immigrating to America, America has immigrated to
the world, allowing people to aspire to be Americans even in
their distant cultures.” It's hard to see the harm in individuals
deciding, of their own free will, to adopt aspects of American
popular culture (fashion, slang, etc.), depending on their preferences
-- but let that pass for now.
One proposed
solution for this alleged American cultural onslaught has emerged.
Through
an inter-governmental body called the International
Network for Cultural Policy (INCP). This alliance wants to pass
a global treaty that would declare “cultural goods and
services” to be “distinct” from “ordinary
goods and services,” with a “specific nature” that
must be “respected.” That doesn’t sound very
threatening, but such a treaty could hurt America’s ability
to export its cultural products.
Once INCP’s
hypothetical treaty is
passed, it would guarantee that trade in cultural products be
exempted from global free trade talks. This, in turn, would allow
foreign governments to start imposing measures reducing consumer
access to American entertainment products. (Many American allies
throughout Europe, as well as Canada and Mexico, already have
such measures on the books.) The passage of a global cultural
protectionist treaty would make thus it impossible for the U.S.
to press for further liberalization in global cultural exports
in future trade talks. The treaty would act as a shield for protectionist
actions wrapped in stealthy rhetoric about preserving “cultural
diversity.” If all goes according to plan, INCP aims to
open negotiations on the treaty in March 2004 and secure its
adoption no later than the autumn of 2005.
The Bush
Administration has been quiet about INCP’s quest
for global cultural protectionism. The longer the U.S. delays
its response, the more it feeds the cultural protectionist camp’s
hope that it can use weight of numbers to force Washington to
accept its specious arguments. In order to cure INCP of this
illusion, Washington must commit itself to global free trade
in cultural and entertainment products, and vow not to support
any initiative that undermines this goal. Time is running out.
Neil
Hrab is a Warren Brooks Fellow of the Competitive Enterprise Institute
copyright
2004 Competitive Enterprise Institute
§
|
