From this case, do you think the World Trade Organization is effective at policing international business disputes?
In view of the case, I think the World Trade Organization demonstrated its effectiveness at policing international business disputes. Firstly, the WTO considers a dispute as when one nation applies a policy that a fellow member considers illegal, and a violation of the WTO agreement. In such a situation, the countries interested can demonstrate their interest in the issue at hand and have access to the rights. The action taken by China of restricting imported films, music and books had already resulted into a dispute between them and the United States. For that reason, the action taken by the world trade organization of making a ruling that declared the restrictions illegal was an appropriate one.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The effectiveness of the WTO at policing international dispute is evident in the sense that, it provides a forum for its members to negotiate their relations in matters touching on multilateral trade. The two nations China and the United States, were provided with a platform of arguing out their case, with the former being given sufficient time to comply with the ruling made by the WTO. In other words, China was given a chance to appeal to the ruling, without which, the United States would then proceed to enact the trade sanctions, that would see it recover the revenue lost by its movie and music industry over the years. The manner in which the dispute was settled demonstrates professionalism, and one that prevents conflict between trading blocs, which is likely to aggravate the conflict (Blustein, 2010).
According to Blustein (2010), the world trade organization has always operated as intended. It has lived to its role of ensuing nations do not engage in trade wars. The organization has rules that have managed to act as a lid on member nations, in relation to import barriers. Notably, members are expected to present their trade disputes to the tribunals at the WTO, as opposed to passing tit-for-tat rules on each other’s goods. In that sense, the way the WTO handled the United States and China raw demonstrated its effectiveness, as trade wars between the two nations would have gotten out of hand. It played a major role of solving the dispute amicably, considering that, if the matter was left in the hands of the two nations, it would have only made the situation worse.
In the dispute between the two countries, the WTO acted as a guardian. The organization operates on the principle that restricts members from treating ‘‘each other’s products in a nondiscriminatory fashion’’ (Blustein, 2010). Indeed, the approach by China of allowing only 20 films to be launched annually in their theatres was discriminatory towards the film industry in the United States. As observed by the U.S. trade representative, the film workers and companies had been denied a chance to compete favorably at the world stage, as provided by the WTO rules. In short, China had acted against the WTO principle, and the action taken against it was fair and just, and the organization’s effective approach on international disputes was demonstrated (MacKenzie, 2014).
What image of America do you think is portrayed by its movie industry? Do you think this portrays an attractive or unattractive image of the United States?
The movie industry in the United States portrays both attractive and unattractive images of their country. Notably, most of the Hollywood films portray a utopian system that is free from any forms of errors. The films display a nation that has sophisticated war equipment, which can quell any form of violence. However, oblivious to many, the images are exaggerated and pure imagination (MacKenzie, 2014). Most things depicted in the film cannot be done in reality. Hollywood films are used to promote some of the popular brands made in the United States, and as such, it serves as a medium of communication. In that sense, whenever it is watched in other countries across the world, the masses are influenced to buy American products.
According to Larson (2009), one of the popular Hollywood films is the Tarzan, which had high degree of sophistication that was impressive even in the 21 st century. The film took the world by storm, and it was the talk even on radio shows. In that sense, the film portrayed America as an advanced nation, which was headed for greatness. However, unbeknownst to many, the Tarzan film was equally used to promote white supremacy. Although the film relates to animals and humans, it is obvious that the gorilla represents African continent. The film depicts Tarzan flying across the jungle over the gorillas, probably to depict the way whites are superior to the black people. In that sense, the film portrays unattractive image of the United States, as a country that promotes racism and white supremacy (MacKenzie, 2014).
Do you think that it is fair for China to restrict the number of foreign films it allows to be shown in theatres to 20 per year on the grounds of protecting decency?
I think it’s fair for China to restrict the number of foreign films, in a bid to protect its decency. The country has laws that protect the film industry from promoting superstition and cults. For that reason, any foreign films that violate the above principle should be prohibited. Furthermore, China prohibits any films that undermines social stability and disrupts public order. According to Larson (2009), some Hollywood films depict some ethnic cultural practices, besides expressing language modalities that display them as populist and proletarian. Some films produced in the United States tend to promote discrimination, and considering some Chinese are immigrants in the US, it depicts them in bad light. The only way for China to protect its citizens from such images, is by restricting the number of films shown on their theatres.
China film law prohibits any movie that appears to propagate obscenity, violence or promotes crime. By allowing foreign films in their countries, they risk a violation of their decency. Some of the films from the west have incidences of violence, and some images used showcase obscenity. In the same vein, the law prohibits films that undermine the interests and prestige of the state, and those that oppose the fundamentals spelt out in the constitution (MacKenzie, 2014). Considering China is a political sensitive country, any form of literature that appears to oppose the communist party is discouraged. For that reason, the leadership of the country feels that, foreign films have an agenda of westernizing and sinking their cultural tendencies into China. To enhance ideological influence, Chinese leaders have taken a move of restricting foreign films, and instead, encourages creation of more cultural films, books and arts.
References
Anonymous. The World Trade Organizations – All Mouth, No Teeth?
Blustein, P. (2010). R.I.P Wto. Foreign Policy , (177), 1. Retrieved from < https://nuls.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=t r ue&db=a2h&AN=48445058&site=ehost-live&scope=site>
Larson, A. (2009). Hollywood Party, Jimmy Durante, and the Cultural Politics of Coherence. Velvet Light Trap ; 64; ProQuest Central
MacKenzie, S. (2014). Film Manifestos and Global Cinema Cultures: A Critical Anthology Book collections on Project MUSE. California: Univ of California Press
