Chinese firewall as a trade barrier
Last year, a team of writers from the European Center for International Political Economy (European Center for International Political Economy) suggested that it was possible to put pressure on the Chinese nation, and especially on the tough system of filtering Internet content in the form of the Great China Firewall, with the help of the WTO . And that's the way - to declare a firewall a barrier to trade relations between China and the rest of the world.
Last week, the European Commission blessed this approach and sent its missionary, Neelie Kroes, to China. The words of the representative himself: “This is one of those issues that should be addressed within the World Trade Organization. The question should be mutual, in my turn, I raise this topic in every country that has mutually beneficial economic relations with China. ”
Of course, almost every specialist in international trade understands that the WTO will not simply enter the wilds of Chinese censorship - there are more important things to do, and yet this is the internal policy of the state, in which international organizations have no rights, no duties, no authority to interfere . However, it is quite possible that experts will consider the Internet filter a barrier to the exchange of photos, applications and other services that are incompatible with the “General Agreement on Trade in Services”, even taking into account local culture, morality and security exceptions.
The dispute arose after a sensational story, as a result of which Google curtailed all its activities in mainland China and moved the Asian headquarters to Hong Kong.
')
The funny thing about this whole story is the fact that the Chinese government uses almost the same phrases to protect its Internet content filtering system, which the WTO uses to defend its own point of view: “defending public morality” and “maintaining public order”. The only difference is that the WTO has established quite serious “thresholds” for obtaining exemptions from general rules, and any exceptions must be “proportional.”
The world's largest IT companies and human rights organizations almost immediately got involved in the interesting process of lobbying interests, Microsoft and Google really want the Chinese Internet to be “open and free” for obvious reasons. Of course, they also demand that the governments of the United States and the European Union openly enter into the process of discussion (if not condemnation), which is unlikely to happen. On the other hand, the WTO also has the necessary leverage and motive for action. One can only hope that the process will not be delayed, as it usually happens.
via ArsTechnica
Last week, the European Commission blessed this approach and sent its missionary, Neelie Kroes, to China. The words of the representative himself: “This is one of those issues that should be addressed within the World Trade Organization. The question should be mutual, in my turn, I raise this topic in every country that has mutually beneficial economic relations with China. ”
Of course, almost every specialist in international trade understands that the WTO will not simply enter the wilds of Chinese censorship - there are more important things to do, and yet this is the internal policy of the state, in which international organizations have no rights, no duties, no authority to interfere . However, it is quite possible that experts will consider the Internet filter a barrier to the exchange of photos, applications and other services that are incompatible with the “General Agreement on Trade in Services”, even taking into account local culture, morality and security exceptions.
The dispute arose after a sensational story, as a result of which Google curtailed all its activities in mainland China and moved the Asian headquarters to Hong Kong.
')
The funny thing about this whole story is the fact that the Chinese government uses almost the same phrases to protect its Internet content filtering system, which the WTO uses to defend its own point of view: “defending public morality” and “maintaining public order”. The only difference is that the WTO has established quite serious “thresholds” for obtaining exemptions from general rules, and any exceptions must be “proportional.”
The world's largest IT companies and human rights organizations almost immediately got involved in the interesting process of lobbying interests, Microsoft and Google really want the Chinese Internet to be “open and free” for obvious reasons. Of course, they also demand that the governments of the United States and the European Union openly enter into the process of discussion (if not condemnation), which is unlikely to happen. On the other hand, the WTO also has the necessary leverage and motive for action. One can only hope that the process will not be delayed, as it usually happens.
via ArsTechnica
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/94375/
All Articles