Oct 13, 1989
TV PROGRAMMING - A "SERVICE" OR "GOOD"?
GENEVA, OCTOBER 11 (BY CHAKRAVARTHI RAGHAVAN)— The United States and the European community differed Wednesday as to whether TV programming was a "service" or a "good" involving GATT obligations. The difference came to the surface when the united states complained in the GATT council about "unilateralism" of the EEC and .its not having agreed so far to hold bilateral GATT consultations on directive of its council of ministers about television programme content. But the European community argued it was a "service" matter and not a GATT issue. Since its decisions towards a single European market, the EEC has been insisting that while it would be abide, in the unification process by its GATT obligations for trade in goods, questions relating to services was not governed by GATT. The European convention on transfrontier television (enabling TV broadcasts across frontiers) has a provision about the European content of TV programmes. The U.S., which dominates the world market by exporting its domestic TV programmes and entertainment, has been agitating that the EEC directive discriminates against U.S. films and thus is a violation of GATT. Raising the issue in the GATT council Wednesday, under any other business, the U.S. complained that the EEC has not so far acceded to its request for bilateral consultations in GATT under article XXII: l, a preliminary step towards raising a GATT dispute. In the U.S. view, the European content rule in article ten of the European convention would oblige signatories to discriminate against non-European films in TV programming. The U.S. had sought GATT consultations on September 1. While the four non-EC recipients of the U.S. request had agreed to consultations, the four EC member-states had referred the U.S. to the EEC commission, which had viewed the request as premature since the ministers had not taken any decision. Since then, on October 3, the EEC council of ministers had adopted the directive, "television without frontiers", and this raised questions about the EEC’s GATT obligations. However as of October l0, the EEC had not agreed to consultations, though under the new dispute settlement procedures, there was a definite time-table for this, and the U.S. would be able to seek a GATT panel on November 1. Under the Montreal mid-term review accords, reference of disputes to panels in GATT is mandatory, and there is a tight time-schedule governing this process, from the time of request for consultations to the submission of panel rulings. The general agreement has "special provisions relating to cinematography films" in article IV. Where a CP has internal quantitative regulations about cinematography films, the article requires these should take the form of "screen quotas" and provides for observance of some requirements as between domestic and imported. But it is not at all clear whether the requirements dealing with commercial films and calculation of quota time per theatre per year etc have any application to TV broadcasts. The U.S. did not clarify in its intervention Wednesday as to what GATT provision it was relying upon. Replying to the U.S., the EEC took note of the U.S. statement, but underscored that the community had not refused consultations. The only question for the community was where the consultations should be held. While the community did not deny the right of any CP to seek consultations, the community had "serious doubts about the relevance of the U.S. complaint to GATT." "TV programming", the EEC delegate John Beck said, "is a ‘service’ and is a subject of negotiations in the Uruguay round. At this stage the community did not take the view the GATT is involved".