The US Trade Representative's office has just released a new report documenting the legal obstacles foreign firms face in their business dealings with China. As might be expected, there were many grievances, although the agency did concede that China has been far more welcoming to internationals than in previous years. Besides its focus on the topics of contemporary spats between China and the US – items such as steel, export subsidies and intellectual property rights (strangely, valuation of the RMB was omitted) – the American agency notably brought forth an issue in which the Chinese government has been particularly rigid: control of the media and telecommunications.

Under the terms of the Protocol of Accession to the WTO, China was obliged to allow non-state owned enterprises, including foreign owned enterprises, to import movies, DVDs, music, books, newspapers and journals. A WTO ruling against China called for a disbandment of this government-enforced monopoly, yet the Chinese government has remained very reluctant to release its control over these forms of media.

According to the report, once within China’s borders there are more hurdles. Movie imports destined for theatrical release are limited to 20 revenue-sharing films per year. The government then closely regulates the foreign film showings to ensure that their viewing time in the theatres does not exceed one-third that of Chinese movies. Then there is the provision that blockbuster films originating from abroad should not compete with those made domestically (think Avatar when Confucius was released). Prefer television? Foreign programmes are not allowed more than 25% of airtime, and are outright banned between seven and ten pm on the basic channels. Even on cable, the percentage is only increased to 30%. And of course, everything is subject to censorship.

Those in the telecommunications industry are equally obstructed. Foreign firms are limited to no more than 49% stakes in joint ventures, although none have been intrepid enough to enter the Chinese market within the last decade, nor have any local companies for that matter. There are only four nation-wide players – China Mobile, China Telecom, China Unicom and DBSat – and it seems that, based on the amount of restrictions on the industry, the Chinese government is content to leave its communication capabilities within the hands of these few domestic firms. Then there is the internet. Google completely evades mention by the US Trade Representative office.

Naturally, the report is not without its quirks. The first page mentions that the import of petroleum and sugar into China is reserved for state-owned enterprises, but that this is indeed consistent with its agreement with the WTO. One is left to ask, why sugar? Then in a later paragraph: “China still maintains high duties on some products that compete with sensitive domestic industries…Raisins face duties of 35%”. (May China anticipate Hillary Clinton’s next condemnation in a speech titled “Steel, Tyres and Raisins?”)

Humor aside, the US Trade Representative report says that despite the countless ways in which China has opened itself to international trade, if anything it has become more restrictive in its control of the media and its telecommunications systems.This may be an issue beyond the influence of trade representatives, American or otherwise.