Alford: Piracy Pact No China Policy

TL;DR

Alford Op-Ed: William P. Alford argues in the WSJ that the recent US-China intellectual property deal on piracy fails to form a coherent policy toward China.[[1]](https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB837556359736582500)
15 CD Plants Closed: China committed to shutting 15 pirate compact disc factories and launching enforcement campaigns after US sanctions threat.[[2]](https://www.wangandwang.com/news-articles/articles/the-1996-sino)[[3]](https://www.nytimes.com/1996/06/18/world/us-and-china-agree-on-pact-to-fight-piracy.html)
Limited Lasting Impact: Alford warns such narrow measures echo prior pacts but ignore deeper US-China issues like enforcement and nonproliferation.[[1]](https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB837556359736582500)

The story at a glance

William P. Alford, a Harvard law professor expert on Chinese legal history, critiques the June 1996 US-China intellectual property agreement in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece. The deal followed US threats of $2 billion in sanctions and required China to close pirate CD factories, boost enforcement raids, and ease market access for US firms. It is reported now amid brinkmanship talks to avert trade war, building on a vague 1995 memorandum that failed to curb rampant software, music, and film piracy.

Key points

Agreement signed June 1996 after month-long talks; US halts sanctions in exchange for China's promises on piracy curbs.[[3]](https://www.nytimes.com/1996/06/18/world/us-and-china-agree-on-pact-to-fight-piracy.html)
China to close 15 specific CD plants in southern provinces by revoking licenses, seizing equipment, and filing criminal charges against operators.[[2]](https://www.wangandwang.com/news-articles/articles/the-1996-sino)
Launch national enforcement campaign against IP crimes, including raids on distribution chains, lasting through early 1997.[[2]](https://www.wangandwang.com/news-articles/articles/the-1996-sino)
Report on border seizures (30,000 pirated items in 1996) and restrict imports of CD production gear without approvals.[[2]](https://www.wangandwang.com/news-articles/articles/the-1996-sino)
Expand joint ventures for US music and movie firms; lift some film import quotas, though ideological reviews persist.[[3]](https://www.nytimes.com/1996/06/18/world/us-and-china-agree-on-pact-to-fight-piracy.html)
Alford notes measures resemble 1995 IP accord but come amid US reluctance to enforce its own China-related laws.[[1]](https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB837556359736582500)

Details and context

Alford's piece responds to the pact's announcement, portraying it as a tactical win for US Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky but insufficient for broader strategy. China faced pressure after missing 1995 goals like better trademark protection and police raid powers, which clashed with its laws limiting unregistered mark coverage and court rules on seizures. The 1995 action plan promised enforcement but yielded short-term retail cleanups without hitting production roots, like the 35 southern CD factories outputting millions of pirated US works yearly.[[2]](https://www.wangandwang.com/news-articles/articles/the-1996-sino)

US leverage stemmed from Section 301 reviews, tying China's market access to IP progress amid Clinton's engagement policy. Yet Alford highlights inconsistencies, such as Washington's hesitancy on nuclear nonproliferation enforcement against China. Post-pact, China closed plants under monitoring but details stayed vague; border controls lagged without shared databases or port filings.[[2]](https://www.wangandwang.com/news-articles/articles/the-1996-sino)

Key quotes

"These measures echo last year's U.S.-China intellectual property agreement."[[1]](https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB837556359736582500) — William P. Alford, on the 1996 deal's similarity to prior efforts.

"A good argument might be made, however, that the intellectual property agreements come on the heels of Washington's hesitancy earlier this year to enforce our own nuclear nonproliferation laws in dealings with Beijing."[[1]](https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB837556359736582500) — William P. Alford.

Why it matters

A narrow focus on piracy risks sidelining US inconsistencies and China's structural enforcement hurdles, complicating bilateral ties. Businesses face ongoing losses from unproven plant closures and weak local compliance, while investors weigh trade access against IP risks. Watch annual USTR reviews and any new sanctions threats, though repeated pacts may erode US credibility.