[IP] Cultural diversity pact
Begin forwarded message:
From: Brian Randell <Brian.Randell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: October 20, 2005 12:15:22 PM EDT
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Cultural diversity pact
Hi Dave:
Here is a corrected transcription, should you feel it needed.
Cheers
Brian
Entr'acte: Next lone U.S. dissent: Cultural diversity pact
By Alan Riding The New York Times
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2005
http://www.iht.com/bin/print_ipub.php?file=/articles/2005/10/12/
news/entracte.php
PARIS As the United States sets about trying to repair its battered
international image by stepping up its "public diplomacy" abroad,
is it willing to risk total isolation at Unesco in order to combat
a perceived threat to Hollywood's freedom to show its movies around
the globe?
The final answer will come next week, but the outcome seems
foretold: everything suggests that the United States will be the
only country in the 191-member United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization to vote against a new
convention on cultural diversity.
In fact, on three procedural votes related to the convention, the
United States has already stood alone: its position was
successively defeated by 54 votes to 1, by 53 votes to 1 and by 158
votes to 1.
So what is wrong with cultural diversity?
Well, here diplomatic mirror games begin. In the language of
Unesco, "cultural diversity" is not what outsiders might imagine it
to mean. That is, rather than promoting, say, ethnic traditions,
minority languages or integration of immigrants, it has become the
buzz phrase for opposition to cultural homogeneity à l'américaine.
In Washington's view, then, this version of "cultural diversity"
poses a danger. It believes that the proposed convention not only
empowers governments to control culture, but it also authorizes
protectionist measures that could restrict American audio-visual
exports, notably Hollywood movies and television programs, worth
tens of billions of dollars annually.
The problem is that the rest of the world disagrees - and the
"rest" includes the 25-nation European Union, which currently has
Britain as its president. The European Union sees no danger to
artistic freedom or freedom of expression and it notes that
countries are already authorized to use subsidies and quotas to
bolster their movie, television and radio sectors.
Last-minute efforts to avoid a one-against-all clash are continuing
at Unesco's Paris headquarters and in foreign capitals.
Uncomfortable to be at loggerheads with the United States, Britain
has insisted that the convention promotes the free flow of ideas
and information and has urged Washington to accept the existing draft.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, on the other hand, has written
to member governments expressing "deep concern" about the
convention, calling for postponement of its adoption and warning
that it "will only undermine Unesco's image and sow confusion and
conflict rather than cooperation."
So far, neither side has given ground.
Of course, in one sense, another negative American vote next week
will change little. The convention will be adopted and, once
ratified by 30 countries, it will go into effect. The United States
will not sign it and, as with the Kyoto Protocol climate treaty and
the treaty creating the International Criminal Court, will likely
remain a critical - and perhaps obstructionist - outsider.
Conversely, once in effect, the Convention on the Protection and
Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions may have little
impact on what is already a globalized market for cultural
products, one in which India's Bollywood, Japanese animation movies
and Brazilian and Mexican television soap operas have a place
alongside Hollywood blockbusters.
Nonetheless, this increasingly bitter dispute has left political
bruises that may come to haunt both future international trade
talks and the American role in Unesco.
In 1984, followed by Britain and Singapore, the United States
walked out of Unesco to protest its promotion of a so-called new
world information order, viewed as a threat to press freedom. Then,
two years ago, in an unexpected nod to multilateralism, the Bush
administration ended the American boycott, apparently persuaded
that Unesco had mended its ways.
As soon as Washington returned to its seat here in 2003, however,
it was confronted with a draft declaration on cultural diversity.
And, to the surprise of many, after some changes were negotiated,
the United States endorsed this declaration. But when Unesco's
general conference then decided to prepare a binding convention on
cultural diversity, American doubts began to grow.
For Washington, it seemed to augur a fresh battle in a simmering
war that began a decade ago. At the time, led by France, the
European Union obtained a so-called cultural exception to a trade
liberalization accord known as the Uruguay Round. Under this
exception, countries could use subsidies and quotas to protect
their audio-visual industries against outside competition.
The United States rightly interpreted the exception to be aimed at
Hollywood and other exporters of American popular culture and it
responded by adding the free flow of cultural products to a score
of bilateral trade agreements. The declaration on cultural
diversity was then devised as a way of reaffirming the exception in
anticipation of new international trade talks.
As contemplated by its original sponsors, France and Canada,
however, the convention on cultural diversity was designed to be
more far-reaching. Arguing that cultural expressions should not be
treated like, say, toothpaste or steel, they aspired to remove all
cultural issues from the World Trade Organization and place them
under the protective aegis of Unesco.
This spring, the United States concluded that it could not accept
the draft. Further, then as now, it viewed the convention as part
of a broader strategy by the European Union to muddy the issues to
be tackled in upcoming trade talks. To forestall this, it wants
multiple clarification that commitments made under the convention
should be "consistent with international obligations."
American lobbying had some effect. The final draft dwells
extensively on broad principles, but it notes that the convention
cannot modify "rights and obligations of the parties under any
other treaties to which they are parties." While the convention
also lacks power to impose solutions to disputes, however,
Washington believes the treaty language is still too open to
misinterpretation.
The key question now is whether, finding itself isolated, the
United States will retaliate by, say, cutting its budget
contribution, which represents 22 percent of Unesco's budget. As it
happens, Unesco is not without friends in Washington, where its
educational programs enjoy support. But congressional critics of
the United Nations - and opponents of the American return to Unesco
- may feel vindicated.
At Unesco's headquarters, though, another question is posed. Does
this convention merit the political damage it has caused? Today,
some of its original supporters concede that it will be little more
than a monument to good intentions. In fact, it could even be
argued that the convention needs American opposition: without it,
there might be little reason to proclaim victory over "cultural
globalization."
E-mail: pagetwo@xxxxxxx
--
School of Computing Science, University of Newcastle, Newcastle upon
Tyne,
NE1 7RU, UK
EMAIL = Brian.Randell@xxxxxxxxx PHONE = +44 191 222 7923
FAX = +44 191 222 8232 URL = http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/~brian.randell/
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/