Interesting People mailing list archives
Cultural diversity pact
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 12:30:19 -0400
Begin forwarded message: From: Brian Randell <Brian.Randell () newcastle ac uk> Date: October 20, 2005 12:15:22 PM EDT To: dave () farber net 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, 2005http://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 () iht com
--School of Computing Science, University of Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne,
NE1 7RU, UK EMAIL = Brian.Randell () ncl ac uk PHONE = +44 191 222 7923 FAX = +44 191 222 8232 URL = http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/~brian.randell/ ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
Current thread:
- Cultural diversity pact David Farber (Oct 19)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Cultural diversity pact David Farber (Oct 20)