- Sep 14, 2004
- 2,677
- 481
- 98
-February 5, 2005
A Global Culture War Pits Protectionists Against Free Traders
By ALAN RIDING
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/05/arts/05ridi.html (probably requires registration)
PARIS, Feb. 4 - The idea of promoting cultural diversity around the world seems reasonable enough. It recognizes that everyone profits from the free flow of ideas, words and images. It encourages preservation of, say, indigenous traditions and minority languages. It treats the cultures of rich and poor countries as equal. And most topically, it offers an antidote to cultural homogeneity.
Try turning this seemingly straightforward idea into an international treaty, though, and things soon become complicated. Since October 2003, Unesco's 190 members have been working on what is provisionally called the Convention on the Protection of the Diversity of Cultural Contents and Artistic Expression. It is intended to be approved by consensus this fall, but don't count on it. There is still no agreement on its final name.
But that is a minor issue compared with more fundamental differences. Led by France and Canada, a majority of countries are asserting the right of governments to safeguard, promote and even protect their cultures from outside competition. Opposing them, a smaller group led by the United States argues that cultural diversity can best flourish in the freedom of the globalized economy.
A bid to break the deadlock is now under way at the Paris headquarters of Unesco, where delegates and experts are wrestling with hundreds of proposed amendments to the first draft. Yet the more they advance toward concrete definitions, some delegates say, the less likely they are to reach consensus.
The reason is simple: Behind the idealistic screen of cultural diversity, weighty economic and political issues are at stake.
The story began with the last global trade liberalization around a decade ago when France obtained what became known as the cultural exception, which effectively authorized the protection of culture. Now, France and Canada want to go further: by enshrining cultural diversity in a legally binding Unesco convention, they hope to shield culture from the free-trade rules of the Geneva-based World Trade Organization.
Why France and Canada? Both view cultural independence as an essential part of their political identity. They have also long resisted the imperial reach of American popular culture, notably Hollywood, by using fiscal incentives, taxes, subsidies and quotas to protect their movie, music, publishing and other cultural industries. And under the kind of convention they favor, they would continue doing so without the risk of being challenged.
So is this another example of anti-Americanism at work? (Yes.) The Motion Picture Association of America, Hollywood's main lobby, has long complained about the protection of the French film industry. But because of that help, France has Europe's only thriving movie industry: Hollywood accounts for about 65 percent of the French box office, compared with 90 percent elsewhere in Europe. Now Denmark, Germany, Britain and Spain are also looking to help their film businesses.
Certainly, as the world's largest exporter of movies, television programs and other audio-visual products, the United States believes it will suffer from further restrictions on cultural exchanges. When the United States ended a 19-year boycott of Unesco in late 2003 (an error), however, plans for a convention were already advanced. Rather than announcing its return to the organization by being obstructionist, it decided to defend its position in negotiations.
The first draft of the convention, presented by 15 cultural experts last summer, tried to please everyone by endorsing "the free flow of ideas by word and image" and by noting that cultural goods and services "must not be treated as ordinary merchandise or consumer goods." The battle was then joined in November when governments presented their responses, many of which are now proposed amendments to the draft.
The American response was unambiguous. While supporting the principle of cultural diversity, it warned that "controlling cultural or artistic expressions is not consistent with respect for human rights or the free flow of information." It further noted, "Mounting trade barriers, including efforts to prevent the free flow of investment and knowledge, is not a valid way to promote cultural liberty or diversity since such measures reduce choices."
Louise V. Oliver, the United States Ambassador to Unesco, explained: "We support 'protect' as in nurture, not 'protect' as in barriers. That said, 'protect' remains a highly loaded concept in this cultural diversity context and, for that reason, remains a sensitive issue. If the convention promotes cultural diversity, we are in favor. We're not in favor of anything that prevents the free and open exchange of cultures."
Supporters of the convention focused instead on the word "freedom," arguing that freedom of choice means availability of choice, which in turn requires active promotion - and protection - of cultural diversity. Canada suggested that the red-flag word "globalization" be described as a "challenge" rather than as a "threat." But it firmly reasserted its right to preserve and promote any cultural activity that it defined as domestic.
The French position was backed by the European Commission (what a surprise), which negotiates on behalf of the 25-nation European Union on trade matters. Just as it supported the "cultural exception" a decade ago, the commission endorsed the view that trade disputes involving culture should in future be ruled by the Unesco convention, not the W.T.O.
The battle lines are becoming clearer. France and Canada have the support of China and African countries as well as much of Latin America, although Mexico, Brazil and Venezuela want freedom to export their popular television soap operas. Support for the American free trade view comes from other countries with commercial interests to defend: Japan because of its animated-movie industry and India because of Bollywood, its film powerhouse.
But inevitably, the spotlight is on the United States. "The American objective is to have no convention," a Latin American diplomat said, speaking on the condition of anonymity (what are you afraid of?), "but if there is flexibility, it will have no choice but to accept it." French officials are less sanguine. They say that, by using amendments to forestall an agreement in the fall, Washington hopes that the entire debate will become muddied next year by negotiations in the next global trade round. (Ces mauvais Américains!)
"I expect the usual American approach," said Garry Neil, executive director of the International Network for Cultural Diversity, an Ottawa-based nongovernmental lobby. "They'll take a hard line, weaken the text as much as possible and then not sign it." (Excellent!) Certainly, if the United States finds the final draft unacceptable, it can break the consensus tradition and demand a vote. And even if approved by consensus, the United States Senate would probably not ratify it.
Does this matter?
Probably not to France, Canada and a few other cultural nationalists. As long as a convention is adopted and goes into effect, they will claim ample authority to protect their culture. (They get their national authority from the UN?! I guess they worry about not getting it from their citizens.) But a more interesting question is whether such a convention will help sustain cultural diversity in countries too poor to do so themselves. That, after all, was one of the proclaimed purposes of this entire exercise. At the moment, it risks being forgotten.
