In October last year UNESCO member states agreed to adopt a convention on cultural diversity, titled ‘The Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions.’ The cultural diversity pact, as it became known, is aimed at protecting local and national forms of cultural expression, traditions and customs from increasing globalization.
The pact received overwhelming support from 148 (out of 154) UNESCO member states. Only the USA and Israel voted against the pact, with four countries abstaining. However, the vote is just the start of a diplomatic conflict over culture that is set to continue at least until 2007, when the treaty will be ratified – provided 30 countries complete the necessary parliamentary process.
Since October, US officials have made no bones about the fact they are lobbying hard to ensure that the requisite number of 30 states needed to ratify the pact will not be achieved. As we progress into the new year, rumours abound that the USA would again walk out of UNESCO if ratification was achieved.
So what exactly is the problem? If the majority of UNESCO members want to introduce measures that enable each country to protect and nurture domestic culture, why does it matter if the US doesn’t? And if the US walks out of UNESCO, surely that would be America’s loss, right? Not at all.
At its heart, this pact is all about the USA and how that country’s ‘cultural exports’ have flooded markets overseas, supposedly to the detriment of homegrown competition.
The pact was sponsored by Canada, with close support from France. Both countries have been vocal in their criticism of the way US cultural exports (such as movies, television, toys) have come to dominate domestic markets. Such an influx in non-national cultural commodities has a detrimental effect on citizens’ cultural expression. Essentially the health of nations is at stake, and far more serious than, say, the flood of textile products expected from China. Clearly governments see ‘Americanization’ as something to be avoided. Whilst the success of Hollywood movies, East and West coast rap artists, and TV shows such as Friends, Seinfeld and Desperate Housewives suggests the public may disagree.
The argument is that unless governments have the ability to restrict the actions of purely profit-driven media and distributors (many of which are owned wholly or in part by American-based businesses, or are strongly affiliated with US manufacturers and distribution channels), then the whole loveable mish-mash of thousands of years of local traditions will dissolve into a homogenous mush under US cultural imperialism.
The US, on the other hand, says the pact is merely an attempt by governments to provide a mechanism that allows countries to legitimately raise anti-US trade barriers. Barriers, it says, that would contravene WTO rules and current agreements on free trade. RAND senior policy analyst, Martin Libicki argues: ‘The United States does not export movies or pop fashions with an eye to subverting other cultures; it is something it does at a comparative advantage and wishes to extend through markets in goods and services.’ Although his preceding statements infer that controlling the flow and consumption of information is something countries ought to be concerned with from a military and historical point of view, which rather supports the Canadian/French perspective.
Sympathy for the US position is founded in lack of clarity contained in the section of the pact dealing with its relationship to other treaties. And support also came inadvertently from an unlikely source in Korea, where proposals to block cultural imports have gained momentum since the pact was passed in October. A report in the Korean Times asks ‘how much of Korea’s unique culture is left to protect. In a country that has long thought things native and traditional synonymous to inferior and underdeveloped, our own culture is not something to be experienced in our daily lives but for ceremonies and display for foreigners.’
Unlike the Koreans, both Canada and France have done more than most in recent years to protect and promote cultural diversity. Ratification of the treaty would see both countries reap the financial rewards as well as significant political dividends. But these two alone cannot win the battle.
There are three major factors that will determine whether the pact achieves ratification:
It took more than six years to pass the cultural diversity pact. It could take several more before its fate is ultimately decided.
