[Ecommerce] New York Times: A Global Culture War Pits Protectionists Against Free Traders

[thiru@cptech.org]

February 5, 2005
ESSAY
A Global Culture War Pits Protectionists Against Free Traders
By ALAN RIDING

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? 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, 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, 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, "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.

"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." 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. 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.