[Ecommerce] Wall Street Journal Europe editorial: Political Culture

[Thiru Balasubramaniam]

This Wall Street Journal editorial piece gives one particular view of
the UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity
of Cultural Expressions which is expected to be adopted next week at
UNESCO's General Conference.  This editorial mentions a possible UNESCO
bioethics convention as having implications on pharmaceuticals.  Does
anyone have more information about this possible bioethics convention?



Thiru
--------------------------

<SNIP>

Once 30 nations ratify the treaty, France will have an official U.N.
seal of approval to keep subsidizing its film industry and Canada to
block American magazine imports. China and other repressive countries
are enthusiastic, too: The convention could easily justify pulling
satellite television channels off the air or closing down newspapers in
the name of -- to use a wonderfully Orwellian term recently coined by
the Chinese -- "cultural security."

<SNIP>

The commercial twist is, however. The French want the treaty in hand for
December's World Trade Organization meeting in Hong Kong that will
likely reopen talks on freeing up trade in audiovisual products. Since
1995, the EU, at French insistence, has "opted out" of WTO cultural free
trade commitments. (That's the old "l'exception culturelle" that France
so badly wants to keep alive.) The French are also eager to use the
Unesco treaty to dissuade other countries from signing bilateral deals
with the U.S. that liberalize trade in movies and CDs.

"We were manipulated," complained an ambassador from one of the 25 EU
countries, which early on agreed to vote as a single bloc here. "This is
all the work of the French industry." Of course, Hollywood's interests
are firmly on the side of free trade. This fight will rage on.

<SNIP>

America's friends counsel the U.S. to ignore the vaguely-worded document
altogether. "Why make a fuss?" they ask. That the U.S. treats its
possible legal obligations so earnestly counts as one cultural
difference between the U.S. and most other Unesco members. And in voting
against this treaty, Washington wants to put a marker down for the
coming battle over a possible Unesco bioethics convention, which may
impact the way that pharmaceuticals are developed and traded, all in the
name of "culture" and "diversity," no doubt.



-------------------------

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB112924594344968218.html?mod=opinion_main_europe_asia

-------------------------

October 14, 2005

REVIEW & OUTLOOK

Political Culture
October 14, 2005

At Unesco's "General Conference," a jamboree on Paris's Left Bank thrown
every two years, an international treaty expected to be adopted next
week will "protect" the planet's "cultural diversity." Who could oppose
something that sounds so noble? There's little diversity of opinion on
this point: 190 governments love the idea, leaving only one -- dubbed
"arrogant," "misinformed," "obstructionist," etc. -- in dissent. No
prize for guessing whom we're referring to.

America's honeymoon at the U.N.'s culture arm didn't last long. Two
years ago, Laura Bush raised the Stars and Stripes at the United Nations
Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization and lunched with Jacques
Chirac. After a 19-year boycott prompted by rampant -- even by U.N.
standards -- corruption and anti-Americanism, the U.S. came back into
the fold, picking up the tab for nearly a quarter of the agency's
budget. But then came the -- hold your breath -- "Convention on the
Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions."

The fine print of this treaty hardly clarifies matters. Merely note that
France championed this bit of international lawmaking, with the main
supporting role played by Canada's prickly cultural capos. "Regulatory
measures" and "public financial assistance" -- translation: trade
barriers and government subsidies -- are all kosher in "nurturing and
supporting" artists. "Works of art and the spirit must not be considered
to be goods," the French culture minister says, which might come as news
to anyone who spends very real money on DVDs or cinema tickets.

Once 30 nations ratify the treaty, France will have an official U.N.
seal of approval to keep subsidizing its film industry and Canada to
block American magazine imports. China and other repressive countries
are enthusiastic, too: The convention could easily justify pulling
satellite television channels off the air or closing down newspapers in
the name of -- to use a wonderfully Orwellian term recently coined by
the Chinese -- "cultural security."

American diplomats are furious, but why Unesco's hallmark project for
its 60th year comes as a surprise is beyond us. After all, Ronald Reagan
pulled the U.S. out of the agency in 1984 in part to protest its embrace
of the "New World Information Order," which was a blank check for
dictators to muzzle the press. Fights over alleged American "cultural
imperialism" -- a phrase popularized by Jack Lang, a former French
culture minister -- are nothing novel, either.

The commercial twist is, however. The French want the treaty in hand for
December's World Trade Organization meeting in Hong Kong that will
likely reopen talks on freeing up trade in audiovisual products. Since
1995, the EU, at French insistence, has "opted out" of WTO cultural free
trade commitments. (That's the old "l'exception culturelle" that France
so badly wants to keep alive.) The French are also eager to use the
Unesco treaty to dissuade other countries from signing bilateral deals
with the U.S. that liberalize trade in movies and CDs.

"We were manipulated," complained an ambassador from one of the 25 EU
countries, which early on agreed to vote as a single bloc here. "This is
all the work of the French industry." Of course, Hollywood's interests
are firmly on the side of free trade. This fight will rage on.

America's friends counsel the U.S. to ignore the vaguely-worded document
altogether. "Why make a fuss?" they ask. That the U.S. treats its
possible legal obligations so earnestly counts as one cultural
difference between the U.S. and most other Unesco members. And in voting
against this treaty, Washington wants to put a marker down for the
coming battle over a possible Unesco bioethics convention, which may
impact the way that pharmaceuticals are developed and traded, all in the
name of "culture" and "diversity," no doubt.

The doublespeak employed here is a powerful weapon in the rhetorical
arsenal of the anti-globalization -- not all that different from
anti-American -- crowd. Last month, when the EU proposed to open trade
in wine with the U.S., the European Parliament invoked cultural
diversity to denounce the deal -- and thus leave the Europeans with less
of it. Non to "McDonald's type Chardonnay," wailed a French MP.

The irony is that open borders and free trade have made the world an
ever more -- excuse the word -- diverse place. Witness the sudden
revival of the Gallic language in a prospering Ireland that can afford
to take a renewed interest in its roots. Or the global popularity of
African music, or Indian food or Brazilian film. The biggest export
market for French films, by the way, is the U.S., which doesn't put up
any cultural walls.

If Unesco was honest with the world, its latest creation would be called
the "Convention on Cultural non-Diversity."