[Ecommerce] Re: question on UNESCO Convention

[Sasha Costanza-Chock]

You're right Manon, 1(b) does provide a little wiggle room, which is why
they have Condoleeza writing letters over a previously invisible UNESCO
process. I think that a big part of the press blitz is the 1 2 3 punches
the USG is feeling from WIPO, WSIS, and now UNESCO; they are realizing
that there's a bit of mutiny going on with regards to information policy
at the global level.

If my previous mails may have seemed on the pessimistic side, it's
because I wanted to be careful about the overly optimistic language
coming from some of the other governments and foreign press, as if this
is a big victory rather than a small, kind of ambiguous, development.

However, in terms of US media coverage, we are getting slaughtered. None
of the public interest groups have even done a press release. Maybe some
of you on these lists can consider doing short releases tomorrow, since
the treaty will pass tomorrow and there will be another flood of UN
bashing press...

sasha

607.351.5559


Manon Ress wrote:
> Hi Sasha, you wrote:
>
>> 2. The US got the most important thing they were looking for, which is
>> that the UNESCO treaty has been subordinated to the trade deals in its
>> language on relationship to other treaties. This raises the question,
>> why are they 'freaking out' about it?
>
>
> I understand you're referring to article 20 of the June 05 text which
> reads:
>
> V. relationship to other instruments
>
> Article 20. relationship to other treaties; mutual supportiveness,
> complementary and non-subordination
>
> 1. parties recognize that they shall perform in good faith their
> obligations under this Convention and all other treaties to which  they
> are parties.  Accordingly, without subordinating this Convention  to any
> other treaty, they:
>
> (a) shall foster mutual supportiveness between the Convention and the
> other treaties to which they are parties;and
>
> (b) when interpreting and applying the other treaties to which they  are
> parties or when entering into other international obligations,  Parties
> shall take into account the relevant provisions of this  Convention.
>
> 2. Nothing in this convention shall be interpreted as modifying  rights
> and obligations of the Parties under any other treaties to  which they
> are parties
> END of QUOTE
>
> Paragraph 1 is the June compromise that will be part of the text
> approved tomorrow. Let me know if I'm wrong about that, I did not  make
> it to Paris and maybe the text has changed?  If this is the  text, I'm
> maybe "naive" but I am somewhat more optimistic about the  useful
> (limited but) aspect of the convention. Can country use 1(b)  to push
> back a little?
> Manon
>
> On Oct 18, 2005, at 10:33 PM, Sasha Costanza-Chock wrote:
>
>> I was quite glad to see William New's article (below), since US state
>> dept. and the right wing thinktanks have been busy pumping out
>> propaganda against the UNESCO treaty for the past two weeks (see
>> www.mediatrademonitor.org for these, especially look in the right-hand
>> newswire column).
>>
>> The only points I would add would be that 1. NGOs played a real  role in
>> eliminating the IP language that the US delegation (backed by patent
>> office) was pushing for; especially the CRIS+ (communication rights  plus
>> many other supporters) statement on the draft treaty text. The  Brazilian
>> delegation especially expressed their appreciation for the CRIS+
>> statement and interventions on IPRs.
>>
>> 2. The US got the most important thing they were looking for, which is
>> that the UNESCO treaty has been subordinated to the trade deals in its
>> language on relationship to other treaties. This raises the question,
>> why are they 'freaking out' about it?
>>
>> IMHO, it's only partly because the UNESCO Treaty will provide  energy for
>> a coalition push by cultural ministers and national cultural  industries
>> to keep audiovisual services out of GATS. At least as important, seems
>> to be part of this administration's much larger project to
>> systematically attack and delegitimize the United Nations system, as
>> well as more ammo to raise the spectre of 'UN control of  information' in
>> the midst of the row over ICANN.
>>
>> My 2 cents.
>>
>> Sasha
>>
>> --
>> http://www.mediatrademonitor.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Message: 2
>>> To: ecommerce@lists.essential.org
>>> From: Manon Ress <manon.ress@cptech.org>
>>> Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 16:05:07 -0400
>>> Subject: [Ecommerce] IP watch story on UNESCO:  "Pieces of evil in  a
>>> treaty"?
>>>
>>> US =91Pulls Out All Stops=92 As UNESCO Backs Culture Treaty
>>>
>>> United Nations
>>>
>>> posted by William New @ 9:50 pm
>>> Paris=97The UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation
>>> (UNESCO) today approved a treaty for the protection of cultural
>>> diversity despite an all-out drive by the United States to get
>>> governments to change their minds.
>>>
>>> =93We really pulled out all the stops=94 in the past week to try to
>>> change the outcome of this treaty, a US official said in an interview
>>> afterward. This included telegrams to US embassies around the world
>>> with instructions to try to influence decision-makers in each
>>> country, and phone calls placed to other governments by the Office of
>>> the US Trade Representative.
>>>
>>> But despite the push by the US government, the outcome was
>>> unchangeable because it was =93cooked,=94 meaning it was already
>>> decided,
>>> the official charged.
>>>
>>> The draft Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity
>>> of Cultural Expressions is a legal instrument intended to give an
>>> additional tool to governments to guard their national cultural
>>> identities from global influences.
>>>
>>> The final version will be voted on Thursday by the plenary of the
>>> UNESCO annual General Conference, following today=92s passage by the
>>> UNESCO commission responsible for it.
>>>
>>> The final commission vote was 151 in favour, 2 opposed, and two
>>> abstentions. The US and Israel opposed, and Australia and the South
>>> Pacific island of Kiribati abstained.
>>>
>>> The US also garnered the support of several nations for its list of
>>> some 30 amendments, all of which were soundly rejected. Supporters of
>>> its amendments included Australia, El Salvador, Israel, Libya, and
>>> Rwanda.
>>>
>>> Only one substantive change was adopted at the meeting, an amendment
>>> by Japan to strengthen the clarification that the treaty would fit
>>> with other international instruments and would be consistent with
>>> UNESCO=92s constitution.
>>>
>>> Concerns About Trade Links And =91Pieces of Evil=92
>>>
>>> US concerns about the treaty are that it is vaguely worded and could
>>> be used by other countries to construct trade barriers to US exports
>>> of film, music or other cultural products. The US said the term
>>> cultural diversity itself was not sufficiently defined in the treaty.
>>>
>>> =93This is not about culture, it=92s about trade,=94 a US official
>>> said in
>>> an interview afterward. =93This is trade policy by cultural
>>> ministers.=94
>>> Specific concerns are about efforts at the World Trade Organization
>>> by France to block liberalisation of audiovisual products, and by
>>> Canada to protect its publications.
>>>
>>> Different officials gave different interpretations of Article 20 in
>>> the treaty regarding the UNESCO treaty=92s relationship to other
>>> international instruments. It is unclear how subordinate this treaty
>>> will be to others, such as at the WTO.
>>>
>>> While most countries backed the treaty, some, including European
>>> nations like the United Kingdom, have privately assured the United
>>> States that they do not intend to ratify it, a US official said. The
>>> US does not plan to ratify the treaty, the official said.
>>>
>>> He also did not reject the notion that the US would reconsider its
>>> decision to rejoin UNESCO in 2003 after 19 years outside the body.
>>> But he said the reason for rejoining was not to block the cultural
>>> diversity treaty. Since joining, the US has contributed 22 percent of
>>> the UN body=92s US$610 million biennial budget.
>>>
>>> France=92s Ambassador to UNESCO Jean Gueguinou in an interview
>>> afterward confirmed the possibility that the treaty could be used to
>>> protect domestic cultural industries, but downplayed the concern. He
>>> said UNESCO=92s passage follows France=92s adoption of a cultural
>>> diversity declaration in 2001, and that this is a period in which
>>> many countries see globalisation as a threat. =93A lot of countries
>>> have a fear about their cultural diversity,=94 he said.
>>>
>>> The treaty recognises that the majority of countries consider it
>>> necessary to be able to protect their identities if they want to,
>>> Gueguinou said, adding that some countries want such a policy but
>>> lack the means to develop it on their own.
>>>
>>> The United States lost a number of fights on this treaty along the
>>> way to approval. For instance, it sought to include more than a dozen
>>> references to intellectual property rights but, according to the US
>>> official, was prevented by Brazil, which tied the effort to
>>> negotiations at the World Intellectual Property Organisation. Brazil
>>> meanwhile managed to get a reference to traditional knowledge into
>>> the UNESCO treaty, something it has pushed at WIPO, he said.
>>>
>>> =93That=92s just one of the pieces of evil in this treaty,=94 the US
>>> official said to a backdrop of laughter and back-slapping by hundreds
>>> of other officials all around.
>>>
>>> This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License. All of the
>>> news articles and features on Intellectual Property Watch are also
>>> subject to a Creative Commons License which makes them available for
>>> widescale, free, non-commercial reproduction and translation.
>>>
>>> William New, the author of this post, may be reached at wnew@ip-
>>> watch.org.
>>>
>>> ************************************************
>>> Manon Anne Ress
>>> manon.ress@cptech.org,
>>> www.cptech.org
>>>
>>> Consumer Project on Technology
>>> 1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20009 USA
>>> Tel.:  +1.202.332.2670, Ext 16 Fax: +1.202.332.2673
>>>
>>> Consumer Project on Technology
>>> 1 Route des  Morillons, CP 2100, 1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland
>>> Tel: +41 22 791 6727
>>>
>>> Consumer Project on Technology
>>> 24 Highbury Crescent, London, N5 1RX, UK
>>> Tel: +44(0)207 226 6663 ex 252 Fax: +44(0)207 354 0607
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --__--__--
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ecommerce mailing list
>>> Ecommerce@lists.essential.org
>>> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/ecommerce
>>>
>>>
>>> End of Ecommerce Digest
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ecommerce mailing list
>> Ecommerce@lists.essential.org
>> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/ecommerce
>>
>>
>
> ************************************************
> Manon Anne Ress
> manon.ress@cptech.org,
> www.cptech.org
>
> Consumer Project on Technology
> 1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20009 USA
> Tel.:  +1.202.332.2670, Ext 16 Fax: +1.202.332.2673
>
> Consumer Project on Technology
> 1 Route des  Morillons, CP 2100, 1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland
> Tel: +41 22 791 6727
>
> Consumer Project on Technology
> 24 Highbury Crescent, London, N5 1RX, UK
> Tel: +44(0)207 226 6663 ex 252 Fax: +44(0)207 354 0607
>
>
>
>
>