[Ecommerce] IHT on "US all but alone in opposing" UNESCO CCD

[Manon Ress]

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/10/20/news/unesco.php

U.S. all but alone in opposing Unesco cultural pact
By Alan Riding The New York Times

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2005
PARIS Choosing to defend Hollywood's interests over joining an
international consensus, the United States stood almost alone at
Unesco Thursday in opposing a new convention on cultural diversity
designed to combat the homogenizing effect of cultural globalization.
The convention, the result of two years of heated and occasionally
bitter negotiations, was adopted at Unesco's Paris headquarters by
148 votes in favor, with the United States and Israel voting against
and just four countries - Australia, Nicaragua, Honduras and Liberia
- abstaining.
Even though the convention fell short of the hopes of its original
sponsors, Canada and France, its adoption was called an important
step in protecting threatened cultures, particularly in developing
countries.
However, the Bush administration argued that it could be interpreted
as authorizing governments to undermine the rights of minorities and
to control both culture and the free trade in ideas and information.
Under the convention, governments will be permitted to use subsidies
and quotas to promote their culture and, implicitly, to limit the
access of Hollywood movies to their markets.
Speaking after the vote, Louise Oliver, the U.S. ambassador to
Unesco, said that the United States was the world's most culturally
diverse country, but it feared the convention "could undermine,
rather than promote, cultural diversity."
However, most of Washington's allies disagreed. Britain's ambassador
to Unesco, Timothy Craddock, speaking for the European Union, said,
"This is a great day for Unesco." And, without mentioning the United
States, he noted: "With one country, we have agreed to disagree on
this issue."
Earlier, France's culture minister, Renaud Donnedieu de Vabres, told
reporters that, at a time of growing fundamentalism, the convention
underlined the importance of cultural diversity for artists and
national pride as well as peace.
Unlike the U.S. delegation, which tried not to appear too identified
with Hollywood's interests, Donnedieu de Vabres pointed to what he
considered the current assymetry of cultural power. "Hollywood movies
account for 85 percent of movie tickets sold around the world," he
said. "In the United States, only one percent of shown movies come
from outside the United States."
Still, Canada and France were able to win broad support for the
convention partly by blurring the question of its impact on trade
liberal agreements or future trade talks. For instance, while the
convention states that it cannot be interpreted as "modifying rights
and obligations of the parties under any other treaties to which they
are parties," it also requires government to take it into account
international negotiations.
With major movie exporters like India insisting that the convention
relates to culture, not trade, many experts believe its principal
importance is symbolic: while it has reached no unambiguous
definition of cultural diversity and how it should be promoted and
protected, it has given voice to widespread concern about the perils
of excessive domination by American popular culture.
PARIS Choosing to defend Hollywood's interests over joining an
international consensus, the United States stood almost alone at
Unesco Thursday in opposing a new convention on cultural diversity
designed to combat the homogenizing effect of cultural globalization.
The convention, the result of two years of heated and occasionally
bitter negotiations, was adopted at Unesco's Paris headquarters by
148 votes in favor, with the United States and Israel voting against
and just four countries - Australia, Nicaragua, Honduras and Liberia
- abstaining.
Even though the convention fell short of the hopes of its original
sponsors, Canada and France, its adoption was called an important
step in protecting threatened cultures, particularly in developing
countries.
However, the Bush administration argued that it could be interpreted
as authorizing governments to undermine the rights of minorities and
to control both culture and the free trade in ideas and information.
Under the convention, governments will be permitted to use subsidies
and quotas to promote their culture and, implicitly, to limit the
access of Hollywood movies to their markets.
Speaking after the vote, Louise Oliver, the U.S. ambassador to
Unesco, said that the United States was the world's most culturally
diverse country, but it feared the convention "could undermine,
rather than promote, cultural diversity."
However, most of Washington's allies disagreed. Britain's ambassador
to Unesco, Timothy Craddock, speaking for the European Union, said,
"This is a great day for Unesco." And, without mentioning the United
States, he noted: "With one country, we have agreed to disagree on
this issue."
Earlier, France's culture minister, Renaud Donnedieu de Vabres, told
reporters that, at a time of growing fundamentalism, the convention
underlined the importance of cultural diversity for artists and
national pride as well as peace.
Unlike the U.S. delegation, which tried not to appear too identified
with Hollywood's interests, Donnedieu de Vabres pointed to what he
considered the current assymetry of cultural power. "Hollywood movies
account for 85 percent of movie tickets sold around the world," he
said. "In the United States, only one percent of shown movies come
from outside the United States."
Still, Canada and France were able to win broad support for the
convention partly by blurring the question of its impact on trade
liberal agreements or future trade talks. For instance, while the
convention states that it cannot be interpreted as "modifying rights
and obligations of the parties under any other treaties to which they
are parties," it also requires government to take it into account
international negotiations.
With major movie exporters like India insisting that the convention
relates to culture, not trade, many experts believe its principal
importance is symbolic: while it has reached no unambiguous
definition of cultural diversity and how it should be promoted and
protected, it has given voice to widespread concern about the perils
of excessive domination by American popular culture.
PARIS Choosing to defend Hollywood's interests over joining an
international consensus, the United States stood almost alone at
Unesco Thursday in opposing a new convention on cultural diversity
designed to combat the homogenizing effect of cultural globalization.
The convention, the result of two years of heated and occasionally
bitter negotiations, was adopted at Unesco's Paris headquarters by
148 votes in favor, with the United States and Israel voting against
and just four countries - Australia, Nicaragua, Honduras and Liberia
- abstaining.
Even though the convention fell short of the hopes of its original
sponsors, Canada and France, its adoption was called an important
step in protecting threatened cultures, particularly in developing
countries.
However, the Bush administration argued that it could be interpreted
as authorizing governments to undermine the rights of minorities and
to control both culture and the free trade in ideas and information.
Under the convention, governments will be permitted to use subsidies
and quotas to promote their culture and, implicitly, to limit the
access of Hollywood movies to their markets.
Speaking after the vote, Louise Oliver, the U.S. ambassador to
Unesco, said that the United States was the world's most culturally
diverse country, but it feared the convention "could undermine,
rather than promote, cultural diversity."
However, most of Washington's allies disagreed. Britain's ambassador
to Unesco, Timothy Craddock, speaking for the European Union, said,
"This is a great day for Unesco." And, without mentioning the United
States, he noted: "With one country, we have agreed to disagree on
this issue."
Earlier, France's culture minister, Renaud Donnedieu de Vabres, told
reporters that, at a time of growing fundamentalism, the convention
underlined the importance of cultural diversity for artists and
national pride as well as peace.
Unlike the U.S. delegation, which tried not to appear too identified
with Hollywood's interests, Donnedieu de Vabres pointed to what he
considered the current assymetry of cultural power. "Hollywood movies
account for 85 percent of movie tickets sold around the world," he
said. "In the United States, only one percent of shown movies come
from outside the United States."
Still, Canada and France were able to win broad support for the
convention partly by blurring the question of its impact on trade
liberal agreements or future trade talks. For instance, while the
convention states that it cannot be interpreted as "modifying rights
and obligations of the parties under any other treaties to which they
are parties," it also requires government to take it into account
international negotiations.
With major movie exporters like India insisting that the convention
relates to culture, not trade, many experts believe its principal
importance is symbolic: while it has reached no unambiguous
definition of cultural diversity and how it should be promoted and
protected, it has given voice to widespread concern about the perils
of excessive domination by American popular culture.
PARIS Choosing to defend Hollywood's interests over joining an
international consensus, the United States stood almost alone at
Unesco Thursday in opposing a new convention on cultural diversity
designed to combat the homogenizing effect of cultural globalization.
The convention, the result of two years of heated and occasionally
bitter negotiations, was adopted at Unesco's Paris headquarters by
148 votes in favor, with the United States and Israel voting against
and just four countries - Australia, Nicaragua, Honduras and Liberia
- abstaining.
Even though the convention fell short of the hopes of its original
sponsors, Canada and France, its adoption was called an important
step in protecting threatened cultures, particularly in developing
countries.
However, the Bush administration argued that it could be interpreted
as authorizing governments to undermine the rights of minorities and
to control both culture and the free trade in ideas and information.
Under the convention, governments will be permitted to use subsidies
and quotas to promote their culture and, implicitly, to limit the
access of Hollywood movies to their markets.
Speaking after the vote, Louise Oliver, the U.S. ambassador to
Unesco, said that the United States was the world's most culturally
diverse country, but it feared the convention "could undermine,
rather than promote, cultural diversity."
However, most of Washington's allies disagreed. Britain's ambassador
to Unesco, Timothy Craddock, speaking for the European Union, said,
"This is a great day for Unesco." And, without mentioning the United
States, he noted: "With one country, we have agreed to disagree on
this issue."
Earlier, France's culture minister, Renaud Donnedieu de Vabres, told
reporters that, at a time of growing fundamentalism, the convention
underlined the importance of cultural diversity for artists and
national pride as well as peace.
Unlike the U.S. delegation, which tried not to appear too identified
with Hollywood's interests, Donnedieu de Vabres pointed to what he
considered the current assymetry of cultural power. "Hollywood movies
account for 85 percent of movie tickets sold around the world," he
said. "In the United States, only one percent of shown movies come
from outside the United States."
Still, Canada and France were able to win broad support for the
convention partly by blurring the question of its impact on trade
liberal agreements or future trade talks. For instance, while the
convention states that it cannot be interpreted as "modifying rights
and obligations of the parties under any other treaties to which they
are parties," it also requires government to take it into account
international negotiations.
With major movie exporters like India insisting that the convention
relates to culture, not trade, many experts believe its principal
importance is symbolic: while it has reached no unambiguous
definition of cultural diversity and how it should be promoted and
protected, it has given voice to widespread concern about the perils
of excessive domination by American popular culture.

************************************************
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