The good old US of A has gone and done it again. We’ve taken a stand against every other nation represented at the UN (but Israel). This time it was “our” vote last night over a convention intended to protect linguistic diversity and minority cultures from the negative impacts of globalization.
A commission at the Paris-based UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) voted to accept a 40-page text that affirmed the "sovereign right" of countries to protect and promote the diversity of cultural expressions on their territory and in international trade.
The 151 nations voting in favor of the text included the 25-members of the European Union as well as Brazil, which took the rare step of dispatching the cultural minister to vote in person. Australia and the Pacific island nation of Kiribati abstained.
Supporters of the treaty - led by France and Canada - said it would help countries defend domestic culture from the homogenizing influence of globalization.
The treaty affirms the “sovereign right” of countries to protect and promote the diversity of cultural expressions and requires this to be taken into account in applying other accords, such as the rules of the World Trade Organization.
"Our efforts to get this Convention adopted by Member States of UNESCO are driven by our unshakeable commitment to protect and promote Canada's rich cultural diversity, including our aboriginal heritage and the boundless creativity of Canadians," said Frulla.
Britain's ambassador, Timothy Craddock, also spoke in favor of the draft text, calling it "clear, carefully balanced, consistent with the principles of international law and fundamental human rights." He also said the European Union believes that the convention was "frequently and thoroughly negotiated by all parties, most of whom have made several compromises during this process." He spoke on the EU's behalf because Britain currently holds the 25-nation bloc's rotating presidency.
French Culture Minister Renaud Donnedieu de Vabres hailed the text as recognition of France's long-held contention that cultural activities should be given separate consideration in trade talks and are "not merchandise like any other." "We are no longer the black sheep on this issue," he said.
But the U.S. ambassador to UNESCO Louise Oliver said the treaty could be used to erect trade barriers against cultural exports.
Some observers attribute Washington's hardened stance on the proposed treaty to pressure by powerful Hollywood companies and other U.S. media giants to resist any restrictions on the international trade in cultural products, including films, books and music.
"This line, however, overlooks the circumstance that unlike wheat or coal, cultural products are also intimately bound with matters of social identity and consciousness," writes Allen Scott, director of the Centre for Globalization and Policy Research at the University of California and quoted by IPS.
"A rhetoric of pure market ideology misses a crucial point here," Scott reasons in a scholarly article entitled, "Hollywood in the Era of Globalization: Opportunities and Predicaments". Scott points out that major Hollywood production companies directly control distribution systems in all their principle foreign markets. For example, United International Pictures, a joint venture by Paramount and Universal, owns distribution facilities in as many as 37 countries, including Britain, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Australia and Japan.
The United States pulled out of UNESCO in 1984, accusing the agency of anti-American bias and corruption. U.S. first lady Laura Bush said that the decision to rejoin in the 2003 was a signal that her husband, U.S. President George W. Bush, wants to work with other countries.
Well, at least, to work with other countries when they agree with her hubby anyway. Sources: Financial Times, International Herald Tribune, IPS, CBC
No comments:
Post a Comment