| |
Debate
NGO assessment of the new German government
UNESCO Convention on Cultural Diversity
Pakistan’s state and Kashmir’s earthquake
12/2005 |
|
Comment
No protection from Hollywood
With 148 votes to two, the General Assembly of the UN cultural organisation UNESCO has adopted the Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions. Only the United States and Israel voted against it. Washington’s worries, however, do not make sense. This convention will not serve as a barrier to cultural exchange. However, it will not be particularly helpful to cultural sectors in poor countries either.
[ By Tillmann Elliesen ]
With no good reason, the Bush administration has once again shied away from multilateral policy-making by voting against the UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions. Actually, this convention will not harm the billion-dollar culture sector in the USA.
Indeed, US representatives at UNESCO had raised some valid arguments during the two-year negotiation process – and successfully so. After all, the protection of cultural diversity is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it seems to be beyond all criticism to support the preservation of cultural expressions that are threatened politically or economically. On the other hand, it is impossible to promote cultural diversity as such, but only to promote specific forms of expression. Doing so will often happen at the expense of other cultural formats, particularly those stemming from weaker (sub-)cultures. In other words, although it is easy to justify the protection of a cultural expression with the protection of cultural diversity, the argument can also serve to suppress some forms of expression.
After all, the protection of cultural diversity is an excellent pretext for politically motivated censorship. Advocates of “Asian values”, for instance, may actually feel threatened by the mix of cultural tenets and political ideas emanating from the West. But their defence just as much affects those minorities in their own cultural circle, who do not agree with the prescribed dominant “Asian values” and may even eagerly await “Western values”.
For any such oppressive purposes, however, the UNESCO Convention will hardly be of any use. Even before mentioning the sovereign right to promote cultural expressions, it emphasises human rights and fundamental freedoms as its guiding principles – including those of expression and of choosing which cultural expressions one wants to be exposed to. The convention emphasises that cultural diversity can only exist where these rights are guaranteed. The importance of an unrestricted exchange of culture and ideas, even across state borders, is stressed several times. The agreement states unequivocally that no one may take advantage of the Convention to restrict internationally recognised rights. All summed up, fears of the US administration are unfounded.
Then again, does the convention live up to what the supporters hope for? The French government, a particularly committed proponent, wanted an agreement clarifying in a binding manner that trade with cultural assets may be restricted. But the convention does not provide for this, not even in Article 20, which was hotly contested in the negotiations. This article states, in a somewhat contradictory fashion, that the convention is not subordinate to other agreements but, at the same time, does not repeal them either. What that means exactly with regard to bi- and multilateral trade treaties will be matter of debate once the convention comes into in force. According to German UNESCO ambassador Hans-Heinrich Wrede, it is clear, however that the convention will not make “any Hollywood movie subject to import restrictions anywhere in the world”.
The value of the UNESCO Convention lies in the fact that it unequivocally excludes culture from the WTO principle of treating foreign and domestic products equally. They may be treated differently. Countries are entitled to procuring competitive advantages to their citizens engaged in the cultural sector, not by sealing them off, but rather through financial, institutional and conceptual support. There can be no sensible objections against this kind of preferential treatment. Only fanatic supporters of free trade will consider it unfair that Hollywood’s $100 million productions do not receive the same public support as the debuts of film school graduates.
Nonetheless, the UNESCO Convention will hardly benefit artists, musicians and film directors in the poor countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America – except by giving them symbolic support. Their governments do not have the funds for effectively subsidising cultural industries. And it is unlikely that rich countries will turn into generous donors to the International Fund for Cultural Diversity created by the Convention.
Tillmann Elliesen
is managing editor at D+C Development
and Cooperation / E+Z Entwicklung
und Zusammenarbeit.
tillmann.elliesen@fsd.de
|
