OTTAWA – Major backers of an international convention on cultural protection are delighted it was adopted by the U.N.’s Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) last Thursday in Paris, but they say the battle to bring it into effect has just begun.
It was widely predicted the “convention on the protection and promotion of the diversity of cultural expressions” – its official title – would have the United States as its sole opponent. In the end, 148 nations voted in favour, four abstained and two, the U.S. and Israel, were opposed. The loud American resistance has been incessant in the two years since it re-joined UNESCO and began working to dilute the progress of the convention’s prime supporters, Canada, France and the U.K. America’s continuing opposition may make the critical path to implementation both rocky and steep.
“The Americans could do a lot” to slow the process of ratification, says Robert Pilon, executive vice-president of the Canadian Coalition for Cultural Diversity, a leader in Canada’s push to have the convention adopted. “They have a lot of power – in politics, economics and the military – and can influence a lot of the countries,” especially as they are currently negotiating bilateral trade deals with nations around the world.
Pilon told www.cartt.ca the U.S. remained fiercely opposed until the final vote on the convention. “They were sending a message to the countries, saying, ‘OK, vote for that, but don’t even think about ratifying it.’”
Although the convention will take effect if only 30 countries ratify it, Pilon says “our own objective will be 60 or 70…What’s even more important is to have ratification in more geographical areas in the world” than just the EU and Canada.
The convention supports creation of domestic cultural policies, content quotas, subsidies, tax credits and rules on foreign ownership thresholds, all things we have in Canada today. For many countries, globalization translates into a threat to home-grown storytelling, art, publishing and so on. American cultural exports are not always responsible for the threat, but the U.S. argues the convention may be a Trojan horse for protectionism.
Even Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice expressed “deep concern” over the text. In a letter to foreign governments, she wrote it “could be misused by governments to legitimize their controls over the flow of information, and could be used to suppress minority viewpoints or minority cultural practices (for example, the wearing of head scarves).” She also predicted a “chilling effect on on-going negotiations at the WTO. For these reasons, this convention invites abuse by enemies of democracy and free trade.”
The International Herald Tribune newspaper, meantime, characterizes the struggle as an “increasingly bitter dispute (that) has left political bruises that may come to haunt both future international trade talks and the American role in UNESCO.”
Though certain commentators have written the convention lacks a dispute resolution mechanism, a “basic” one is included. Pilon says supporters did not wish an elaborate mechanism but focused on the fact that “this is a big first, that you would have a convention on this topic. For the first time in international law you have clear acknowledgement that cultural goods and services are not like any others.”
Susan Tolusso is an Ottawa-based freelance writer.
