December 2005 ˇ Anthropology News
25
V I E W S O N P O L I C Y
V I E W S O N G L O B A L C U L T U R A L P O L I C Y
I N F O C U S
In October, as the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Diversity of Cultural Contents and Artistic Expressions was being
negotiated by country delegates, AN invited commentaries for a Views on Policy series on the intersection of anthropology and policy
in thinking about intellectual property rights, cultural diversity and the current regulatory framework the UN and others are developing
through the convention.
promoting ideas in the convention,
it is widely perceived that France
assumed a leadership role in framing
the negotiating environment.
An advisor to the US delegation to
UNESCO referenced a speech delivered
by French President Jacques
Chirac in May 2005 at a symposium
for a "Europe of Culture," during
which he remarked that the
WTO was not "the right forum for
dealing with issues related to cultural
exchange." Chirac--invoking
the principle of "cultural exception"
granted by the (now failed)
Constitution of Europe--defended
state subsidies for culture and
issued an explicit plug for the convention,
noting that "the convention
should establish the specificity
of cultural goods." France's "cultural
exception" argument assumes
that "diversity" refers to national
cultures rather than the free
exchange of ideas between states.
Within the vagaries of globalization
and the rapid development of
new information and communication
technologies, countries like
France and Canada appear to be
seeking protections for their
nation's publishing and audiovisual
services. To get around the GATT
provisions, such as the TradeRelated
Aspects of Intellectual Property
Rights (TRIPS) and Information
Technology Agreement
An Unconventional
Approach?
PAUL J NUTI
AAA DIRECTOR OF EXTERNAL,
INTERNATIONAL AND GOVERNMENT
RELATIONS
On October 20, during the General
Conference of the UN Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO) in Paris, member states
formally adopted the final text of
the Convention on the Protection
of the Diversity of Cultural
Contents and Artistic Expressions,
commonly known as the cultural
diversity convention. If 30 states ratify
the convention, it would set new
standards in intellectual property
rights, trade and cultural development.
UNESCO bills this international
policy instrument as a normative
safeguard for cultural production
against the leveling power
of globalization and the inequalities
spawned by the digital divide.
Broadly framed, the convention
would reinforce the rights of state
parties--in keeping with the UN
Charter and other international
instruments--to "formulate and
implement their cultural policies
and to adopt measures to protect
and promote the diversity of cultural
expressions." In effect, provisions
in the convention that encourage
state actions to stimulate, cultivate
and support all forms of cultural and
artistic expression "within its territory"
would essentially affirm the idea
of "national cultures," the intellectual
content and consumer value of
which must be protected. In this
vein, cultural activities are understood
to be important "vehicles of
identity, values and meaning," and
"cultural diversity" as vital to the
"common heritage of humanity."
Exercising Power Politics
Beneath this sheen of good intention,
however, there is a view--held
primarily by the US--that the convention
is more an exercise in
power politics than a viable counter
to threats to cultural diversity in
the wake of globalization. Although
148 countries voted for the convention,
the US has been critical of the
initiative, believing that it is primarily
driven by a micro-political
agenda related to a ruling handed
down by the World Trade Organization
(WTO) in 1997.
American sources close to the
negotiations on the convention
point to what is known as the
"magazines case" in which the US
challenged a tax levied by the
Canadian government on certain
periodicals imported into Canada,
thereby restricting their commercial
movement. On top of this, the
US also objected to the application
of favorable postage rates to
Canadian-produced periodicals on
the grounds that this afforded them
an unfair commercial advantage. In
the opinion of the US, both measures
violated specific provisions of
the General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade (GATT).
UNESCO and Cultural Diversity
V I E W S O N P O L I C Y
The WTO panel appointed to
hear the case ruled that the measures
constituted discrimination
against a good--the magazines--
discounting Canada's claim that
the measures applied rather to an
excepted service--publishing. Under
WTO rules, there are no exceptions
allowing a discriminatory tax
of this kind on goods. It was this
interpretive victory for the US that
prompted calls in some quarters for
regulatory relief that would protect
a certain class of goods--particularly
cultural goods that express culture
in some way--from untrammeled
market forces. The UNESCO
convention has been put forward
by a number of states as the vehicle
to accomplish this.
Protecting Cultural Industries
Although it is not entirely clear that
any specific member state used the
WTO ruling to launch a campaign
In October 2003, French President
Jacques Chirac visited UNESCO,
where he called for the adoption of
a convention on cultural diversity.
Chirac has invoked a principle of
"cultural exception," which assumes
that "diversity" refers to national
cultures rather than the free
exchange of ideas between states.
(ITA), administered by the WTO
since 1995, these and developing
countries sought aid through
UNESCO and the concept of "cultural
diversity," as a part of forming
"sustainable, economic, social and
cultural development." In 2002,
UNESCO, for instance, cooperated
in organizing with the UN Conference
on Trade and Development a
meeting of experts on audiovisual
services centered on the "cultural
exception" argument.
Some thus argue that the cultural
diversity convention is being used
by a number of states to invoke
their claim to control the commercial
dimension of their cultural production.
It is a symbolic act that
captures what Lawrence Lessig
refers to as the inevitable "quiet
death" of the public domain--a
lawyer-free zone, unregulated by
the rules of copyright--in an essay
in the September/October 2005
issue of Foreign Policy magazine.
Where Is Anthropology?
It is curious that the anthropology
community has not been engaged
in any meaningful way in the
debates about the convention, particularly
since it tackles the semantics
of a globalized "culture."
Anthropologists perhaps knew relatively
little, if anything, about the
convention, yet anthropologist
Richard Kurin believes their general
non-participation in the process
reflects a broader pattern of disengagement
on global cultural policy
agreements, agreements that will
influence the operating environment
for bearers of culture, artists,
and others who produce culture.
An irony is that country delegations
who negotiate cultural policy
documents like the convention are
increasingly staffed not by anthropologists
but by lawyers, economists
and diplomats. The anthropology
community is not routinely
contributing to the praxis of global
cultural policy work. Kurin added
that if the world is making treaties
on cultural policy, anthropologists
simply must be there. The convention
on cultural diversity marks a
missed opportunity. IAN