Vol. 6 No 5
Contents:
1. INCD News
This edition of the newsletter is shorter than normal. However, there is considerable interest in the developments at UNESCO and we feel that the update from the INCD Executive Director is of sufficient importance to circulate it immediately.
2. Updates on UNESCO Convention Process
Convention on the protection and promotion of the diversity of cultural expressions
Intergovernmental Committee of Experts
UNESCO, Paris
25 May – 5 June 2005
Report from Garry Neil,
INCD Executive Director
31 May 2005
We are only half way through the third and final meeting of the Intergovernmental Committee of Experts which is considering the terms of a Convention on cultural diversity. However, the rhythm of the meeting is well established and it is now possible to contemplate the broad parameters of the final outcome, with only a couple of elements remaining under consideration. The meeting may conclude ahead of schedule.
When it began, the meeting adopted as its starting point the Chairperson’s draft, now referred to as the Cape Town text. In the past week, there has been pressure on this text from different perspectives.
The United States, supported on some occasions by Japan, Australia, Mexico and Korea, attempted to weaken the text by removing references to “goods and services”, the word “protect,” “cultural industries” and other elements that deal with the commercial trade. These amendments are being defeated through votes in the plenary session and the United States has formally registered opposition to these decisions in several cases. Japan has signaled that it may be unable to ratify the Convention given the agreed treatment of these issues in one clause.
All elements of the previous drafts that dealt with intellectual property rights and piracy were removed from the substantive clauses of the Convention. The only reference to IP is now in the preamble. Several countries and regions, including the African group and Mexico attempted to reintroduce some of these elements. With the exception of an additional preamble provision on the importance of the protection of indigenous knowledge, these have been defeated.
Some pressure came from sources that seemed to misunderstand the purpose of the Convention. Some of these have been rejected, some have been accepted. For example, the Principle of Access in Article 2.8, was amended at the urging of some supporters to become the principle of “equitable access”, thus limiting the nature of the objective, rather than expanding it.
Finally, a few positive amendments have been agreed, including
At the session ended today, the key elements remaining include
The nature of the dispute settlement system also remains to be considered, however, it is unlikely to be any stronger than the non-binding mediation/arbitration proposed in the Cape Town text.
Preliminary Analysis
I believe the Convention falls short of the objectives adopted by the INCD.
While it will confirm the sovereign right of States to implement cultural policies, it will not balance this right with significant concrete obligations. The only limits on the right are the (very significant) need to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms and to respect the principle of “openness and balance.” The scope of the Convention is limited to policies that have a direct effect on cultural expressions, rather than incorporating those that might have an indirect effect, even if this is intended. The clauses on international cooperation, with the exception of the disputed Article 16, remain as obligations that States “shall endeavour to;” in other words, States have only to try to do the things outlined. Similarly, States will not even commit unequivocally to take action to protect a form of cultural expression that is at risk of extinction in its territory. Finally, there are no obligations to support domestic artists and creators.
In a previous analysis of the Convention, I observed the following:
“If it continues, this erosion of substantive obligations may well result in a Convention that cannot possibly be equivalent to the trade and investment agreements, because it merely has the effect of reaffirming the sovereign rights of States to do whatever they want in the cultural field. If there are no limits on these rights, or mandatory obligations, there is no basis for any dispute.”
Several times, the Chairman stated that, “it is not appropriate to impose obligations on States in a declaratory instrument.” The Convention is indeed in danger of achieving this outcome, rather than the legally binding instrument agreed to by the last General Council meeting.
On balance, the Convention would seem to be a rather weak shield against continuing pressure in the multilateral and bilateral trade negotiations to eliminate or amend policies and measures which promote a diversity of cultural choices.
Accordingly, it is now time for the cultural diversity movement to step back and consider whether the Convention has value as a political tool. While it has not achieved the outcome we had hoped for, is there sufficient benefit in confirming the right of States to implement cultural policies to justify organizing a campaign to have it approved and ratified? Will the Convention be a useful organizing tool in the ongoing work? Can it become a rallying point for civil society groups and governments that remain concerned about how the trade and investment agreements are being used to stifle cultural policies and local artists and cultural producers?
I will provide a more thorough analysis when the meeting concludes and look forward to our discussions of this critical issue in the coming months.
3. Report on 4th Conference of Coalitions for Cultural Diversity
MADRID, 9-11 May 2005
By Jane Kelsey
The three day conference was called to coordinate final input from the Coalitions prior to the UNESCO meeting in late May to discuss the Chairman’s consolidated text of the Convention.
On the evening prior to the conference there was an informal meeting of the Coalitions to discuss their current activities and be briefed on the Chairman’s text by Ivan Bernier (the Quebec government’s legal adviser on the Convention and a member of the initial Expert Group). I was invited to attend and report back to the New Zealand coalition.
Coalitions were from three main regions: Europe (Belgium, France, Germany, Slovakia, Spain); Latin America (Colombia, Uruguay, Chile, Mexico, Peru, Argentina); Francophone Africa (Togo, Cameroon, Senegal); Richard Harris was present from the Australian Coalition; the Koreans had a large delegation; and of course the Canadians. The activities and insights from these various coalitions were also contributed during the conference (see more below).
In summary, the Europeans are well resourced, well organized and active. Most have the support of their governments; Germany has a different structure and works with the UNESCO committee. They and the Canadians are very focused on the Convention, but not much beyond that.
The Francophone grouping is supported from France and Quebec, although many of the African coalitions are young and relatively fragile. They have been largely focused around the Convention, organizing to influence their governments in UNESCO, but have little understanding or activity in relation to trade agreements (eg negotiations with the European Union and the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries).
The Latin Americans have a very political approach to the Convention and trade negotiations, and are well focused on CAFTA and the FTAA with the US. The culture campaign is an integral part of the Hemispheric Alliance working on these issues.
The Koreans are still deeply engaged in the fight over movie quotas in the US negotiations for a bilateral investment treaty and had a very strong presence. They remain quite radical and reiterated the need to work with students, farmers, trade unions, and other activists within Korea.
Richard Harris reported on the Australian campaign on the AUSFTA, and that there was now a sense of exhaustion. There was also some backlash within the Australian Coalition among industry representatives who said they had gone too far and were now being punished by the Howard government, so they should retreat and just focus on promoting their own industry interests internationally.
The conference was also attended by representatives from culture groups in many other countries that do not yet have coalitions, such as the Philippines, Azerbaijan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cameroon, China [China Film Association], Costa Rica, Cote d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Denmark, Ecuador, Estonia, Ghana, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Iran, Japan, Latvia, Liban, Lithuania, Madagascar, Mali, Norway, Paraguay, Poland, Portugal, UK, Congo, Dominican Republic, Romania, Sri Lanka, South Africa, Switzerland, Tunisia, Venezuela.
The Conference ran for 2.5 days and was mainly quite big panels with 10-15 minute interventions. There was not much time for questions and interaction from the participants, although there was a lot of time for discussion during the tea breaks and long lunch breaks.
The first day speeches were largely rhetorical reiterations of the importance of cultural diversity and expectations about the Convention, with little that was new.
The Second day included an interesting presentation from Brazil about progress in securing government support for a new cultural agency. However government proposals to develop new regulations had come under huge pressure from US interests, and had been deferred. I later expressed concern that these may become subject to new ‘disciplines’ on domestic regulation that are being proposed, especially by the US, in the current GATS negotiations; there are signs that these negotiations are picking up speed.
The final day began with a panel on the Convention and the trade negotiations. The chair of the current WTO negotiations on services was present (we had a vigorous debate in Geneva several weeks before when the INCD delegation was there). So was the Spanish CEO of the Trade Ministry, and of the Culture Ministry. Country inputs came from Korea, Mexico and Colombia, and then myself. The trade inputs were the standard line. The Korean intervention was to suggest a binding mechanism for enforcement of the Convention (which is the Koreans’ main argument), which is not really practical). The Mexicans outlined the issues now confronting them, with the potential demise of the local film industry (a very different picture from the one painted by the WTO delegate from Mexico at the WTO). The Colombian contribution addressed their practical difficulties in trying to negotiate for protection in the FTAs.
There were then two panel discussions involving most of the Coalitions that were present and some other organizations. A detailed summary of my notes from this is set out below.
The final session was spent discussing the wording of the Declaration from the Conference. I don’t have a copy of the final outcome – doubtless it will soon be on the Canadian Coalition website. An initial draft had been circulated at the meeting of Coalitions on the first evening. The revised version was not distributed until the final afternoon, because of problems with translation. The discussion was, like all discussions trying to draft a document, rather tedious. Most called for stronger language, although there was a tension between those looking pragmatically at what was likely to be accepted and those wanting to maintain a strong position that others felt would stall the process. There was some disagreement about whether it was better to push for conclusion in 2005 or defer until 2007 to get a stronger text; the view that a longer time would see energies of governments dissipate held sway. There was a very heated discussion about the inclusion/exclusion of IP, where it became very clear that there was no agreement on the issues.
Overall I found the discussion on the Convention throughout the meeting to be rather naïve, with little perception of the difficulties of having any impact on trade negotiations. Many talked about the need for balance and to reconcile or harmonise the convention and the trade agreements. The exceptions to this were countries that had been engaged on the rough end of such negotiations (Latin America, Korea, Australia).
The one area where the Convention might have some benefits for the South is in the new fund it creates. But this will depend on countries making significant contributions. The INCP governments may do that, but obviously the US and others are not expected to sign the Convention, and even if they did would probably not contribute.
It appears that the future role of the Coalitions, at least in the eyes of the Canadians, is to push for its conclusion and then to monitor compliance. Presumably this will include implementation of the Fund. There was no discussion of taking activity outside the UNESCO Convention sphere and into the arena of trade negotiations – although clearly a number of national coalitions and regional groupings will do so.
I had a number of useful side meetings. This included with the Chilean Coalition who are working on the P-3 and still trying to influence the final wording in relation to culture. They have the wording currently proposed and have promised to send it to me forthwith. I will make some comments and send them straight on to you.
I sat over lunch with the Indian Ambassador to UNESCO, who was a very straight talking woman who was also very pragmatic about what could be achieved, and where India’s mixed interests lay. She described the Chairman’s draft of the Convention as ‘very brave’ and predicted that there would be a huge amount of disagreement over key aspects of the text, which had removed square brackets and a number of footnotes that had been compromises with the US et al. She seemed sceptical that agreement could be reached within the time available at the next session of UNESCO. She invited me to stay in touch.
Also at the lunch table was Katerina Stenou, the main official responsible for drafting the Convention. She was also concerned about what could be achieved in the time and whether the Chair’s text will be the focus of discussion or much time in the session will be taken up debating whether the composite [] texts and/or the chair’s text should be used. She had received very good reports back from the INCD’s WTO Symposium and was critical of the purely descriptive and unhelpful report they had received back from the WTO discussion of the Convention last November. I did not get a chance to speak with her after my intervention (although I suspect she may not have been very happy with its pessimism about the impact on trade negotiations). Apparently New Zealand has not played an active or helpful role at UNESCO, although it has not been as obstructive as Australia.
Notes from Coalition interventions on final day
Pilon: About 60 countries now have or are forming coalitions, reflecting a diverse cultural context. It is necessary to work from local levels so leaders become aware of the issues in their countries to advance the convention. Then work at the international level, in an informal federation, through the International Liaison Committee. They are hoping to form a (African Coalition?) during the cinema festival on 6 June [notes unclear here].
Belgium: we must increase the awareness of artists in bringing cultural diversity to the forefront, finding ways to make it relevant, accessible and interesting. Dissemination is also necessary in the political arena, especially Mps. What will happen after 2005? Or should we set out a new schedule for work, whatever happens with the Convention, to maintain the energy in the coalitions. This may need to include regional negotiations.
Spain: starting point is the confrontation between culture and economics. The Spanish cultural industry is 6%% of GDP and the 4th most important part of GDP. It is similar in other parts of Europe. The market notion of comparative advantage is not appropriate. . It is not true that if another culture industry is more efficient then it should be allowed to replace the local industry and resources go into other forms of production. Markets are not just imperfect but anomalous in this context. We are living in a time of anomalies, where there are dominating powers. Culture is different because they are not symbolic and ideological products that can speak to people around the world. We are not leftists, just associations that want to recover the concept of market and exchange.
Paraguay: there are no UNESCO officers there so knowledge has been limited. Indigenous culture, including water, has been threatened by the FTA with US.
Lebanon: example of a small country with a diversity of religions and cultural democracy. Need civil society to confront despotic governments; at the same time see a culture (US) that uses democracy and human rights to impose their own culture and thoughts on other countries.
Korea: Tickets went from 50m to 120 million since 1993. International prizes won for films. Korean cinema exports as part of the Korean Cultural Wave. US sees this as a bad example because it prevents them from monopolizing the Asian market. Hollywood has 95% of the world market but it is still trying to eliminate Korea’s quotas. The Ambassador and Chamber of Commerce are putting intense pressure on the government, insisting this is a commercial issue. Some politicians and pro-US economists say this is against the interests of the state. Having failed to secure removal of quotas in BIT the US is continuing to apply pressure and demanding that South Korea show the efficiency of its system and removal of quotas in broadcasting,. Korean songs are 60% of the house in broadcasting, 30-50% of animation (cartoons). Want to remove limits on FDI in broadcasting. Le Monde Diplomatique is coming to South Korea to talk about the uniformalisation of culture. They will press the Korean government to sign the Convention and it has said it will reaffirm its opinion in favour of the Convention. Korean lawyers: there needs to be a decision on whether the WTO is to be compatible with WETO or in competition (they clearly want competition). They could made it enforceable through a general exception provision in WTO agreements. [but would never get it] So need to look at enforcement within Convention.
Philippines: lost 75% of film output in past 2 years.
Australia: They don’t share the unease about the market. It is now 6 months after losing the battle with the US, which lost the understanding of fundamental principles that cultural goods and services are of a special, explicit and unique nature. Some say we have lost and should move on, just talk now about the market. Would like to have the Convention as retrospective so it could have been used with their government. What can Australia now gain from this? The Convention must be effective and allow a future government that is progressive to call on the instrument in this future, It also may allow Australia and Chile to be exceptions, rather than precedents, and protect the small amount of gains they have made in the agreements they have signed. For that to happen the Convention needs to be signed soon. Countries that are not committed should be expected to step out of the negotiations. The Coalition has convinced the government not to oppose the Convention, just abstain.
Cameroon. Culture usually is of least importance in government policy in Africa. A meeting of African cultural professionals recently had got some publicity and governments were then prepared to meet them about the Convention, which was a very important step forward. Intellectuals tend to keep cultural professionals in ignorance. He also pointed out to the difficulty of getting visas to these meetings, and the need for delegations to take information back and disseminate it in Africa.
Uruguay (Book chamber) – Coalition was formed after the Seoul meeting; it took some effort to convince colleagues and required awareness raising around cultural diversity. Their position was adopted by the opposition in the recent election campaign, and it had been elected as the government. This policy included support for the Convention. But they are concerned that they will need to maintain pressure to have the policy put into practice. If the Convention is adopted the coalition will need to consider how it continues working, especially if there is internal frustration in the coalition.
International Federation of Actors (UK based director). The US union had signed an agreement in Budapest to support the convention. Also the international federation of musicians and UNIMADE were involved, in an attempt to get one position. But there is a sense that all are not linked together. Not clear whether they have a common understanding of cultural diversity. They were surprised at the limited boundary. Movement to eradiate IPRs from ‘copy left’ versus need for protection if IPRs and authors rights. Also need to prepare Plan B so the process can continue in UESCO if necessary. Need to maintain an active role of Europe at the WTO.
German Coalition: first participation in a meeting of the Coalitions. Can’t predict the scenarios of what will happen with the Convention. It seems destined to end up with a formal vote, which is unprecedented for UNESCO. There are limited possibilities to introduce new elements. The German approach has been different, with a coalition that includes the Society for Cultural Politics and the Society of the Arts, which are non state public entities. Also Mps and users, who are necessary to generate demand for diversity. They have mobilized in parliament with a plenary debate, resolutions from both major political parties. There is a problem of exchange of communications between trade and culture ministries, and clearly different horizons. It was essential to link to US civil society. They have asked their government for a debriefing after the meeting of 4 June. The period from June to October will be focused on how many governments can be convinced to sing. There is strong interest from Arab countries which should not be ignored. There is also an important question of how to link the arguments about trade and culture in the future.
Argentina: They are celebrating the success of the fight against neoliberalism and identifying the challenges of the next battle. They have held two meetings that were supported by the provincial government or Argentina, where they presented a report on different opinions about the Convention. The cultural dynamic is the fact that expresses the life of our societies and identities.
Canada: We need an instrument we can use in any of our countries. The main objective is set out in Article 5 on sovereignty. Then need to strengthen it with details in the text. It is important to reinforce cooperation. There are two groups of states: those who have made commitments and those who have not. The application of the Convention is different for these two groups. Article 21 is weak. Want mandatory arbitration and adoption of the outcome.
Spain: Need a weapon as well as a defensive instrument.
Chile: Awareness of problems of entering into the game, but which we cannot escape. Need a Convention to challenge the logic of neoliberalism. Must be more than a Declaration of Intentions. Must involve the protection and promotion of cultural expressions. Must also include words that trouble the US. The consolidated text lacks binding strength. We cannot accept wording that involves acceptance of other obligations. Favour the EC proposal that does not subordinate the Convention to other agreements. We should not highlight intellectual property because it is a central issues in the FTAs and WTO where it has lost its original objectives and works against freedom of expression. Cannot subordinate the Convention to IPRs that are secured by the US. Also need effective dispute settlement. Must be concluded in 2005 because of the speed of the FTAs and WTO negotiations.
Lebanese film foundation: They have recovered films from the 1960s and 1970s and circulated them on CDs; many have never been seen before, Cultural diversity is very important for the region and people need to understand each other to live together. Need to protect, respect, strengthen diversity to have peace. Now liberalization agreements are being pressed. People are very poorly informed, something there is no information and they are isolated. Officials say they do not really know what they are doing, they are just trying not to offend their allies. Other countries are in a similar situation. But it is difficult to convince groups in the culture sector to become involved because they do not have the capacity. The have been fighting for a statute for the artists to provide rights to basic welfare, pensions etc. The state takes taxes and revenue from their work but gives them nothing in return. There are no channels for communication with the state. Redemocratication is increasing demand for cultural policies, but the US influence in the region is also increasing. The Convention may have benefits if it has an economic dimension, Piracy is also a survival mechanism in countries that cannot afford market prices.
Japan: US cinema has not proved to be a major threat, indeed its presence revitalized interest in the cinema. But now there is a problem of personnel and capacity. The Video chain outlets are potentially threatening but most currently maintain very diverse holdings (eg Blockbuster).
Mali: are forming a coalition …
British Screen Advisory Council – arguing the case to the EC on GATS “right to maintain our own cultural policies”. EC agreed. Better to waitr to get a strong convention than secure a weak text in 2005. EC recognized the linkages between economic and cultural policies.
Ivan Bernier: Background to the Convention: As an academic, 1987-7 CUSFTA, 1988 seminar on cultural goods. Looked into specific agreement for cultural services exception to the WTO, but there was no room for this. There was no framework solution possible in the WTO, as it worked on a commercial framework. Needed a framework that operated within a cultural paradigm./ So moved away from WTO. 1998-2000 felt that UNESCO may be too cumbersome, but it has not proved so. The Convention must evolve and be able to be amended and corrected as soon necessary by governments. If they fail to reach a decision in 2005 it will be because Japan, US and India oppose it; the delay may benefit them. They are upset by the energy behind the Convention.
Concern that new wordings have lost the objectives of the Convention. Removing square brackets may have created a new opportunity for opponents to demand reintroduction of square brackets and threaten to withhold approval unless they get their way. The search for coherence is problematic if the cultural element of the interface is weaker than the commercial. [not sure about the accuracy what follows] Need to get nearer; cultural starting point that works equally in the commercial branch. Possibility of convergence based on “right of the individual to participate in the cultural life of their community”.
France: Need to celebrate. this is a major achievement within a short space of 4 years.
Mexico: They calculated that $86 billion lost through failure to pay authors rights. Wanted to include in FTA with US. US did not respect moral rights of authors. WTO enforcement mechanisms would allow enforcement of authors’ rights. But insisted this was a negotiation about commercial goods. The Commerce ministry follows the rules of the US on the Convention. Recent agreement between Mexico, Canada and France were to support the Convention. Hope this may be so despite the Commerce Ministry’s approach. At present it looks like Mexican cinema will vanish. Tradition can only be understood as multicultural; it cannot be limited to the commercial world. If monuments are unprofitable, inefficient, do we say they should be torn down? This approach does not work in the cultural sphere. Culture is trying to serve other purposes. There used to be Mexican cinemas in many countries, supported by the Mexican government. After NAFTA Mexican production almost vanished despite having the capacity to produce, because they could not use even 30% of their capacity. Under the FTA distributors and exhibitors control over 80% of the Mexican market, in the best places, dates and options. North American distributors and allied exhibitors, 50% of the income goes to the projection company and only 27% to the producer. 30% was initially protected, this was reduced to 5% in 1998. The cinema sector obtained 30% market share under the law in the cinemas, which was very but large companies dominate the cinema, with over 85% of screenings, So the 30% quota is not fulfilled and there are no sanctions because the US distributors don’t care.
Difference between US and Mexico in treatment of authors, can’t act in the same way. The US wants everyone to use their approach, 1996 draft law for authors rights in Mexico was influenced by the US. No one in government could explain it. The US ambassador wanted an ip law that limited moral rights and authors association as a public entity. We recognized the threat and secured some changes but it is still a patchy law.
Colombia: Bilateral agreements experience helps to understand what lies behind the multilateral negotiations. Colombia, Ecuador and Peru are involved in negotiations with the US for the Andean Pact and FTAA. Coalition was created to coordinate strategy; difficult to group together the sector. Tried to develop their own broad reservation. The problem is of conflicting paradigms. It is difficult to negotiate on the same terms using the same language. The system obliges them to work on different systems in different countries and bear in mind the US strategy. Colombia only has a book law and film law. TV is deregulated. There is difficulty in identifying sectors and definitions. There is no understanding of what culture is in the text. Reference to paper “Chronicle of an Imminent Death”.
South American Inter-Iberian Foundation on films: Cinema is an instruction manual by which we can understand our lifetimes. They have a strategy to support production of films that involve three countries, which guarantees a variety of films and exhibition in a larger market. This scheme accounts to 100% of film production in Cuba. Gives new life to a common cinema market in Latin America through a greater quantity and quality of films, and increased audience,, But it relies on the continued support of governments.
Inter-Iberian States: Cochabamba Declaration 2003, culture had to be recognized as a differential aspect of general agreements because it is integral to identities. This is a time of change, great uncertainty, radical positions are being taken.. Commercial globalization based on technology will standardize the world and take away value from the cultural aspects, so we need to work together and support dialogue between cultures, and maintain democratic access to cultural goods. Creating a geopolitical block where you can talk about culture as you do a geopolitical area.
Senegal: We live near our richness but do not realize our richness. We need to arm ourselves with solidarity and respect.
Francophone alliance: North South cooperation in which language is the cement [colonization is never mentioned in this context!]. Providing a laboratory for cultural diversity. Fought in Johannesburg to see culture as the 4th pillar of sustainable development. Promoting the use of ‘freeware’, digital solidarity with a ‘digital solidarity fund’. Catalyst for national legal frameworks, but this depends on the wishes of individual states. Particular attention was being paid to liberalization of cultural goods and the need to prevent proposals for aggressive liberalization. Governments want to be involved in international markets and often do not realize the traps and pressures that can be almost irresistible. They have a study on free trade on their webpage including an analysis of US free trade agreements. Have appointed informed officials as special ambassadors in the region to help avoid falling into traps during WTO negotiations. Inconsistencies between trade and culture can be a problem – some governments have withdrawn proposals to they can come into line with the UNESCO Convention. Are creating a permanent forum, that is moving beyond national issues to analyse developments.
Spanish Trade CEO: Fully share the objectives on cultural diversity; have some doubts about the means to achieve it. Many culture benefits from the GATT and TRIPS. He placed strong emphasis on benefits from trade in cultural goods. EU has protections in GATS through 7 exemptions to MFN for audio-visual services. France is the main defender of the ‘cultural exception’. Competence on culture is shared between the EC and member states, so it requires unanimous decisions. It takes priority over the desire of the audio-visual industry to negotiate. This will remain so as long as one country has a veto. Currently there are differences about music, some want to deal with it separately.
Spanish culture CEO: Eurostat says 2..5% of people work in the sector. It creates and generates more taxes than are ever received in subsidies. Compatibility to the WTO would mean subordination of one system to another. Complementary implies coordination, The convention could say nothing about the WTO. The solutions et out in the consolidated text is best – a mirror clause, because culture is a public service.
Ambassador Jara (Chile, chair of WTO negotiations on services): A $400 billion industry, which is not reflected in commitments made in Geneva. 5 offers have been tabled in audio visual, four of them from countries that already have made partial offers. Domestic regulation proposals that may require prior consultation with firms from other countries if they propose to regulate reflect similar approaches in the agreements on technical barriers to trade in goods and sanitary and Phytosanitary measures. Proposals for rules on safeguards are problematic for developing countries as they would be likely to be used in Mode 4 (movement of people). Re Convention: concerned about legal techniques and conflicting terms, in different legal systems. There is possibility that it could be harmonised (basically saying Convention is subordinated to WTO).
UNCTAD: looking ahead to see what comes after the Convention. Need to see trade as a tool from a development perspective. UN system assists in bringing an economic perspective to culture, while retaining policy space. Countries are rich in talent but not using it to their best effect.
UNESCO: Since the 2003 meeting inb Paris we have produced a draft within 2 years. Question whether it is strong enough; there are still problems but we have created a dynamic movement. There are three tasks: the schedule is a race, so countries are under pressure, they need a legal instrument they can rely on; there is a fear that momentum will decline if there is a delay. 2. need 2/3 of states to be in favour. EU has the cultural exception and a shared position laid down in the European Constitution. It is important to extend international solidarity, but not weaken the essential elements of the Convention in doing this. It is not an anti-US text; it supports the rights of artists and creators in the US, especially independent ones, and provides access for US consumers to other products. First time the link between trade and culture had been approached from a cultural perspective.
India Ambassador to UNESCO: We have an open mind on the Convention. Committed to cultural diversity and bewildered by ideas that we never thought were that complex. Certain issues are fundamental to the problem facing the convention now:
- is this a Convention for everybody? There is a perspective that the drafting committee has tried to move on majority opinion, but that was not possible because of strong feelings of some that consensus was required. Led to complicated discussions on [ ] and footnotes and where use what terms. So – is this for all or will there be a majority vote?
- Ideological divide exists on whether culture needs to be protected. US says culture needs no protection (India says it does need to protect minority cultures).
- Is this related to trade or not? Is culture not a commodity, or not a commodity like any other commodity? Can’t say it is not a commodity, and then negotiate as if the EC has competence, because then it is trade.
- The relationship of the Convention to other international instruments. Cannot pretend that WIPO can be wished away or the WTO where countries like India are fighting to protect traditional industries. Those commitments cannot be diluted in another convention. India cannot make commitments that are in violation of other international instruments because they will not be able to ratify them at a national level.
- Issues that divide governments: Many Southern governments are not represented in Paris at all. They see this as a trade problem between the US and EC and don’t want to get involved. Cross cutting issues include:
- -definition of cultural goods and services
- definition of cultural contents and artistic expressions
- shall or should obligations
- definitions and implications of using words protection and protect
- whether separate ratification is required for each EC party; associated reference to Contracting Parties if EC or State Parties if national competency. The Convention would need a federal clause if the EC is to ratify.
- EU position that it was not necessary to define protection has unnecessarily held up the process because others have said protection is anathema unless it is defined. Why has the EC been insisting??
The development issue is a core issue to get G77 support. If it is not there or is complicated, or is treated as available to all, they will not support it. A working group co-chaired by South Africa and India fixed articles 12-18. The issue of vulnerable forms of cultural expression was completely unacceptable to some [eg US and Canada where indigenous languages are at threat of extinction]; it survived because of 4 footnotes indicating dissenting views. Those have been deleted and the chair has replaced ‘vulnerable’ with ’at risk of extinction’. This could blow up.
4. Events and Announcements
If we have missed your organization’s event, please contact the Secretariat at incd@ccarts.ca for inclusion in the next newsletter.
4th International Congress of Culture and development
June 6 – 9, 2005
Havana – Cuba
www.cultydes.cult.cu/cultydes4/ing/indexing.htm
Americans for the Arts
June 11-13, 2005
Austin, USA
www.artsusa.org/services/events/eventsa.asp?id=1521
Dynamics of Communication: New Ways and New Actors
Culturelink Network
June 9-12, 2005
Zagreb, Croatia
http://www.culturelink.org/conf/clinkconf/
Interactive Culture Colloquium
June 23-24, 2005
Nantes, France
4th International Conference on Cultural Policy Research – ICCPR 2006
July 12 – 16, 2005
Vienna, Austria
2nd World Culture Forum
World Culture Forum Alliance
September 4-7, 2005
Dead Sea - Jordan
Training for Mobility and Inter-Cultural Relations (training for trainers),
Sept. 8, 2005
Helsinki, Finland
Eighth Conference on European Culture
Centre for European Studies
October 26-29, 2005
Pamplona, Spain
http://www.unav.es/cee/pagina_9.html
World Summit on the Information Society
November 16-18, 2005
Tunis, Tunisia
6th INCD Annual Meeting
Noviembre 17-21
Dakar, Senegal
The INCD would like to thank the Government of Canada for on-going financial support.