A NEW INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENT ON
CULTURAL DIVERSITY
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
by Ivan Bernier
Although globalization is first and foremost an economic
process, it also a cultural process in the effects that it has. By engendering
a new economic structure that is based largely on competition and tends to
impose a single commercial mould on all the expectations that citizens have in
various realms of activity, globalization fosters new forms of social
organization that call into question traditional ways of doing things and
existing loyalties. If these changes upset people, economic globalization itself
could suffer the consequences. The economic and cultural globalization
processes can therefore be considered interdependent, with the success of one
depending on the success of the other.
Unfortunately, there are many signs that these two
processes are not advancing hand in hand and that globalization is currently
being achieved to the detriment of cultural diversity. The failure of the third
ministerial meeting of the WTO in Seattle in December 1999 marked a turning
point in the perception of this danger. Although the meeting failed for reasons
that go well beyond the demonstrations that surrounded it, the size of these
demonstrations clearly highlighted the very real concerns in society over the
effects of globalization. Although the numerous interest groups taking part in
the demonstrations had divergent views and interests, they were animated by a
common desire to question a globalization process based exclusively on
commercial considerations that seems to escape real democratic control. Even
though cultural considerations per se were
not centre stage at the events in Seattle (in contrast to the final months of
the negotiation of the Uruguay Round in 1993 and the negotiation of MIA in
1998), much of the anti-globalization discourse was still fuelled for many
observers by the pace and extent of the changes imposed on society by
globalization and the consequent feeling that cultural references are being
lost. Far from dying down after Seattle, this discourse has only increased in
intensity. Which gives to think, as
suggested by Faouzia Zouari, that “[translation] the precedence that
economic imperatives take over social and political values, backed by the
prodigious expansion of the information highway, is challenging national
identities, sometimes driving them into retreat and even into aggressively
asserting counter-models.”[1]
It is important to add, though, that even if globalization is changing
national cultures in the anthropological and sociological sense, this does not
mean that any political initiative that might influence these cultures in one
way or another should be rejected. To assert the contrary would be to attempt
to freeze culture and national identity and lend them a meaning that would only
benefit those people who hope to turn them into instruments of political
control. Any national culture that is to remain vibrant and alive must adapt
over time to a variety of changes, both internal and external. The real problem
that globalization poses for national cultures is whether the changes that it brings
about in values, lifestyles, and ways of doing things detract from the
opportunity to “[translate] promote and maintain a pluralistic public space
where citizens can access and participate in cultural life, which is itself
necessary for public life.”[2] In other words, it is not so much a question of whether the
liberalization of trade, with its underlying commercial mindset, affects values
and traditional lifestyles, but whether this liberalization is understood and
wanted by the citizens and whether it leaves enough space beyond the simple
producer-consumer relationship for the democratic expression of the cultural
choices that these citizens wish to make.[3]
Here too, it is far from clear that globalization is having a positive
effect, on balance, on the exercise of the right to cultural expression if this
issue is considered from the standpoint of the national production of cultural
goods and services. There are at least three good reasons for concern. The
first, somewhat older but still very present concern is related to the massive
influx of foreign cultural products (films, records or CDs, books etc.), which
to some extent stifle domestic cultural production, thereby depriving the
affected communities of the symbolic discourse essential for their own
development. This is all the more alarming in that the creators of culture and
cultural intermediaries play a key role in adapting cultures to change since
they create a space where national values and foreign values can confront one
another, as can the values and behaviours of the past and those of the future.
The second concern has to do with the concentration of production and the
marketing of cultural products by large industrial groups, and the consequent
standardization of cultural expression under the influence of basically
commercial imperatives. The third, more recent concern is with exclusion from
the international cultural space as it is currently being constructed with the
new information technologies (the Internet, etc.). Despite all the opportunities
that these new technologies provide to express the diversity of cultures, there
is a very real danger of a deep digital divide between countries that have
access to these technologies and those that do not. In all three cases, it is
the basic right to cultural expression that is at stake.
- Lack of a
comprehensive vision of the effect of globalization on cultural diversity.
The most serious and obvious deficiency lies in the fact that the existing
instruments take a fragmented approach to the problem of preserving cultural
diversity, coming at it from various distinct standpoints such as human rights,
intellectual property rights, heritage protection, cultural policies, language
rights, cultural pluralism, cultural development, international cultural
cooperation, etc. What is lacking is an instrument like that on bio-diversity,
which would clearly identify the nature of the threat that globalization poses
to cultural diversity and would establish principles and rules for ensuring
that this diversity is preserved. Even though globalization has some potential
in this regard, it also clearly poses some serious dangers that need to be
considered.
- Difficulty
of addressing the commerce/culture issue head on. Most of the instruments
pertaining to this issue (and there are not very many) confine themselves to
stating that cultural products are not products like any other. One could reply
that if this situation exists, it is because of the lack of a consensus on this
issue, and the actual challenge is to bring about a rapprochement between the
commercial perspective and the cultural perspective. There is some truth to
this, but in order to achieve such a rapprochement, the cultural perspective
must first be openly expressed. It is still as if everyone is afraid to say
that each state is entitled to determine from a cultural standpoint and on the
basis of its own conditions and circumstances the policies that are needed to
ensure the preservation and promotion of cultural diversity because of a
concern that the liberalization of trade in the world would be hampered. As we
saw earlier, though, cultural expression is a key factor in the ability of
various cultures to adapt to the changes imposed on them by globalization. To
address the question of the relationship between culture and commerce
exclusively from the standpoint of commerce is to subject culture to commercial
imperatives and thereby prevent it from playing its own role. The ultimate
outcome of this approach will likely be the impairment of both cultural
diversity and international trade.
- Insufficient
consideration of the imbalance in international cultural exchanges. This
imbalance, which is especially pronounced in the audio-visual field, appears in
the cultural exchanges of both developing and developed countries. Developing
countries, for their part, generally have domestic markets with quite limited
resources and are usually dependent for most of the cultural products they
consume on imports from a few developed or developing countries. The same is
true of the exchanges between developed countries, where the dominance that one
or a few countries have in their domestic markets is generally achieved at the
expense of foreign productions. Imports from developing countries are virtually
non-existent in these cases. In both instances, cultural diversity suffers, not
only in regard to the expression of national cultures but also in regard to
openness to other foreign cultures.
- Insufficient
consideration of local needs. Cultural diversity is found not only on the
national and international levels but also on the local level, and it is
important to give more consideration to the mounting local problems. It might
be interesting to pool the experiences of a number of countries in this regard
(Greg Baeker, Inventory on Cultural Diversity Challenges and Opportunities).
- Basically
declaratory texts. The various kinds of international instruments that
already exist in the cultural area can be regrouped broadly speaking into two
distinct categories, those instruments that are not considered legally binding
(declarations, resolutions, action plans, recommendations, principles and
guidelines) and those instruments that are legally binding (charters,
protocols, conventions and treaties). In practice, the two categories of
instruments have been used about equally, but when legally binding instruments
are used, they have often retained a largely declaratory character. If the new
instrument is to be limited from a formal point of view to a simple
declaration, it could end up in the same position as a large number of other
instruments that, however useful they are, do not really respond to the
challenge of globalization. What is needed, at a bare minimum, is an instrument
that reflects the positive commitment of the signatory states to take action in
favour of cultural diversity and that contains a mechanism for monitoring this
commitment.
It is obvious that one international
instrument on cultural diversity cannot address every last deficiency. We will
see below what choices must be made to meet the most urgent needs. It is
important, though, for the proposed instrument to be capable of further
development so that all the deficiencies can eventually be dealt with.
The objectives of an international instrument are generally laid out in
the preamble. The primary and secondary objectives can be distinguished from
one another. The former express the basic purpose of the instrument (e.g. the
liberalization of trade in the case of WTO), while the latter refer to the
outcome expected from the achievement of the primary objectives (rising
standards of living, full employment, and increased trade in the case of WTO).
In regard to the new instrument on cultural diversity, the following objectives
are suggested in light of the observations formulated in the previous pages.
- Ensure that cultural
diversity is preserved and promoted in the face of the challenge posed by
globalization, on the understanding that cultural diversity implies both the
preservation and promotion of existing cultures and the greatest possible
openness to other cultures. This is the paramount objective of the new
instrument. Since it is responding to a problem that is first and foremost
cultural, this fact must be clearly reflected in its norm-setting contents.
- Provide a set of principles
and disciplines that contribute to making cultural diversity an instrument of
democratic expression, social cohesion and economic development. Although the
primary objective of the new instrument remains the preservation and promotion
of cultural diversity, it is nevertheless true that cultural diversity plays an
important instrumental role in the achievement of other social objectives, such
as democratic expression, social cohesion and economic development. This role
should also find expression in the new instrument, although it should not
thereby be turned into an instrument of democratic governance or economic
development as such.
- Provide a mechanism for
monitoring the commitments made by the signatory parties. This objective is
intended as a partial response to critics who say that the existing cultural
instruments are ineffective.
Priority Areas
While we recognize the importance of taking steps to preserve and
promote cultural diversity everywhere (i.e. on the international as well as the
national and local levels), it seems essential at this stage to take action
primarily in the areas of most immediate need in the face of globalization. The
following priority areas are therefore suggested.
- A first priority area is
governmental action to ensure vigorous, diverse cultural expression on the
national level. In addition to meeting a basic right of individuals and
communities, this action is essential for social cohesion and for democracy to
function within the state. Insofar as the actions that can be taken are
concerned, they will support the measures already adopted by various countries
(measures that will have been identified in reports produced by ERICarts). The
instrument will look at various policy choices that can be used by the state to
achieve its cultural objectives, while insisting on the right of every state to
choose the measures that it deems most appropriate in view of its own
circumstances and conditions.
- A second priority is openness
to foreign cultural productions. This area naturally complements the first
because cultures very often develop and evolve through contact with others. It
is also widely admitted that contacts between cultures make a major
contribution to the development of creativity “as the ability to solve problems
in other than purely ‘cultural’ terms.”[5] In this sense, it could be said that the problems that arise in regard
to the preservation of cultural diversity also affect the opportunities for
creativity to flourish and, in the end, economic development itself.[6] Among the types of action that might be considered, we could mention
measures to facilitate exchanges, measures to foster the consumption of a
variety of cultural products, cultural cooperation agreements, co-production
and co-distribution agreements,[7] as well as increased monitoring of dominant positions on domestic
markets.
- A third priority area is taking
the particular needs of developing countries into account. These needs include
both developing a capacity for cultural expression within these countries
themselves and opening the markets of the developed countries to products from
developing countries and to the creators of these products. These needs are
particularly urgent in view of the new information society. Although the
emergence of the information society will likely increase the access of
developing countries to information and provide an opportunity for them to
develop a programming industry whose products reflect the richness and
diversity of their cultures, the real question that arises for a number of
developing countries in view of their scanty communications and
telecommunications infrastructures is simply whether they will be able to
participate at all. Various kinds of intervention can be considered in this
regard, ranging from positive discrimination in favour of cultural products
from developing countries (as is already done under the Generalized System of
Preference for developing countries) to the establishment of mechanisms for
providing technical and financial assistance, without forgetting the recurring
request from developing countries for steps to facilitate the international circulation
of their creative people.
- A final priority area is the
measures that are needed to ensure flexible, efficient monitoring of the
commitments made by the parties. These measures respond to the clearly
identified need for a binding instrument that would go beyond simple
declarations. Even though the parties agree in good faith to uphold their
commitments, it is apparently necessary to have a mechanism that will make it
possible, at a bare minimum, to evaluate the progress made toward the implementation
of the instrument. This mechanism could take the form, for instance, of
periodic reports that the parties submit on the measures taken and the
difficulties encountered in implementing their commitments. Other possibilities
could be considered, such as a standing forum on cultural diversity or an
agency to monitor cultural diversity.
Ideas about the
Architecture of the Instrument
Besides the preamble describing the background of the new instrument and
its objectives, the new instrument should also include, if one is to judge by
the discussions at the expert group meeting in Paris in December 2000, a first
part that is educational and declaratory in nature and explains in simple terms
why action must be taken to preserve cultural diversity. (The main arguments
are the cultural argument, referring in particular to basic cultural rights,
especially the right to have access to one’s own culture, the democratic
argument, referring to the objectives of participation, social cohesion and
peaceful coexistence, and finally the economic argument, referring to the
contribution made by cultural capital and creativity diversity to development).
This first part should also contain a series of definitions of the chief terms
that are used, including culture, cultural diversity, cultural communities, and
cultural industries.
The actual norm-setting contents of the instrument could be structured
in various ways. They could be structured, first, on the basis of the subjects
in the "baskets" developed at the last meeting of the working group
in Paris. As one will recall, these subjects dealt, among other things, with
the preservation of cultural heritage, recognition of the role of artists and
cultural creation, the protection of intellectual property, recognition of the
special nature of cultural goods and services, cultural development,
majority-minority relations, interculturalism and multiculturalism, and respect
for human rights. However, there seem to be too many subjects here, and these
subjects seem, at first glance, to be too disparate to serve as the basis in
their current form of a coherent, effective text on cultural diversity.
The norm-setting contents could be structured, secondly, on the basis of
the kinds of intervention needed to achieve the basic objective of the
instrument, namely the promotion and preservation of cultural diversity. The
proposed instrument could distinguish in this regard between intervention
related to upholding individual rights in respect of culture
(non-discrimination, freedom of cultural expression, right to participate in
the cultural life of one’s community), intervention related to the promotion
and development of cultural identities (affirmative action in favour of
cultural communities), and finally intervention related to the preservation of
cultural diversity on the international level (affirmative action in favour of
developing countries, the right of the state to intervene in order to preserve
its own cultural identity when this identity is threatened).
Finally, the norm-setting contents could be structured on the basis of
the priority areas suggested previously, which have the advantage of adhering
more closely to the overall objective of the instrument, namely the
preservation and promotion of cultural diversity in the face of globalization.
Whatever
choice is made, it is essential that the instrument, in its normative
part, establishes a direct link between
the objectives, the principles that underlie the realization of those
objectives and finally the measures or actions necessary to realize those
objectives.
[2]
See Marc RABOY, Ivan BERNIER, Florian SAUVAGEAU and Dave ATKINSON, Développement culturel et mondialisation de
l’économie, Québec, Institut québécois de recherche sur la culture, 1994,
p. 77
[3]
See in this regard the excellent study by Jeffrey L. Dunoff entitled “The Death
of the Trade Regime,” (1998), European
Journal of International Law, Vol. 10, no. 4, p. 733.
[5]
Néstor García Canclini, “Policies for Cultural Creativity,” UNESCO,
Preparatory Paper 3, Stockholm Conference on the Power of Culture, p. 5.
[6]
http://www.unesco.org/culture/development/highlights/activities/html_eng/roundtable3.htm
[7]
Such agreements, which are incompatible in principle with most-favoured-nation
treatment, are authorized exceptionally for a period of ten years under the
General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). A decision about the future of
escape clauses of this kind will be made during the current GATS negotiations.