|
Preserving Culture, or
Curtailing Freedom?
On October 20th, by a vote of
148 to 2, the United Nations' Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO)
www.ictsd.org/weekly/05-10-26/story4.htm
approved the Convention on the Protection and
Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions
(unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001403/140318e.pdf
preliminary draft). Only the U.S and Israel
dissented. The Convention will be in force after
ratification by 30 governments. Before that
happens, the U.S. should withdraw from UNESCO as it
did in www.state.gov/p/io/fs/2002/13482.htm
1984.
What is the Convention,
and why is the U.S. hostile toward it?
The international legal
agreement is sometimes called the Convention on
Cultural Diversity (CCD). Article 1 states that
sovereign nations should be allowed to implement
"policies and measures…they deem appropriate
for the protection and promotion of the diversity
of cultural expressions on their territory."
Article 8 reaffirms that goal.
But the CCD is extremely
vague as to what constitutes "cultural expression."
Article 4 defines "cultural content" as "the
symbolic meaning, artistic dimension and cultural
values that originate from or express cultural
identities."
This vagueness of
definition usinfo.state.gov/is/Archive/2005/Oct/20-504183.html
worries American officials. Cultural expression
almost certainly includes movies, books, music,
theatre and journalism…but what else? For
example, French wine, cheese, bread and a wide
variety of other consumables might be viewed as
integral to French culture. If so, the CCD
authorizes France to take whatever
"measures…they deem appropriate" for cultural
protection. Presumably this means subsidies,
tariffs, and other trade barriers. www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2005/54690.htm
The State Department has expressed concern that the
CCD could become "a basis for impermissible new
barriers to trade in goods, services, or
agricultural products that might be viewed as being
related to 'cultural expressions'."
Indeed, the CCD may be
more usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2005&m=October&x=20051012123119AKllennoccM0.8266413&t=eur/eur-latest.html
about trade than culture. Some argue that its
vagueness is actually a bargaining chip to be used
against the U.S. during upcoming talks
www.wto.org/english/news_e/events_e/events_e.htm
at the World Trade Organization.
But far more is at stake
than economics.
The CCD is a blatant
attempt to place world culture under the control of
governments. A free flow of ideas and expression
characterize both the marketplace and freedom
itself. In its place, the CCD wants the equivalent
of 'culture cops' in every nation, with an
overriding 'culture court' called the
Intergovernmental Committee.
The power grab is
justified in noble terms. The CCD claims to protect
'minority cultures' and to promote diversity. Some
nations may be sincere but several not-so-noble
motives are also in play.
One of them is resentment
over how well American culture sells when consumers
are free to buy. Movies, blue jeans, rock music and
jazz, toys, soft drinks, McDonalds, literature from
Playboy to comic books… As Neil Hrab
www.techcentralstation.com/102405E.html
comments in Tech Central Station, the CCD is "an
effort to punish the US for too-successfully
exporting its… cultural products around the
world."
The Heritage Foundation
www.heritage.org/Research/InternationalOrganizations/wm885.cfm#_ftn1
concludes that the CCD "is more about…cultural
prejudice than cultural diversity and
understanding." The Foundation warns, "Imagine how
much bolder such a convention will make countries
like Burma, China, Iran, or Cuba, all of which are
notorious for restricting freedoms, especially
freedom of speech and of the press."
This is yet another
ignoble motive. Oppressive regimes know that
controlling culture is key to controlling what
people think and feel.
China is an extreme
example but it dramatically illustrates the
relationship between culture and political control.
It is no co-incidence that China's drive to embed
communism as the dominant ideology and to quash
political opposition was called www.cnd.org/CR/
"the cultural revolution." Purging the 'old
culture' became a top priority. People were not
permitted to retain the old culture even in the
silence of their minds; those who did were
"re-educated" in camps or simply killed.
Governments fear culture
so much that they will expend huge amounts of
energy and money to suppress a movie, a thought, or
-- as www.heritage.org/Research/InternationalOrganizations/wm885.cfm#_ftn4
in Iran recently -- the mere act of children
dancing. They fear culture because it is a threat
that cannot be truly controlled.
Culture is the accumulated
knowledge, experience, beliefs, and customs within
a group, which emerges over time and can be passed
to others through literature, music and other
expression. It cannot be created by government. You
can't vote culture into being; you can't pass a law
to turn a movie into a beloved classic. Culture
emerges spontaneously and defies political
control.
The freer a society, the
more vigorous and diverse its culture, and vice
versa.
Hrab asked an intriguing
question in his commentary. "Thanks to the spread
of personal electronic devices and the rise of
sites where you can download content from the
Internet, will this 'right' to regulate mean
anything? Can governments seriously influence the
viewing/reading/listening habits of citizens
anymore?"
Again, China is
instructive. To pacify the Beijing regime,
Microsoft's Chinese portal recently banned access
to certain words. The Financial Times
yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=5856
reported, "Attempts to input words in Chinese such
as 'democracy' prompted an error message from the
site: 'This item contains forbidden speech. Please
delete the forbidden speech…'" With the
current ease of duplicating books and movies,
however, it is difficult to believe that even
draconian measures can stem the cultural
flow.
For several reasons, the
CCD may well be unenforceable. But any attempt at
government control can only harm what the CCD
purports to protect: diversity and freedom of
expression.
Those goals exist only
when individuals are free to embrace the culture
they prefer; when they have choice. And the best
thing government can do is get out of the
way.
©2007, Wendy
McElroy
* * *
Wendy
McElroy is the editor of ifeminists.com
and a research fellow for The Independent Institute
in Oakland, Calif. She is the author and editor of
many books and articles, including her latest book,
Liberty for Women: Freedom and Feminism in the
21st Century. She lives with her husband in
Canada. E-Mail.
Also, see her daily blog at www.zetetics.com/mac
Contact
Us |
Disclaimer
| Privacy
Statement
Menstuff®
Directory
Menstuff® is a registered trademark of Gordon
Clay
©1996-2023, Gordon Clay
|
