A Thousand Flowers

ROME

The lone superpower is getting more lonely at the top.Already isolated in matters of war and peace, the United States has struckanother discordant note -- this time by opposing a UN convention on culturaldiversity that the rest of the world supports. What could be wrong with saving aricher legacy for future generations rather than the alarming standardisation oflanguage and lore brought on by the galloping pace of globalisation?

The latest American rejection adds another burden to the bulging box oftreaties, pacts, agreements and ideas that strike a chord in minds across globebut fail to impress Washington. What the majority sees as the "public good,"the US sees as an act designed to hurt its power and presence. Last week, anoverwhelming number of members of the UN Educational, Scientific and CulturalOrganization (UNESCO) voted to protect cultural diversity of local traditionsand minority languages from the creeping uniformity of fast food joints anddetermined flooding by soft drink companies. Not everything about globalisationis or can be great. 

For the second time this month, the European Union (EU) abandoned theAmericans and sided with the rest, leaving the US to survey the world insolitary splendour. Israel did vote with the US but it seemed too much likegiving cover to Washington than a real vote. The Europeans are always trying tocarve a separate space for themselves on the world stage away from theAmerican shadow, specially after the disaster in Iraq. That UNESCOheadquarters are in Paris added an extra twist since France was a vocal opponentof US policy in Iraq and EU’s walking over to the "other" side even morestinging for the Americans since Britain holds the rotating EU presidency. Itappears even Tony Blair has reached his limit. Stretched thin bridging thetransatlantic divide, he is inching his way back to the rest of the continent,at least on less calamitous issues.

Earlier this month, again under Blair's presidency, the EU shocked theAmericans by supporting moves by China, Brazil and others to loosen the UScontrol over Internet governance. The world’s most powerful communication toolis indirectly overseen by the US Commerce Department and Washington has let itbe known it wants to retain primacy beyond 2006 when its writ ends. The ongoingbattle might be hidden from public view but rest assured it is raging in fullferocity.

Internet and cultural diversity. One could be used tosave the other. But US officials say the UNESCO convention is a ploy to erecttrade barriers against "cultural exports" of films and music -- meaning theproducts of Mighty Hollywood and the gargantuan media empires. They offered 28amendments -- all designed to emasculate the convention -- but they were allrejected. The US side claimed the convention would empower countries to"control" culture on the one hand and block outside imports on the other..However, many American concerns were taken on board and action taken.Despite inclusion of phraseology promoting "free flow of ideas andinformation" and accommodation of other US worries, Washington still votedagainst the convention and US ambassador to UNESCO, Louise Oliver, declared thelanguage "vague and contradictory" and open to misinterpretation. 

The debate was bitter, the diplomacy hectic and the results disappointing forthose who had been negotiating for two years. They would have liked the UnitedStates to sign on, specially because Washington rejoined UNESCO only two yearsago after walking out of the organization in 1984 altogether. But the USnegotiating stance was described as "over-my-dead-body" by a diplomat, andborne out by Ambassador Oliver’s sharp and categorical reaction after the votewhich was greeted with cheers in the hall. She called the experience"extraordinarily disappointing" and talked of a long-lasting impact on theway Washington views UNESCO. Another walkout? Another budget cut? Dissingthe United Nations is politically lucrative on Capitol Hill.

Even as the United States sets about repairing its battered image abroad, thetendency to impose its world view creeps in, resulting in driving Washingtonfurther apart from the rest of the world. Over the past decade, Washington hasrejected the Kyoto Protocol on climate change and the International CriminalCourt, insisting there isn’t enough scientific evidence on global warming onthe first and demanding exceptions for US soldiers from the second. 

So what went wrong this time?

The differing worldviews on the question of cultural diversity are at least adecade old. The French, with their separate culture ministry and a pronouncedtendency to keep their language pure from foreign interventions, have beenfighting this battle against the Americans for long. The Americans remember howthe French won a "cultural exception" clause during the Uruguay Round oftrade liberalisation talks under which a country could subsidize its film, radioand print industry to protect it from extinction. European cinema was finding ithard to survive against Hollywood’s onslaught. They see the new convention asa continuation of the same story, another tool in the hands of those who want toerect barriers against Hollywood. Indeed, supporters of the convention say thatit would have legal weight in negotiations at the World Trade Organisation oversuch issues as cinema, publishing and the Internet. 

But the convention lacks any mechanism to settle disputes or intervenesignificantly between countries -- another reason why US fears are seen asunreasonable by many diplomats. UN conventions function as settlers ofguidelines and principles, not as primary enforcers of law. The original idea onprotecting cultural diversity proposed by France and Canada -- an Americanneighbour -- was to treat all cultural issues under the protective umbrella ofUNESCO and remove them from the WTO agenda. Their argument was that a Goddardmasterpiece can't be treated the same as a tube of toothpaste.

The rest of the world agrees but not the Americans.