|
|
|
33rd UNESCO General Conference
October 17, 2005
Intervention by Ambassador Louise V. Oliver
Permanent Delegate of the United States of America
Item 8.3 - Preliminary Report on the Draft of a Convention on the
Protection of the Diversity of Cultural Contents and Artistic Expressions
As Delivered
|
Thank you Mr. Chairman,
Mr. Chairman, Excellencies, Distinguished Colleagues,
After an absence of almost twenty years, the United States of America returned to UNESCO two years ago with genuine enthusiasm to address the important areas of concern that fall within UNESCO’s mandate – education, science, information and communication, and yes, culture. Because the United States is among the most culturally diverse countries in the world, and because we cherish, celebrate and promote cultural diversity, we looked forward to engaging constructively in what we expected would be an open-minded process aimed at reaching a true consensus on an instrument promoting cultural diversity that we could embrace with pride.
We have not yet had that open-minded process, and this is not that instrument.
As we noted in our closing remarks at the final intergovernmental meeting in June, the document we have before us is “deeply flawed and fundamentally incompatible with UNESCO’s constitutional obligation to promote the free flow of ideas by word and image.” This draft is the product of the May intergovernmental meeting, during which we were asked to base our negotiations on a completely new text, the so-called consolidated text, that was only given to us in mid-April. We do not believe, therefore, that we have had either the time or the opportunity for a serious negotiation of this draft text, which was subsequently adopted by vote at the end of the May intergovernmental meeting. Although we have had some informal discussions recently, no actual negotiations have occurred since June.
The result is that there are still a number of defects in this draft convention. One that merits specific mention is that ambiguities in the text might be misused by a government as a justification for adopting policies and measures that would
protect and promote the majority culture within its territory, at the expense of minority cultures. We are particularly troubled by provisions of the Convention that seem to provide undue scope for interference by governments with freedom of expression, information and communication, as well as with the ability of individuals to adopt cultural expressions of their choosing. We believe the goal of this convention should not be to create a situation of exclusion, of pitting one culture against another, but to encourage more diverse, intercultural dialogue, as mandated by UNESCO’s constitution.
Another major drawback is the lack of clarity in Article 20 on the relationship of this Convention to other international agreements. Under the provisions of the convention as drafted, any State, in the name of cultural diversity, might invoke the ambiguous provisions of this convention to try to assert a right to erect trade barriers to goods or services that are deemed to be cultural expressions. That term, “cultural expressions,” has never been clearly defined and therefore is open to wide misinterpretation. Such protectionism would be detrimental to the free exchange of ideas and images. It could also impair the world trading system and hurt exporters of all countries.
Distinguished colleagues and friends, although for the past two years UNESCO’s Director-General has repeatedly called for a consensus text, a desire for speed rather than a demand for a quality consensus text seems to have driven the process for crafting this particular instrument. The door to negotiation that might have led to consensus on this convention was slammed shut in the face of unresolved, legitimate, and reasonable U.S. concerns. Unfortunately, it has stayed shut. And we have stood here on the threshold, knocking on the door, asking to negotiate.
We have been told that we came too late to this table, that the fundamental, underlying ideas of this convention were agreed upon long before the United States re-entered UNESCO. But we keep knocking on this door, despite these rebuffs, because as a nation, the United States is at the forefront of cultural diversity, and we want to be part of a true consensus on a positive UNESCO convention on cultural diversity.
For the past four months, we have been told constantly by various states that it was too late to negotiate this text – that not a single comma could be changed. But in fact, we had the time – here, at the General Conference – to negotiate, if countries had been willing to make a good faith attempt.
The changes my government is asking for are reasonable. I look forward to explaining each of the amendments proposed in our Draft Resolution, which you have before you and which we will be discussing later today. My delegation and I are still ready to pursue negotiation of these amendments, night and day if
necessary, for as long as it takes. This is too important a document, and the consequences of adopting a flawed text too serious, for us to ignore our responsibility to do everything possible to try to reach true consensus.
Thank you Mr. Chairman
|
|
