October 23, 2005
YEAH, THAT'LL WORK (via Mike Daley):
The New Puritans (EURSOC Two, 21 October, 2005)
France scored a minor cultural victory against the United States yesterday when the UN's cultural arm UNESCO voted overwhelmingly to support a Paris-backed convention protecting national cultural practices.The convention, which was backed by 148 of the 154 governments present yesterday, allows nations to exclude cultural goods and services from competition. It adds that access to culture from a variety of nations is a "fundamental right" and that only the implementation of "true national cultural policies" can allow cultural production to take place in every country, thus making cultural diversity possible.
In short, UNESCO agreed to the nationalisation of culture. Only the US and Israel voted against the convention, though four others abstained. Britain supported the French position, with the UK's ambassador Timothy Craddock claiming that the convention was "clear, carefully balanced, and consistent with the principles of international law and fundamental human rights."
Fair enough: Few would disagree that the people of say, Iran, North Korea - or even China - should be allowed to enjoy the diversity of cultures outside their national boundaries. However, to argue that enthusiasm for the convention was based solely on the wish to extend the cultural horizons of the citizens of these benighted countries is disingenous.
In fact, many treaty supporters will use the convention as an excuse to exclude foreign influence in the name of protecting national culture. The so-called fundamental right to diversity could be satisfied by inviting approved theatre tours from friendly states. Or - just imagine - the Havana Festival of Chinese, North Korean and Venezuelan Cinema.
France's obvious delight at the convention's success - it sees it as a "manifesto for alternative globalisation" - sits uneasily with its usual tolerance of closed regimes.
There may be indeed be nobler aims in the treaty, but Britain (and every other country on the board) knew exactly what they were signing up to: Yet another transnational slap in the face for Washington.
Because, let's face it, which culture do most of these elites imagine that their citizens are most under threat from?
Unless they ban books, movies, TV and the Internet how do they avoid contiunuing Americanization? Posted by Orrin Judd at October 23, 2005 8:31 AM
UNESCO attempts to answer questions that have perplexed us through the ages:
"Two hands clap and there is a sound; what is the sound of one hand?" If a tree falls in the forest and there is nobody around does it make a sound?
The sound of one hand is a slap in the face, but empty gentures are silent, so there is no sound.
"[Censorship of culture]. . .makes cultural diversity possible."
Once again we see that truth and logic mean less than nothing to a Marxist.
Now let us compare the very concept with the rationale our Supreme Court has adopted to justify racial quotas, namely that we shall be unjust so that "diversity" be advanced.
We recall how American culture penetrated and brought down the FORMER SOVIET UNION. Of course you are correct in observing that the successors of the Communists will be similarly unable to keep our idea away from their subjects.
Posted by: Lou Gots at October 23, 2005 10:02 AMDoes this mean that lefties will stop complaining about how hard it is to get The Tin Drum in this country?
Posted by: Governor Breck at October 23, 2005 10:16 AM"If a tree falls in the forest, does it makes a sound."
"How do you know it fell?" — Ernie Pantuzzo
(And the glass is not half full or half empty, but is either too big, or properly filled (if with wine).)
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at October 23, 2005 12:06 PMGiven how much of the "culture" of these countries is funded by their central governments, this is probably just an excuse to keep doing what they've been doing: subsidize homegrown movies/TV/etc., thus putting imports at a disadvantage.
Posted by: PapayaSF at October 23, 2005 6:05 PM