Highlights:

Vol. 3, No. 1, January 2005

The UNESCO Convention Process:
Stakes Rise for Second Meeting as Progress Slow During December Drafting Committee Session

The urgency of UNESCO Member States making significant progress during the second intergovernmental experts session scheduled for January 31 to February 12 has greatly increased as it becomes clear that little progress was made by the drafting committee during their four days of discussions held in Paris December 14-17.

Selected during the first intergovernmental experts session last September and composed of representatives of four member states from each of UNESCO’s six regions, the drafting committee was charged with developing a new draft text that incorporated both the comments made during the Sept. 20-24 intergovernmental session along with the written comments submitted by Member States in November.

But during their December meeting, the drafting committee members were only able to progress as far as Article 11 (out of 31) of the draft text of the proposed convention on the protection of the diversity of cultural contents and artistic expressions.

One indication of just how slow the discussions moved is a report indicating that the committee spent the better part of a day simply debating the title for the convention.

No less serious, the committee was unable to pare down the vast array of new wording proposals submitted by UNESCO Member States in their written comments submitted in November.

Although the committee did get as far as signaling which of the various formulations for the first 11 articles had obtained the strongest support among the various members of the committee, they were unable to eliminate those proposals that attracted no support, nor distill similar proposals into single proposals.

Significant divergences regarding scope

The minimal progress achieved during the December drafting session reflects a reality that became apparent during the debate last September: there is strong philosophical support for a convention, but when discussions progress into substance it is clear that the concept of cultural diversity holds widely different meanings for different Member States.

This is similarly clear from the formal written submissions filed by some 88 Member States in November. The number of briefs filed shows the high level of interest in the convention. But a review of them confirms that much work will have to be carried out in order to keep the scope cohesively focused on protecting the diversity of cultural contents and artistic expressions—as originally called for in the resolution unanimously adopted by UNESCO’s Member States at their 32 nd General Conference.

Countries that have been championing such a convention from the beginning of this movement in the late 1990s clearly affirmed the importance of keeping the text focused in line with the October 2003 resolution—notably, Canada, the European Union (which filed a joint submission on behalf of its 25 member countries, with the additional support of Croatia and Romania), Mexico and Senegal, among others.

However, other countries, including some perhaps engaging in-depth in the debate for the first time, argued for greatly widening the scope of the convention to address a conception of cultural diversity that sprawled well beyond cultural contents and artistic expressions to include human values, ways of life, religion and other issues. Although their perspectives vary significantly, these countries include Saudi Arabia , India , Venezuela and others.

The U.S. strategy: dilute and delay

Then there is the United States, which peremptorily proposed its own page-one rewrite of the UNESCO Convention—a rewrite which would effectively eviscerate it of meaningful content—while simultaneously making a series of statements proposing to make common cause with those countries seeking to sprawl the scope, thereby taking it away from its original purpose: to reaffirm the sovereign of countries to have policies designed to ensure the diversity of cultural contents and artistic expressions within their countries and, ultimately, at the international level.

In its comments, the United States also noted that the October 2003 resolution did not require that a draft convention be submitted for adoption at the 33 rd General Conference next October—clearly signaling their preference for pushing back the process by a full two years to 2007. In other words, the strategy of opponents of a true convention is clear: delay and dilute.

At the time of this writing, then, the ultimate outcome of the UNESCO process for the convention is far from clear, both in terms of what the content of the convention will ultimately be and how long it will take.

The February intergovernmental session will be key

On both counts, the January 31 to February 12 intergovernmental experts session looms large. If a convention is to be proposed for adoption next October, UNESCO rules stipulate that a draft text must be circulated to member states at least seven months prior to the General Conference. This means the Director General’s office would have to circulate a draft of some kind by March, just a few weeks after the second intergovernmental session.

After that, there will be an Executive Board meeting in April, and a third, and final, intergovernmental session tentatively scheduled to run from May 31 to June 14.

The experience of the process followed for developing the convention on intangible heritage, which was initiated in 2001 and successfully negotiated in time for adoption at the 2003 General Conference, suggests that the DG’s office could pull together some form of text that would meet the letter of UNESCO’S rules while still allowing for significant reworking during the June intergovernmental session.

But it must be noted that many Member States are attaching much greater importance to the outcome of the current convention process than was the case for intangible heritage. Which means that it is far from certain that a consensus can be forged during an intense final two-week negotiation session in June, as was the case in 2003 with intangible heritage.

Leader countries: the ball is in their court

Clearly, the gauntlet has been thrown down for those leader countries which have from the beginning sought to secure a convention that would enshrine in international law the sovereign right of countries to develop, implement and maintain cultural policies designed to ensure the diversity of cultural contents and artistic expressions at the domestic and international levels.

The challenge facing them is how to quickly build support for a focused convention, expanding this base of support to at least a clear two-thirds of UNESCO member states—the minimum required for the convention to be adopted.

For there to be a realistic hope of this scenario playing out successfully, the Member States must make major progress at the second session starting January 31, nailing down not just scope, but moving forward well into the body of the text of the convention—the principles, objectives and those specific articles (notably 5 and 6) which set out the rights and obligations of Signatory Parties to have cultural policies, as well as those (16) by which countries commit to programs of international cooperation—notably through the proposal to establish a fund to assist developing countries in developing cultural policies and nurturing their own cultural industries so they can fully participate in the exchange of cultural contents and artistic expressions among countries.

Leader countries will have to make their positions clear on Articles 13, 16, 19 and 24

A further concern arising from the slow progress to date relates to the crucial issues of the convention’s relation to other international instruments, which are mainly addressed in Articles 13 and 19, as well as the question of the convention’s follow-up mechanisms, in particular the type of dispute settlement mechanism that will be adopted (addressed in Article 24).

In broad strokes, some key countries championing the convention—such as the European Union countries and Canada—have largely deferred discussions on these questions until the end of the process, when the content of the convention itself has been worked out.

These are major issues, and the question arises whether these leader countries risk losing the initiative in the debate on these questions by not electing to set out, right from the start, a comprehensive vision of how they see an effective convention functioning, including how it would relate to other conventions, and how disputes would be addressed.

At the same time, it is worth noting that in their written comments many countries did choose to address the question of the convention’s relationship to other conventions by taking a position on the two options presented for Article 19. While several countries did come out in support for Option B—which flatly rules out any derogation from commitments countries have agreed to in previous international instruments—and others expressed their preference for developing new wording entirely, the UNESCO Secretariat concluded that the strongest support was expressed for Option A, which envisages some limited latitude for countries to derogate from commitments in prior international instruments in order to take measures in situations where cultural diversity is ‘in a situation of risk or threat’.

The cultural milieu will have to pursue the debate at the highest levels of government

In the months ahead, national coalitions for cultural diversity and organizations representing cultural professionals will want to not just monitor this process closely. They will want to engage in regular discussions with the government officials in their country responsible for establishing their country’s position in this debate. In this context, it bears repeating that this is a debate that extends well beyond national cultural ministries and engages ministers responsible for foreign affairs (typically the department that provides direction to national delegations at UNESCO), and also ministers responsible for international trade. In many cases, ultimately it is a country’s head of government who will determine a country’s position on this debate.

So the challenge is clear: work to refocus the debate around the text of the convention to one consistent with the tight scope set out in the October 2003 resolution that set the convention process in motion, and make sufficient progress in the next intergovernmental session to put the process back on a realistic track to have a convention ready for adoption by member states at the 33 rd General Conference next October.

TOP

As UNESCO Process Advances,
WTO Timelines Loom Larger as Well

Last July’s relaunch of the World Trade Organization’s Doha Round of negotiations underscored the reality that even as the UNESCO process to develop a convention on the diversity of cultural contents and artistic expressions moves forward, countries will be facing decisions about whether or not to make liberalization offers on cultural goods and services in the context of the WTO talks.

The immediate milestone comes this May, when WTO member states will be asked to file revised liberalization offers on services.

The initial deadline of March 31, 2003 , produced an underwhelming response—with only a few states electing to file offers, a clear signal of the difficulties the Doha talks had run into, mainly around the issue of agricultural subsidies.

Since then, there has been a steady trickle of states weighing in with initial offers—at last count, 71 states had reportedly been filed.

If the integrity of the UNESCO process is to be protected—that is, if the objectives of the UNESCO Convention are not to be pre-empted by countries making liberalization commitments on culture in trade negotiations—it is imperative that wide support be built for the concept of a moratorium on such commitments in trade negotiations while the UNESCO Convention is being negotiated, adopted and ratified. This is true in the context of multilateral talks such as the WTO’s, but also of regional negotiations (such as the Free Trade Area of the Americas, which have foundered but may yet be put back on track), and bilateral talks, which continue to proliferate.

The United States continues to pursue bilateral negotiations in all regions of the world, seeking to persuade other countries to accept broad liberalization commitments across the entire cultural sector, notably the audiovisual sector, is one of their prime objectives in these negotiations.

Many other countries are also engaged in their own bilateral and negotiations. As early as May 2003, WTO Director General Supachai Panichpakdi stated that there were more than 300 bilateral and regional trading arrangements in place.

During the period when the UNESCO Convention is being developed, one model for approaching such negotiations is Canada ’s, which has already incorporated an outright exemption of culture from its bilateral negotiations with Chile , Costa Rica and Israel . Australia and Singapore incorporated a similar wholesale cultural exemption in the bilateral Free Trade Agreement they signed together in February of 2003.

TOP

Cultural Organizations from 18 Francophonie
Countries Gather in Burkina Faso

Twenty-five representatives of cultural organizations from 18 Francophonie member countries gathered in the town of Ouahigouya , Burkina Faso , November 21-23 to discuss ways in which they could work together to advance the campaign to secure an effective convention on the protection of the diversity of cultural contents and artistic expressions at UNESCO.

Hosted by the Burkina Faso Coalition for Cultural Diversity and its president, Rasmané Ouadraego, and organized in partnership with the International Liaison Committee of Coalition s for Cultural Diversity, the meeting’s participants included delegates from the national coalitions for cultural diversity from Belgium, Benin, Canada, France, Senegal and Togo, and representatives of cultural organizations from Cameroon, Ivory Coast, Egypt, Gabon, Guinea, Lebanon, Madagascar, Mali, Maurice, Niger and Tunisia.

A significant focus of the meeting was on mobilizing cultural organizations at the national level to work together in engaging their governments to support the UNESCO process and, in the meantime, to refrain from liberalization commitments in trade negotiations that would risk constraining their ability to have cultural policies.

At the conclusion of their meeting, the delegates approved a declaration strongly supporting the Convention process now underway at UNESCO and calling on the Francophonie member states to continue their strong engagement in favour of securing an effective Convention through this process.

On November 24, a four-person delegation led by Rasmané Ouadraego and including R. Pilon of Canada, M. Gautherin of France, and G. Koteit of Lebanon traveled to Ouagadougou to present the declaration to the conference of ministers responsible for Francophonie affairs held on the eve of the Summit of Heads of State and Government and to discuss with the ministers the state of play in the campaign to secure the convention at UNESCO.

During the November 21-23 meeting, delegates from African countries also held a dedicated meeting to formally establish an African coalitions network, and elected Senegal to serve as president of the new structure. The network will serve to coordinate the work of the existing national coalitions, to encourage the formation of new coalitions in other African countries, and to advance the mobilization in favour of a strong UNESCO Convention through interventions in various regional and sub-regional fora such as the African Union and ECOWAS.

The Ouahigouya meeting of cultural organizations was made possible with financial support from l’Agence intergouvernementale de la Francophonie.

TOP

Deaths of Togo Coalition President, Gabon Musician
Active in Cultural Diversity Movement, Mourned

Friends and colleagues were saddened by the sudden deaths late last year of two African artists active in the cultural diversity movement.

On December 25, Corneille Kossi Akpovi, the founding president of Togo ’s Coalition for Cultural Diversity, died at the age of 41 after a short illness, reports the coalition’s vice president, Kokjo Noussouglo. An actor and a musician known for his virtuoso technique on the kora, he was active in founding numerous arts training initiatives and cultural festivals and founded the cultural institution l’Espace Arema in Togo ’s capital of Lome .

Just weeks earlier, Gabonese musician Félix Eferol Eboa died suddenly after falling ill during the meeting of Francophonie cultural organizations in Burkina Faso November 21-23. A career musician, Eboa had a long track record of contributing his time and energy to improve the situation for working artists from all sectors of culture.

On behalf of everyone working within the international movement of coalitions for cultural diversity, the publishers of Coalition Currents extend condolences to the families of these two fine African artists, as well as to their colleagues and friends.

TOP