In a vote cast as the battle between global conformity and cultural diversity waged, delegates to a
Question:
In a vote cast as the battle between global conformity and cultural diversity waged, delegates to a UN agency turned aside strong U.S. objections and overwhelmingly approved the first international treaty designed to protect movies, music, and other cultural treasures from foreign competition. The 148-to2 vote at the UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization emerged as a referendum on the world’s love–hate relationship with Hollywood, Big Macs, and Coca-Cola. It was ratified and entered into force on March 18, 2007. ‘‘The American delegate doesn’t like to hear the word `protection,' ’’ Joseph Yai Olabiyi Babalola, clad in the ornate gold robes of his tiny country, Benin, told UNESCO delegates. ‘‘Not all countries are equal—some need to be protected.’’ U.S. officials say the measure could be used to unfairly obstruct the flow of ideas, goods and services across borders. Films and music are among the United State’s largest exports—the foreign box office take for American movies was $19.3 billion in 2009. Assuring access to overseas markets for these products has been a prime U.S. goal at the World Trade Organization. The measure passed at a time of growing fear in many countries that the world’s increasing economic interdependence, known as globalization, is bringing a surge of foreign products across their borders that could wipe out local cultural heritage. France, for instance, has long kept measures in place to protect its film industry against imports, notably Hollywood productions. Called the Convention on the Protection and Promotion of Diversity of Cultural Expressions, the document approved recently declares the rights of countries to ‘‘maintain, adopt and implement policies and measures that they deem appropriate for the protection and promotion of the diversity of cultural expressions on their territory.’’ Cultural expressions are defined as including music, art, language and ideas as well as ‘‘cultural activities, goods and services.’’ Advocates say it could help small nations promote and distribute their cultural products on the world market. What its practical effect would be remains unclear. But proponents and dissenting U.S. officials agree that it would at least allow countries to require that imported movies have subtitles or dubbing in native languages. Supporters including some of America’s closest allies, such as Canada and Britain, called the document ‘‘clear, carefully balanced and consistent with the principles of international law and fundamental human rights.’’ In the vote, only Israel sided with the United States. The showdown came two years after the United States rejoined UNESCO following a two-decade boycott that began over objections to the organization’s media policy. Many American officials said UNESCO was inherently anti-American. ‘‘Everyone would love to make this into some big U.S.-againstthe-world routine. It’s the standing for principles, the U.S. standing for freedom, the U.S. saying things that should be said.’’ U.S. officials have not suggested that the United States might withdraw from UNESCO again over this issue.
Question
1. Will growing fear wipe out local cultural heritage?
2. What constructive steps can governments take to protect their own cultural heritage?
Global Marketing management
ISBN: 978-0470505748
5th edition
Authors: Masaaki Kotabe, Kristiaan Helsen