今年十月, UNESCO通過一個保護文化多元 cultural diversity 的公約, 遭到美國的反對, 認為這個公約會使荷里活的文化工業受阻.
Open democracy 裡有一篇文章簡介為什麼美國要反對這條公約的背景, 當中涉及WTO中的服務業條款(GATS), 其於1995年開始把文化工業, 包括出版, 電影和廣播定為服務業開放的清單. 若把文化工業放進清單裡, 政府對獨立出版和獨立電影的資助就違反協定.
較早前紐西蘭有一個學者在香港講解WTO對教育和文化的影響時就指出, 紐西蘭因為把文化工業納入GATS的開放清單中, 結果所有的電視台都充斥著美國廉價的肥皂劇, 本地生產因為進入不了世界市場, 而得不到投資.
以下是一段節錄, 全文見 Open democracy:
The WTO agenda and the problem of free trade
These issues, and many more, are at
the core of an international debate on the extent to which cultural
policy measures should be affected by bilateral or regional trade
agreements or by the multilateral trade regime of the WTO.
In regard to cultural goods –
books, newspapers, magazines, and sound recordings – they are largely
bound by the terms of the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs
(Gatt), an agreement dating back to 1947 but which was given
enforcement teeth only in 1995. Cultural goods are not permitted to be
subject to discriminatory trade barriers, except for film, where screen
quotas are specifically allowed. But Gatt does not apply to services,
like broadcasting or audiovisual production.
In 1995, a General Agreement on
Trade in Services (Gats) was entered into, and the US – on behalf of
the Hollywood studios – tried desperately to include broadcasting and
audiovisual services within its ambit, so as to outlaw discriminatory
quotas and subsidies in this area. But in a famous confrontation with
Europe, it failed to achieve this objective.
Cultural services are only covered by
Gats if a country elects to do so. And only New Zealand – to its later
regret – so elected. But further trade liberalisation in services is
still on the WTO agenda, and the US is pressing hard to make it happen.
In the absence of forward
movement at the WTO, the US has sought to achieve the same objective by
including broadcasting and audiovisual commitments in bilateral trade
agreements. Recent examples of such agreements involve Chile,
Australia, Morocco and Central America.
In these so-called free trade
agreements, the US has sought to have countries give undertakings not
to discriminate in favour of local cultural products. Given their
leverage in bilateral negotiations, they have often been successful,
although some countries have managed to grandfather their existing
measures.
So what is the problem with trade liberalisation in regard to cultural products?
Simply this: free trade treats
cultural products the same as ordinary commodities and stops countries
from discriminating in favour of local cultural products. Free trade
would stop the tool kit of cultural measures that are needed to make
the market more diverse and to provide more choice.
A so-called “free market” would
simply institutionalise the stark imbalances that characterise the
world of popular culture. It would support the blockbuster effect and
the exclusion of small independent titles; it would imperil cultural
diversity.
The problem with leaving these matters
to the WTO is obvious: the WTO is insensitive to culture. It is driven
by flawed economics, and disputes are decided by trade academics who
cannot recognise cultural distinctions.
So, where do we go from here?
Protecting independent film: a “cultural toolkit”
Clearly we don’t want to infringe
freedom of expression and to prohibit the importation of foreign
cultural products. Local cultural expression can be impoverished if it
is not open to foreign ideas, but it can equally be impoverished if it
is dominated by the voices of another country.
In the end, it is possible to put
together a “cultural toolkit” of measures that governments can take to
sustain or develop a broader range of popular cultural products,
without undermining freedom of expression. What do these measures
include? Here are six examples of how cultural policy can support
independent film:
- Most common around the world, the
institution of public broadcasting. This is a key support measure for
cultural diversity, because you can give public broadcasters a mandate
to support independent local film. - The imposition of reasonable scheduling requirements on private
broadcasters and other cultural gatekeepers. Scheduling that requires
the broadcast of program genres that would otherwise be
under-represented, like independent film. Again, this is a common
strategy used in many countries. - The imposition of expenditure requirements on cultural gatekeepers
to support the programming that is hardest to finance. For example, the
pay television services in France, Canada and Australia all have to
devote a proportion of their gross revenue to investment or licensing
of local films. - The application of foreign ownership rules in certain sectors. This
hopefully adds local “green lights” for the benefit of indigenous
producers, so they more doors to go to besides Hollywood. - The use of competition policy measures, to support independent
production and to lessen the dominance of gatekeepers. An example is
the rule in Canada requiring broadcasters to acquire at least 75% of
their drama and comedy from independent producers. - The support of the creation or distribution of independent film
through subsidies or tax incentives. A recent innovative example is the
UK Film Council “digital screen network” initiative.
Most of these measures have weaknesses
as well as strengths, and they need to be carefully drafted and
implemented in order to be fair and effective. In addition, the
cultural policy appropriate for one society may be quite different than
that for another, just as every cultural product is unique. A number of
structural measures, when properly applied, can be quite effective in
maintaining a level of pluralism in cultural expression. This has
proven to be true not only in countries around the world but even in
the US where conventional wisdom disdains any regulatory involvement in
programming.
The Unesco convention: can it make a difference?
This takes us to the Unesco convention.
On 20 October 2005, Unesco members voted overwhelmingly – 148 to 2 – to
adopt a new international convention on cultural diversity which
recognises the unique nature of cultural products and seeks to permit
government to take reasonable measures to support and enhance diversity
of cultural expression without fear of trade retaliation.
As I have noted, there is a
compelling economic case for keeping cultural products out of trade
agreements that otherwise might preclude countries from maintaining
space and choice for local and diverse cultural expression. However,
the US tried to stop, dilute or defer the Unesco exercise, fearing
(quite rightly) that it will prejudice its efforts to stop countries
from having measures that support cultural diversity.
Even if the agreement goes forward, and
it will if at least 30 countries ratify it, the US will never sign it
or be bound by it. What then, is the point of the convention?
Well, first, let’s understand what the
convention will not do. It doesn’t affect past WTO commitments by
countries. What’s done is done. It doesn’t empower countries to stop or
prohibit foreign content, and it doesn’t stop the US from continuing to
press for trade liberalisation in cultural products.
So what does the convention do? I see it as achieving five objectives:
- the convention blesses the toolkit of government measures to support cultural diversity
- the convention educates the world that cultural products are different from ordinary commodities
- for the benefit of developing countries, it creates a fund to help them in producing local distinctive cultural product
- the convention supports freedom of expression
- most significant, the convention dissuades countries from further
trade liberalisation in the cultural sector, and strengthens their hand
in resisting pressure to do so
The debate at Unesco has seemed to pit
many countries against positions taken by the US government and its
entertainment industry. But this is not an anti-American dialogue. In
fact, the same factors that create imbalances in the flow of popular
culture around the world also impoverish diverse creative expression in
the US. The economics of the blockbuster and the prevalence of
gatekeepers is just as problematic for pluralistic expression within
the US as it is outside it.
The cultural diversity
convention was originally a Canadian idea, first suggested six years
ago by a trade advisory group of which I was a member. But I can tell
you that none of us thought it would come so far so fast. The
convention has led to a fascinating cultural awakening around the
world.
People now are beginning to
realise that cultural diversity is more important than ever before.
Technology, when properly harnessed and guided, can benefit diversity
but it needs that cultural toolkit in place.
The Unesco Convention is an important
step. Cultural groups from around the world have recognised the
problems identified by the convention and have made it their own. And
that is the most significant achievement of all.