Kultur in Gefahr - ITI

22 Artistic Expression in a Corporate World
Artistic Expression in a Corporate World 23
After the failure – or success? – of Cancún this date is no longer a
certainty. It may not be surprising that the issue of culture and trade is on
the agenda again. Some countries have tabled so called communications
on this issue at WTO, with Canada and the US at both ends of the scale.
The Canadian communication stipulates, that ‘GATS cannot be interpreted
as requiring governments to privatise or to deregulate any services. We
recognize the right of individual countries to maintain public services in
sectors of their choice. This is not a matter for the GATS negotiations.’ It
is clear that Canada will not make any commitments that restrict its ability
to achieve its cultural policy objectives ‘until a new international
instrument, designed specifically to safeguard the right of countries to
promote and preserve their cultural diversity, can be established.’ 3
The United States leaves behind what it calls the all-or-nothing
approach from 1993. ‘Some argue as if the only available options were to
exclude culture from the WTO or to liberalize completely all aspects of
audiovisual and related services.’ Such stark options obscure, according
to the US, some relevant facts. For instance, it hides the fact that
‘business and regulatory considerations affect the ability to make and
distribute audiovisual products, both to domestic and foreign audiences.
Creating audiovisual content is costly, and commercial success is
uncertain. Access to the international market is necessary to help recoup
costs. Predictable and clearly defined trade rules will foster international
exhibition and distribution opportunities and provide commercial benefits
that audiovisual providers must have to continue their artistic
endeavours.’ 4
The conclusion in the US communication is that GATS is a very
flexible treaty that is open to making full or partial commitments. However,
especially ‘in the light of the quantum increase in exhibition possibilities
available in today’s digital environment, it is quite possible to enhance
one’s cultural identity and to make trade in audiovisual service more
transparent, predictable, and open.’ The conclusion is that the ‘choices
are not, nor have they ever been, a choice between promoting and
preserving a nation’s cultural identity and liberalizing trade in audiovisual
services.’ 5
3 WTO, Council on Trade in Services, Communication from Canada, Initial Canadian
Negotiating Proposals, 14 March 2001: Doc. S/CSS/W/46.
4 WTO, Council for Trade in Services, Communication from the United States,
Audiovisual and Related Services, 18 December 2000: Doc.S/CSS/W/21.
5 Ibid.
Let’s go back a moment to the remark in the American
communication that creating audiovisual content is costly and that access
to the international market is necessary to help recoup costs. But, there are
different kinds of “costly”. A film, for instance, can be made for 2 or 200
million dollars or euros. By definition it is not true that the higher the
amount of money the better the film. A relevant question therefore is why
audiovisual “content” (at present in the hands of cultural conglomerates)
should be as costly as it is. If we accept that this high price is not a
“necessity” (and it is not, because, for instance magnificent films can be
made for a tiny part of the price of blockbusters), then there would be no
need to have access to international markets to help recoup costs, and
certainly there would be no need to push other creations from the cultural
market. This would fundamentally change the debate on liberalizing
cultural markets, or not, The exaggerated and unnecessary high
production, distribution and promotion costs for cultural “products” do
not provide any justification for the worldwide domination of the cultural
place.
WTO: only commercial perspective
If we follow the United States’ arguments, the service agreement of WTO,
GATS, is a very open treaty. A country can make commitments to liberalize
its trade in culture, but is not obliged to do so. GATS in itself does not
hinder individual countries from regulating cultural markets according to
their wish.
This is true, and not true. Why this contradiction? Presently, GATS
does not force countries to make liberalizing commitments concerning
culture. But this open attitude is not the purpose of the whole of the WTO
system. WTO is a commercially driven organisation whose main goal is to
do away with trade restraints as quickly as possible. All social sectors
should be liberalised, including education, water, the environment,
transport, as well as culture. The US and some other countries consider it,
for instance, unacceptable that in many parts of the world people like to
keep their borders closed to genetically manipulated food. From a
commercial perspective this distorts trade indeed. However, the possibility
that other values may exist are absent in a trade only regime.
What are the major consequences of such a purely commercial regime?