A
reflection on international relations
Involved for several
decades in a transition phase due to globalization coinciding with the end of the cold
war, the international system today is characterized by instability, complexity and
fragmentation. An analysis by political scientist Marie-Claude Smouts.
At the end of this
20th century, crises and breakdowns follow one another diplomatically and strategically
without sustainable reconstructions appearing to take shape. In the economic and social
sector, each new problem can be subdivided into a number of both interdependent and
specific underlying issues, which nobody could claim fully to control. Recent disputes
about "mad cow" disease or genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are one
illustration of this.
For the politicians,
the possibility of defining and applying a universal view of the international order seems
to become more remote as the players, the roles and the methods of political expression
diversify on the world stage. The tense atmosphere of discussions about the notion of
involvement at the UN General Assembly, in October, 1999, demonstrated this once again.
This fluidity in the
international sphere did not start with the collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe. The
first signs could be seen as early as the 1970s with the monetary crisis, the failure of
North-South dialogue, the rise in (legal and illegal) transnational forces, the spread of
armed conflicts not controlled by the major powers, etc. The end of the Cold War amplified
these tendencies and speeded up the process of disruption.
Two major
shocks
With the fall of the
Berlin Wall, the last barrages that still hindered the two major phenomena coming together
at the end of this century gave way: an unprecedented globalization of trade and a general
crisis in the traditional models of political identification.
Whether it is
admired or deplored, globalization has, almost everywhere, weakened the social compromises
on which the fragile balance between the three spheres interlinked in collective life:
economic, political and social rests uneasily. It has introduced profound change in
people's relationship with time and space. The dispersion of the places of economic
decision-making has weakened territoriality, the principle of control over people and
things in a space defined by boundaries.
Not only do the
intermediate bodies organized on national bases (trade unions, regions with a measure of
autonomy, local authorities, parliaments etc.) no longer have any hold over the major
changes which affect them, but the rise in the black economy is no longer the prerogative
of the developing countries. A large part of trade eludes any official control and defies
borders, reducing capacities for control associated with the territory even further. The
global time of the economy and of financial transaction is superimposed on the local time
of the city, region and state and the financial transaction dominates it. The long period
of democracy has been shaken up.
If it was a severe
shock for the populations of Western Europe or Japan, despite all the social shock
absorbers at their disposal, what can be said about the population of the poorest
countries or of those countries "in transition" thrust, with no safety net, into
this "casino capitalism"1 ?
Because they are not
aware of the rules and cannot take advantage of them, those excluded from globalization
find themselves totally confused, with no reference points and no hope. There is a strong
temptation to reject it all: a system which leaves them at the side of the road, a West
that has not been able to offer them anything else. It is against this background that the
enlargement of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the European Union, among
other things, is being negotiated, and relations of the G82 countries with China and the
emergent countries are finally being played out.
Learning the rules
of the market economy and building democracy require time and support. The venture is all
the more delicate since cultural methods of political identification are being proposed on
all sides. In contrast to liberalism and the lawful state, these are not defined in
universal terms, but play on distinctive identities. Democracy and politically expressed
aspiration is talked about everywhere. But the nature of the entity to which we want to
pledge our allegiance is not always bound up with the idea of state.
The rise in
community identification based on language, ethnicity or religion, the assertion of
distinctive micro-identities on increasingly smaller scales lead to a crumbling of the
political aspect, of which the example of the Caucasus, former Yugoslavia or the Africa of
the Great Lakes currently show all the destructive potential.
At the same time,
the revival of the sacred, and its deviations through sects and fundamentalist religions
of every kind have a growing political function on the world stage (China itself is not
spared by sectarian movements).
Finally, the
increase in influxes of immigrants and people displaced in their own country emphasizes
these multiplication and diversification phenomena of political allegiances out of touch
with the idea of national sovereignty. The State is but one player among many, competing
with players "free from sovereignty", who seek ways of ensuring their well-being
and security through channels other than citizenship.
Three
challenges for global government
For the architects
of international policy, the challenge to be met is threefold. On the one hand, it is
about creating an order governing relations between the major powers: the United States,
Russia, China, the European Union and, to simplify matters, South-East Asia and the
countries of Mercosur. In many respects this challenge is a conventional one. It
concerns the sphere of strategic diplomacy and the well-known problems of relationships of
power.
And yet the major
difference with previous international systems is the extraordinary heterogeneity of the
units involved. It is no longer exclusively a question of states in the conventional sense
(a territory, a population, an effective government), as in the time of the European
alliance, but also of regional groupings with vague borders and of countries
which have broken down. Here not only does co-existence have to be organized, but
existence as well (Russia, for example). It is a radically new situation.
The second challenge
is that of regulating globalization, particularly financial globalization. The 1997 crisis
in Asia, the difficulties of Brazil and Russia and the bankruptcy of the LTCM American
speculative fund have highlighted the malfunctionings of a system left to its own devices
and the continuing threats which it represented to the global economy. The major gurus of
the economy and the world business elite represented at the annual meeting in Davos
(Switzerland) are beginning to be concerned about the effects of unbridled deregulation.
The beginnings of a demand for greater monitoring of the movement of capital and a better
controlled liberalization of the national markets are in evidence
There is no
consensus as yet on the nature of the reforms to be carried out, but it is known that the
creation of a "new international financial structure" will assume that a certain
number of international organizations will be overhauled: International Monetary Fund
(IMF), Bank for International Settlements (BIS), Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD), etc. Discussion is in progress on these issues, while the
consolidation of the international trade rules, another facet of regulation, is the
subject of intense negotiations with the Millennium Round, which opened in Seattle (United
States) in December 1995. The third challenge is posed by those resistant to the
principles of a world
order, either because they do not find themselves in historical conditions allowing them
to submit to it (poor states, states in transition, etc.), or because they fundamentally
object to it (cheating states, that scorn international rules by engaging in inter-state
or civil conflicts, by acquiring weapons of mass destruction..., Mafia networks, etc.). It
forces us to rethink the mechanisms of cooperation, the way in which flows of aid combine,
"conditionality", but also the conditions of a political dialogue, which could
affect populations and encourage them to get involved in international life otherwise than
by fraud, violence and the deleterious effects of under-development.
Marie-Claude Smouts
Director of Research at the CNRS, Centre for International Studies and Research (CERI)
The
Battle of Cultural Diversity
Catherine Lalumière, French
Member of the European Parliament
Is culture a
possession like any other, able to be governed only by the laws of the market and of
competition? It is because France believes that culture cannot be reduced to a product to
be traded that it has become involved in this battle against the growing uniformity and
standardisation of the world in order to preserve the diversity of cultural output. A
challenge as much political as economic.
The French were
probably the first to introduce the concept of cultural exception into international
relations. This was during the GATT1 negotiations in the 1990s, when the question of
whether the liberalization of trade - and later, with the MAI (Multilateral Agreement on
Investment) of investment - should be applied to cultural goods and services was raised.
The demand for
liberalization came, and still comes, from the United States, the biggest producer of
cultural goods and services, especially of media products. France, supported by other
countries such as Canada, was worried about the risk of invasion of its territory by these
American "products", not only for economic reasons (our balance of trade was
already showing a large deficit), but for cultural reasons and reasons to do with national
identity, the danger being that we would see the inhabitants of our country progressively
adopting American ways of thinking and their approach to life.
In the GATS (General
Agreements on Trade and Services) in 1993, France obtained some satisfaction. Cultural
goods and services were not excluded from the area of negotiation, but the European Union,
adopting the French position, refused to make an offer of liberalization which would have
permitted the opening of its market and the application to all of the domestic treatment.
This is what was known as the "cultural exception".
Since then, this
non-liberalization allows us to retain our national and European policies of broadcasting
quotas (on television and radio) and financial aid (for production and distribution) in
particular to protect our film industry.
After the failure of
MAI at the OECD2, in December 1998, largely motivated by the worries of cultural circles
about an excessive and ill-conceived liberalization of investment, the question was again
raised during the latest round of WTO3 negotiations, held at the end of November 1999 in
Seattle, in the United States. They saw an American offensive regarding liberalization in
the new audiovisual services, for example, those to do with the Internet and E-commerce,
etc. The problem is thus not quite a new one, but has taken on a new intensity as this
century approaches its end. Why?
The battle - for it
is a genuine battle, albeit a peaceful one - is to do with the fact that it is not
primarily about trade and industry. The question is something not only much more difficult
to get to grips with, but also something much deeper, namely, the identity of a people and
the individuals who are part of it.
It so happens that
we live in an era of globalization, in which ideas and life styles are tending to become
more uniform, an increasing uniformity occurring above all under the influence of the
American model. All those attached to their history, their traditions, their language,
their philosophy or their religion, are experiencing anguish and anger before the threat
hanging over that which they hold most dear deep within themselves.
The urgent
need to become aware
There is in this
fear an awesome force, that politicians must take into account, for it has the potential
to provoke violent demonstrations of rebellion. Globalization, today, is accused of all
that disturbs and threatens people's lives. It is almost certainly irrational and
excessive.
On the other hand,
it is true that human beings cannot accept the destruction of their culture without
reacting, for this would be not only an impoverishment but the loss of their identity and,
ultimately, of their entire reason for living.
We are only at the
start of this phenomenon, of which most of the peoples of the Earth are not yet aware. But
it can be observed that increasing numbers of individuals are aware that their culture is
fragile, that their language is spoken less and less, that their history is being
forgotten, that their creative artists are being discouraged... This growing awareness is
starting to penetrate not only rich countries, but also emerging countries and developing
countries, whose opinions are going to carry weight in future negotiations at the WTO.
Furthermore, there
is increasing talk not of cultural exception (the expression is too negative and
restrictive), but of cultural diversity, the goal being to prevent the development of a
uniform world by preserving the diversity of cultures as one does by defending
biodiversity in order to conserve the diversity of species. Cultural diversity is
therefore primarily a fundamental political goal for the future of societies in every part
of the world.
It is also, quite
clearly, an economic question. Cultural goods and services are not, any longer, secondary
activities, somewhat marginal as compared to agriculture, heavy industry or financial
services. On the contrary, all the factors are converging to make it a particularly
dynamic sector in the future.
On the one hand the
new technologies are providing many more ways of transmitting pictures and sound (e.g.
digital transmission). On the other, changes in the patterns of life (longer life,
lowering of the retirement age, reduction in working hours, etc.) are leading more and
more people to develop cultural leisure activities. In short, anything that affects
"communications", in other words, equipment for the production and transmission
of images and sound, is developing at top speed. The same can be said of the production of
the "contents", films, TV-films, records, etc.
The turnover of the
big companies in this sector are head-spinning.
A vital
union
Thus this sector
will have an extremely important influence on the creation of wealth and on jobs. No
country can remain indifferent to this challenge. The French have understood this, but
their task is far from complete. In the first place, they have to convince other partners,
first inside the European Union since in future WTO negotiations we will be represented by
the Commission on a mandate from the Council of Ministers. Even if, in such matters, the
unanimity rule means that France has the ability to block a decision, it remains no less
true that it would be much to be preferred if the Fifteen were united in this fight.
But our allies
should also come from other parts of the world6. Canada has vast and exceptional
experience in this area. If any country knows what is meant by cultural diversity,
especially in Quebec, it is Canada, which has shown how far it is prepared to go in order
to defend it. The South American countries too, are endeavoring to emancipate themselves
from their over-powerful neighbor. In the United States itself, the existence of large
minorities (e.g. Hispanic) means that a great many Americans understand the necessity of
protecting cultural diversity, which is both a valuable asset
in itself and the assurance of social harmony.
Secondly, we too
should confess our sins. If France feels itself vulnerable and fears that its culture and
language are under threat, it is also because it has been negligent. Perhaps through
pride, or lack of awareness, it believed itself rich, endowed with a cultural heritage so
old and so brilliant that it was inexhaustible and indestructible. It did not see the
danger coming of industrial methods of production and distribution which would not only be
applied to the metallurgical or textile industries and other material goods, but were also
to affect the culture and the arts. The film industry is, from this point of view, a prime
example.
France invented the
cinema more than a hundred years ago. But in the 1930s and 40s it considered it to be only
entertainment, marginal to the economy as a whole. In the same period, the United States
was building Hollywood and laying the foundations of what was to become a formidable media
industry with its own distribution channels.
Moving to
the offensive
Today, through the
concept of cultural exception, we are trying to survive within the shelter of our
frontiers. But this is not enough. An offensive policy has to be conducted, not only by
the French and European authorities, who have already begun to act, but also by those
working in the industry. They must produce in a competitive way, and, what is also
essential, distribute. True, being able to produce and sell does not automatically lead to
the creation of masterpieces. But there will not be any long-lasting fine work if a
powerful industry and efficient distribution channels have not been built up beforehand.
This does not mean that production units necessarily have to be large, nor that all works
must necessarily be commonplace or appeal to the masses.
In the face of
American culture, which, particularly in the audiovisual industry, benefits from
formidable production and distribution resources, we cannot on our own hope to win against
such dominance. Our culture needs to be organized and promoted as much with drive as with
a modern approach.
Is this language
shocking, because it goes against the very essence of our humanist and sophisticated
culture? Contrary too, to the very notion of a cultural asset? It is almost certainly less
shocking than depriving our culture of the resources enjoyed by American culture. A
well-run economy can serve cultural creative activity. It will thus provide it with the
resources to develop and extend its influence.
Can one reasonably
believe that cultural diversity will be better preserved if barriers are built around each
culture rather than giving each culture the resources to create, survive and export
itself? In fact, we must do both: put up barriers in order to get our breath back and
organize ourselves; and, as soon as possible, launch an offensive vigorously and
without a complex, both inside and outside our borders...
(January 2000 Label France
Magazine, Embassy of France) |
