Here's a fun topic for your next essay on globalization: Is it really necessary to ban "The Simpsons" outside the U.S. in order to foster peace and understanding around the world?

I don't mean to knock poor old Homer. I could have chosen Donald Duck or Angelina Jolie, Britney Spears or Steven Spielberg -- even Michael Moore. Or any American pop-cultural icon you care to think of (or one you probably don't, like Michael Jackson). Because the crucial question your essay should address is: Does America's cultural hegemony need to be curtailed for other cultures to survive and prosper?

Some people think so. And they have gathered around a United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) treaty on cultural diversity to do just that. These folks believe that "globalization, in its powerful extension of market principles, by highlighting the culture of economically powerful nations, has created new forms of inequality, thereby fostering cultural conflict rather than cultural pluralism." They want to make it harder, and more expensive, for the handful of countries that dominate world cultural markets with their products (no bonus marks on your essay for guessing which ones) to distribute them around the world.

The final text of the treaty was adopted in early June 2005 by 127 countries, led by France et Canada, out of the 135 participating in the negotiations (the United States voted against). It is expected to be adopted in October when the final vote takes place in - bien sur - Paris. If it does, the resulting treaty will spell trouble for America's cultural industry, for several reasons.

The most important is that cultural products like films, TV shows, music or books, will no longer be treated as commercial commodities so ordinary free-trade treaties or organizations, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) or the World Trade Organization (WTO), will no longer apply to them. As a result, countries will be allowed to subsidize their own local cultural productions, or limit access to their domestic markets, as they see fit.

Pushed to its logical conclusion, it means Norway would be able to impose limits on how many screens are permitted to show American movies. Canada could continue to force its radio stations to play a certain percentage of Canadian songs or face penalties. It would also allow France, Russia, or Libya to impose tariffs on American books, CDs, movies and television shows if they wanted to.

It's not hard to understand why the U.S. government is opposed to the UNESCO treaty in its present form. The U.S. supports expanding cultural liberty around the world, but not at the price of limiting people's choices to consume whatever cultural products they want.

As everyone on both sides of this debate understands, the treaty would not exist were it not for the fact that people usually choose to consume American products. Just recently, I was watching "Spy Game," with Robert Redford and Brad Pitt. In one crucial scene, two good guys are trying to broker a deal with a shady Chinese character who's mainly interested in the subtitled rerun of "Baywatch" on the TV in the background.

The folks who fashioned the UNESCO treaty on cultural diversity believe that "globalization . . . has created new forms of inequality, thereby fostering cultural conflict rather than cultural pluralism."

A few years ago while visiting a Swedish friend in Stockholm, I noticed just how large a proportion of what's on TV there comes from America - once again, with the obligatory subtitles (very useful to learn the language). Here in Canada, American shows and movies are everywhere; there's even a dubbed version of "Desperate Housewives" for the benefit of French-speaking Quebecois. And for some reason, people in France are utterly nuts about Jerry Lewis. Take that, Jacques Chirac.

It would be bad form to promote an treaty on cultural diversity based on either the envy of America or nostalgie for bygone cultural hegemonies. Instead, to support the view that the world needs to level the playing field between Hollywood and Bollywood, UNESCO argues that "respect for cultural diversity and intercultural dialogue is one of the surest guarantees of development and peace."

Well, I'm in favour of both. But I'm having just a bit of trouble understanding how making it more difficult for Americans to export their cultural products abroad is going to help. And it will surely not help to make it more expensive and more difficult for non-US consumers to get the cultural products they enjoy. (Think of the black market for Beatles records in the USSR.)

In many Arab countries, television stations are owned and controlled by the state. What, exactly, has this done for peace in the Middle East? Or, for that matter, for cultural diversity or intercultural dialogue? Why, Malaysia specifically banned Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ," because government authorities did not wish Muslims to see it (the film was later approved, but only for Christians). That's a strange definition of dialogue. And has it done anything to improve the 24 million Malaysians' standards of living - 2004 per capita GDP: $9,700, compared with $40,100 for Americans?

By contrast, many American movies have inspired viewers the world over to fight for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Think "Casablanca," "Hunt for Red October," "Forrest Gump," "Mississippi Burning," "Schindler's List," "The Wizard of Oz." Those are among my favorites. But what about other people elsewhere?

In his autobiography, The Name Above the Title, director Frank Capra tells of inspiring scenes happening in occupied France as the Nazis announced a ban on all English and American films. According to one news story:

"The French people flocked to the cinemas to get seats for the last showing of an American film. In many provincial theatres Frank Capra's 'Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,' in the original English version, was chosen for the occasion and a special farewell gala performance was staged. Storms of spontaneous applause broke out at the sequence when, under the Abraham Lincoln monument in the capital, the word ‘Liberty' appeared on the screen and the Stars and Stripes began fluttering over the head of the great Emancipator in the cause of liberty. Similarly cheers and acclamation punctuated the famous speech of the young senator on man's rights and dignity."

Mr. Capra adds that "one theater in a French village in the Vosges Mountains played Mr. Smith continuously during the last thirty days before the ban." A reporter who witnessed the events in 1942 wrote, "It was as though the joys, suffering, love and hatred, the hopes and wishes of an entire people who value freedom above everything, found expression for the last time . . . " Almost as touching as the final scene from "It's A Wonderful Life," isn't it. It could even be the beginning of a beautiful friendship.

That's not to say all popular movies are American. Think "La Vita è Bella" (Italy), "Run Lola Run" (Germany), "Amelie" (France), "The Barbarian Invasions" (Canada), the "Five Obstructions" (Denmark), or "Infernal Affairs" (Hong Kong). U.S. moviegoers are certainly not shy about patronizing foreign movies they like and they wouldn't stand for their government trying to deprive them of that right. America is one of the most culturally diverse places on earth, and its thriving cultural industry deserves at least some of the credit for that. How would restricting access to Hollywood movies help the Dutch sustain their own culture? Or help foster peace and understanding around the world?

If you find a good answer to that one, send your essay to UNESCO.






Contributed by Brigitte Pellerin, a writer and broadcaster based in Ottawa, Ontario. Reprinted with permission from A World Connected.

To read another Global Envision article about global culture, see Globalization And Values: A Contemporary Paradox.