The cultural exception is in the bag, in principle. The inclusion of the cultural exception in the future agreement between the EU and the United States is in the bag. The written statement issued by Karel De Gucht, the designated negotiator on the European side, was perfectly clear. Let me reproduce the essential points of it: “Europe will not jeopardise the cultural exception through a trade negotiation. Nothing in the agreement with the Americans will be able to harm - nor risk harming - cultural diversity (…) Culture is not a bargaining chip - it enjoys exceptional status in European legislation. The Commission is committed to this - it's the Comission's duty”. Mr De Gucht reiterated that in the Community framework itself the member states have the option of keeping their national measures and that “France remains perfectly free to maintain its system of subdies and quotas”. The European Commission, for its part, supports artistic creation through different means and has subscribed to UNESCO's convention on the protection of cultural diversity. Mr De Gucht has added that the EU's position will be maintained in the negotiations with the USA - the EU “will not negotiate the cultural exception”.
Artificial spiralling? Why did France consider Mr De Gucht's statement above as insufficient (see this column yesterday) and why did France have reservations about the Commission negotiating with the Americans? The reason is evident - Paris wants even more explicit guarantees. These can be set up, in my opinion, and need to be discussed. In the meantime, though, the disgreement has spriralled - as if not only the cultural autonomy of Europe was in danger but the very existence of its cultural heritage too. The European Parliament's international trade committee has set out its position and objectives, asking for cultural and audiovisual services to be excluded from the scope of trade agreements in general, and for this to be clear in the negotiating mandate with the USA - a mandate with which the European Commission has been entrusted. The MEPs who are in favour of the initiative - with Henri Weber in the lead - have based their stance on Article 207 of the Treaty which stipulates that the Council shall decided unanimously “in the area of trade in cultural and audiovisual services, when these agreements risk adversely affecting the Union's cultural and linguistic diversity”. It is therefore clear that the European Parliament is demanding the cultural exception and is also mindful of the defence of languages. However, the Parliament is referring to current cultural activity, without any relationship to the masterpieces of the past. The Parliament's plenary session will soon give its opinion and will doubtless approve a text according to these principles.
French clarity. The artificial spiralling of the discussion has aroused general concern - as if the very existence of the European artistic heritage was being threatened, with museums, palaces and churches in danger! Yet, if they sometimes are - in Pompei or other places - it's not the Americans' fault… What is more, the joint statement from the French ministers of foreign trade and culture mentioned in this column yesterday has nothing to do with certain rhetorical and fanciful positions. Ms Bricq and Ms Filippetti explained their stance like this - “Audiovisual creators and businesses know, with the support of the their states, how to promote their works and how to distribute them in Europe - and even beyond - which creates a great number of jobs. New technology emodies a new way of distributing works, of reaching new audiences, and is another opportunity for creation”. And the two ministers said that, for France, the only way to heed this situation is in the exclusion of audiovisual services from the negotiation with the USA. They added that this exclusion “is not negotiable”.
Difficult but crucial. The French position is therefore perfectly clear and the exact formula to be retained by the Council will raise several difficulties. Yet this has nothing to do with most of the grandstanding and demonstrations against attacks - which in reality are non-existent - on culture and the artistic heritage of Europe. We might sometimes wonder if the agitation does not hide the intention to defend certain forms of excessive protectionism or some subsidy or other which people don't want to give up - especially in the cinema sector.
A few readers might think that it is out of proportion to dedicate this whole column to this cultural diversity file, but when Europe's art and culture are at stake, nothing is too much. Making things clear is crucial - because the EU can't abandon the agreement with the USA.
(FR/transl.fl)