Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The United States: a Laissez-Faire Approach

  • Chapter
The Diplomacy of Culture

Part of the book series: Culture and Religion in International Relations ((CRIR))

  • 255 Accesses

Abstract

The United States prides itself on being the most culturally diverse country in the world. American identity is indeed multiracial, multiethnic, and multireligious—a melting pot of historically ever changing people and a constantly evolving self-perception. At face value, the US opposition to the UNESCO Convention on the Diversity of Cultural Expressions is surprising. How could anyone be against culture and diversity, especially in a country where discourses on cultural diversity as a policy ideal have had a strong purchase since the mass immigration of the late nineteenth century and further advanced during the civil rights movement in the 1960s and 1970s?

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. Stefan A. Halper and Jonathan Clarke (2007), The Silence of the Rational Center: Why American Foreign Policy Is Failing (New York: Basic Books).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Tyler Cowen and National Endowment for the Arts (2004), How the United States Funds the Arts (Washington, DC: National Endowment for the Arts), p. 18.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Tyler Cowen (2003), Symbolic Goods: The Liberal State in Pursuit of Art and Beauty. George Mason University (unpublished work), p. 21.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Amounting to between 5 and 10 percent of GDP, depending on the way of measuring. Cowen, Symbolic Goods, p. 3. Andy C. Pratt gives the number of 7.8 percent of GDP. Andy C. Pratt (2008), “Locating the Cultural Economy,” in Helmut K. Anheier et al. (eds.), The Cultural Economy (London: SAGE), p. 45.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Stuart Cunningham defines four models of such relations: the welfare model, the competitive model, the growth model, and the innovation/creative economy model. Stuart Cunningham, John Banks, and Jason Potts (2008), “Cultural Economy: The Shape of the Field,” in Helmut K. Anheier et al. (eds.), The Cultural Economy (London: SAGE), pp. 16–17.

    Google Scholar 

  6. “Plus l’Etat devient fort, actif, plus l’individu devient libre.” Émile Durkheim (1900–1905), “L’Etat,” in Textes (Paris: Editions de Minuit, 1975), p. 178.

    Google Scholar 

  7. John Holden (2009), How We Value Arts and Culture and Their Role in Politics. (Paper read at the International Symposium on Cultural Diplomacy, July 28, 2009, at the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy, Berlin).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Musitelli (2006c), “Les Etats-Unis et la diversité culturelle,” p. 6.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Janet Wasko (2008), “Can Hollywood Still Rule the World?,” in David Held and Henrietta L. Moore (eds.), Cultural Politics in a Global Age. Uncertainty, Solidarity, and Innovation, pp. 187–196 (Oxford: Oneworld Publications), p. 188.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Joseph S. Nye (2008), “Culture, Soft Power, and ‘Americanization,’” in David Held and Henrietta L. Moore (eds.), Cultural Politics in a Global Age. Uncertainty, Solidarity, and Innovation (Oxford: Oneworld Publications), p. 170.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Michael Curtin (2008), “Spatial Dynamics of Film and Television,” in Helmut K. Anheier et al. (eds.), The Cultural Economy (London: SAGE), p. 220.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Quoted in Kristin Thompson(1985), Exporting Entertainment: America in the World Film Market, 1907–34 (London: BFI Publishing), p. 122.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Quoted in J. M. Mitchell (1986), International Cultural Relations (London: Allen and Unwin), pp. 53–54.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Nicholas John Cull (2008), The Cold War and the United States Information Agency: American Propaganda and Public Diplomacy, 1945–1989 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  15. See also Frances Stonor Saunders (2000b), Who Paid the Piper? The CIA and the Cultural Cold War (London: Granta);

    Google Scholar 

  16. Leo Bogart and Agnes Bogart (1976), Premises for Propaganda: The United States Information Agency’s Operating Assumptions in the Cold War (New York: Free Press);

    Google Scholar 

  17. and Alvin A. Snyder (1995), Warriors of Disinformation: American Propaganda, Soviet Lies, and the Winning of the Cold War (New York: Arcade Publishing).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Joseph S. Nye (1990), Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power (New York: Basic Books).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Joseph S. Nye and William A. Owens (1996), “America’s Information Edge,” Foreign Affairs, 75(2), March/April 1996, pp. 20–36, p. 29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Laurence Mayer-Robitaille (2008), Le statut juridique des biens et services culturels dans les accords commerciaux internationaux (Paris: L’Harmattan), p. 319.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Tania Voon (2007), “A New Approach to Audiovisual Products in the WTO: Replacing GATT and GATS,” UCLA Entertainment Law Review, 14(1), 2007, p. 7.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Musitelli (2006b), “La Convention sur la diversité culturelle: anat-omie d’un succès diplomatique,” Revue internationale et stratégique, 2(62), 2006, p. 14.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Letter from US Secretary of State George Schultz to UNESCO Director-General Amadou M’Bow (December 28, 1983). Quoted in “United States’ Return to UNESCO,” (2003), The American Journal of International Law, 97(4), October 2003, pp. 977–979, p. 977.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Robert W. Cox and Harold Karan Jacobson (1973), The Anatomy of Influence: Decision Making in International Organization (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press), p. 142.

    Google Scholar 

  25. William Benton (1947), Report on UNESCO: Address to the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations (Chicago: Monarch Printing and Publishing Corporation), pp. 1–3.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Margaret A. Blanchard (1986), Exporting the First Amendment: The Press-Government Crusade of 1945–1952 (New York: Longman), pp. 65–68.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Sidney Hyman (1969), The Lives of William Benton (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), p. 367.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Clare Wells (1987), The UN, UNESCO and the Politics of Knowledge (London: Macmillan), p. 81.

    Google Scholar 

  29. S. Nihal Singh (1988), The Rise and Fall of Unesco (Ahmedabad: Allied Publishers), p. 79.

    Google Scholar 

  30. William Preston, Edward S. Herman, and Herbert I. Schiller (1989), Hope and Folly: The United States and UNESCO 1945–1985 (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press), p. 51.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Walter A. McDougall (1997), Promised Land, Crusader State: The American Encounter with the World since 1776 (Boston: Houghton Mifflin), p. 173.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Robert C. Johansen (1986), “The Reagan Administration and the U.N.: The Costs of Unilateralism,” World Policy Journal, 3(4), Fall 1986, pp. 601–641, pp. 613–614. The American press has been traditionally hostile to UNESCO. For example, in its 2003 editorial after the US reentry, The Wall Street Journal described the organization as “the famously wasteful agency” and “once a byword for corruption and anti-Americanism,” and greeted the country’s decision to return with the remark that “It’s hardly a new dawn for UNESCO and we hope the Bush Administration is prepared to pull out again if the troubled agency reverts to its bad habits.” “Left-bank Purgatory,” The Wall Street Journal, October 1, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Fred Halliday (1986), The Making of the Second Cold War (London: Verso).

    Google Scholar 

  34. UNESCO (1995), Records of the General Conference, 28th session (Paris: UNESCO). Yet, the American Bar Association’s 1995 recommendation to rejoin UNESCO stated that the US dues to the organization would be only about three-tenths of 1 percent of the administration’s $21 billion total international affairs budget in 1996. American Bar Association, Standing Committee on World Order under Law, Section of International Law and Practice. Recommendation (August 1995), available at: http://apps.americanbar.org/intlaw/policy/institutions/UNUNESCO.pdf. Accessed September 25, 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  35. George W. Bush (2002), Address by Mr George W. Bush, President of the United States of America. United Nations General Assembly, 57th session, September 12, 2002 (New York).

    Google Scholar 

  36. Laura Bush (2003), Remarks by First Lady Laura Bush. UNESCO General Conference, 32nd session, September 29, 2003 (Paris).

    Google Scholar 

  37. Paul M. Kennedy (2006), The Parliament of Man: The United Nations and the Quest for World Government (London: Allen Lane), p. xii.

    Google Scholar 

  38. UNESCO (2008c), Report by the Director-General on the Status of Contributions of Member States and of Payment Plans. Document 180 EX/36. Executive Board of UNESCO, 180th session, September 30–October 21, 2008 (Paris).

    Google Scholar 

  39. Bush (2003), Remarks by First Lady Laura Bush.

    Google Scholar 

  40. UNESCO (2013), Report by the Director-General on the Status of Member States’ Contributions and Payment Plans. Document 191 EX/25 Rev. Executive Board of UNESCO, 191st session, April 10–25, 2013, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  41. See Tyler Cowen (1998b), In Praise of Commercial Culture (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press);

    Google Scholar 

  42. Tyler Cowen (2002), Creative Destruction (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press);

    Google Scholar 

  43. and Tyler Cowen (2006), Good and Plenty: The Creative Successes of American Arts Funding (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  44. Cowen(2002), Creative Destruction, p. 15.

    Google Scholar 

  45. David M. Kennedy (1997), “Culture Wars: The Sources and Uses of Enmity in American History,” in Ragnhild Fiebig-von Hase and Ursula Lehmkuhl (eds.), Enemy Images in American History (Providence, RI; Oxford: Berghahn), p. 355.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Louise V. Oliver (2005a), Explanation of Vote of the United States on the Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions. General Conference of UNESCO, 33rd session, October 20, 2005 (Paris).

    Google Scholar 

  47. UNESCO (2005), Draft Resolution Submitted by the United States of America. Document 33 C/COM.IV/DR.4. General Conference of UNESCO, 33rd session, October 13, 2005 (Paris).

    Google Scholar 

  48. Oliver (2005a), Explanation of Vote of the United States.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Louise V. Oliver (2005b), U.S. Intervention at the 172nd Session of the Executive Board of UNESCO. Executive Board of UNESCO, 172nd session, September 20, 2005 (Paris).

    Google Scholar 

  50. Joseph Yai (2005), Address by Mr Joseph Yai, Ambassador, Permanent Delegate of Benin to UNESCO. General Conference of UNESCO, 33rd session, October 19, 2005 (Paris).

    Google Scholar 

  51. Louise V. Oliver (2008), U.S. Statement. Forum on “Cultural Diversity: Encounters between the European Union and the United States,” December 2, 2008 (European Parliament, Brussels).

    Google Scholar 

  52. Oliver (2005a), Explanation of Vote of the United States.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Oliver (2005a), Explanation of Vote of the United States.

    Google Scholar 

  54. A leading WTO lawyer, Lorand Bartels, states that from the WTO point, this Convention is irrelevant. Lorand Bartels (University Lecturer in International Law, Trinity Hall, University of Cambridge). Interview, November 16, 2009, Cambridge. Other commentators concur. See, for example, Rostam J. Neuwirth (2012), “The Convention on the Diversity of Cultural Expressions: A Critical Analysis of the Provisions,” in Toshiyuki Kono and Steven Van Uytsel (eds.), The UNESCO Convention on the Diversity of Cultural Expressions: A Tale of Fragmentation in International Law, pp. 45–69 (Cambridge, Antwerp, Portland: Intersentia).

    Google Scholar 

  55. Oliver (2005a), Explanation of Vote of the United States.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Oliver (2008), U.S. Statement.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Oliver (2005b), U.S. Intervention at the 172nd Session.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Bush (2003), Remarks by First Lady Laura Bush.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Oliver (2008), U.S. Statement.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Stanley Hoffmann and Council on Foreign Relations (1968), Gulliver’s Troubles; or The Setting of American Foreign Policy (New York; London: McGraw-Hill), p. 347.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Reinhold Niebuhr (2008), The Irony of American History (Chicago, IL; London: University of Chicago Press), p. 88.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  62. Edward C. Luck (1999), Mixed Messages: American Politics and International Organization, 1919–1999 (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press), p. 7.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Irena Kozymka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Copyright information

© 2014 Irena Kozymka

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Kozymka, I. (2014). The United States: a Laissez-Faire Approach. In: The Diplomacy of Culture. Culture and Religion in International Relations. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137366269_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation