1. Culture is closely linked to the possibility of constructing a more just and democratic society. Cultural development is an end in and of itself, as acknowledged by UNESCO, and to flourish, it requires a framework of freedom, the coordination of public policy, and actions by private parties and civil society to “transcend the economy without thereby abandoning it” (See report entitled Our Creative Diversity, UNESCO).
2. Cultural development seeks to ensure countries’ comprehensive development. Although Chile is among the countries that have gone the furthest in signing free trade agreements, Chilean President Ricardo Lagos has said, “We cannot take the road of being mere passive recipients of cultural objects and values produced elsewhere. For globalization to be a dialogue among cultures rather than the hegemony of one culture over others, it is essential that we now assume tasks to stimulate and favor our own creations and heritage, and to encourage the participation of all. The debate on cultural goods plays a fundamental role in free trade agreements, and we must be able to adequately defend these goods. This is because hegemony is exerted in many fields, but, ultimately, ideas, beauty, the way of thinking, that which comes from our roots [is] what perseveres and what allows for a dialogue among civilizations. . . . Culture is the foundation, the component, the goal of the type of development of each society, of each country. . . . Culture is at the center of any civilization, of any society.”
3. Culture is a society’s expression and projection. Alongside education, culture is the very backbone of development. It allows countries to develop their own identity and trademarks and enables societies to exist over the long term. In that construct, which has social and economic effects, domestic cultural industries play a fundamental role.
4. Culture must not be absorbed by trade. Cultural development, understood broadly as “the set of distinctive traits that characterize a people’s or a society’s way of living” and “ways of living together” (UNESCO), cannot be principally governed by the rules of trade, which has its own logic and is not always coherent and compatible with the logic of culture.
5. Cultural creation and industries generate a collective identity and are therefore strategic. "There is no individual identity without reference to a collective identity” correctly notes Chilean political scientist Norbert Lechner. Without its own identity, a country cannot foster its “own trademark” or have exportable products in which the denomination of origin is one more factor. Moreover, the existence of a country image makes a nation more attractive for tourism and investment. Hence, each country’s cultural industries play a strategic role for the purpose of strengthening development and growth.
6. In the globalization process, concentration brings about standardization. Transnational concentration in the ownership of cultural industries has brought about widespread standardization of cultural content, marked by cultural imperatives (Ivan Bernier). This phenomenon is reinforced by the digital divide and by unequal development in the technological sphere. This imposes a given type of production over others, seriously threatening the diversity of cultural expressions and, therefore, cultural diversity.
7. Local cultures require a commitment from governments. Cultures are going through complex times in globalization: as the processes of cultural reproduction of dominant cultures over local production increase, the characteristic stamps of local identities are falling apart, mercantile logic prevails as the regulating core in the set of cultural production and distribution. In order to achieve equilibrium, countries need to participate more actively in encouraging the sustainability of their own cultural expressions. In economic terms, there is not, nor will there be, equal competition between global mass products and local cultural products.
8. The market has been shown to not be a guarantor of the equitable and diverse development of culture. We stakeholders in the world of culture do not seek to limit cultural exchange among countries-quite the contrary. We are, however, opposed to the rules that serve as the basis for free trade agreements and that accompany the signing of these agreements-such as “national treatment,” the “most favored nation” clause, and “market access”-being applied to the cultural sphere, since they limit or inhibit the possibility of developing public policy, leaving it solely in the hands of the market and its “invisible forces.” As such public policies have limited resources, they must discriminate in order to be effective, not by closing borders but by supporting local creation and production through diverse mechanisms. The possibility of discriminatory action should be safeguarded with regard to education, culture, and native peoples in the present and for the future.
9. Bilateral, regional, or multilateral trade agreements may neutralize governments’ cultural policies. This concentration can be expressed in the following numbers: 85 percent of the movies shown throughout the world are made in Hollywood; five or six groups control the record industry; diverse publishing houses have been increasingly concentrated by large consortia that span borders and languages. This domination of the “entertainment industries” is occurring despite the existence of government cultural regulations, which have begun to be nullified through international trade agreements. The search for total market control, which could be successful if public policies in the sector are constrained, can be explained by the fact that as far back as 1996, cultural exports were the United States’ leading category of exports, as noted in a UNESCO study.
10. Future cultural policies must not be restricted by today’s trade agreements. Since we currently do not have the elements to define what public cultural or educational policies will be necessary in the future in order to preserve local cultural expressions, we cannot accept limitations on the leeway afforded to those who now decide or who in the future will decide on cultural policies. The stipulations of these agreements are nearly irreversible; hence, it would be an extremely serious matter if rigid trade rules were imposed on sectors whose essence is not related to trade per se.
11. Culture and democracy cannot be validated by criteria based on “comparative advantages.” Can we allow entire countries to be precluded from the possibility of generating music, literature, film or theater because they are not competitive? This criterion is valid with regard to commercial issues, when we think of a globalized world; however, it cannot be dogmatically applied to the cultural sector. An international division of labor in cultural matters, with some countries producing and others only receiving, is unacceptable.
12. Governments must preserve their citizens’ potential to take part in cultural creation and production. Just as citizens need rights allowing them to be participants in the society in which they live, without being subsumed by the logic of government and state, the stakeholders in the world of culture, such as the cultures of native peoples, have no real market freedom if a structure of rights is not created to protect them against consortia with which they cannot and do not hope to compete. Successful coexistence requires that governments implement policies to ensure balance and promotion for the sake of local identities and their cultural creation/production. This architecture of cultural policies must be freely discussed by society without being limited a priori.
13. A multicultural, reciprocal exchange builds and enriches culture. The facts show that, in this aspect as well, governments must add proactive policies to the market logic, policies that foster greater balance and a meeting of cultures.
14. All citizens have the right to have access to and experience cultural diversity. Cultural diversity is a crucial factor in integration among peoples. It acts as a catalyst for creativity and as a very important source of innovation. Citizens’ exposure to diverse cultural expressions is also an unavoidable condition for improving their quality of life.
15. An instrument to ensure cultural diversity has become urgently needed. At the end of World War II, a series of international institutions were created so as to guard against any repetition of the history of terror. These institutions include the UN, UNESCO, UNCTAD, and the GATT accord-which years later became the WTO-among others. We do not believe that the principles of one of the organizations-the WTO-should now dominate the efforts of all the others. Thus, it is essential, not only for culture but also for human development per se, to promote international regulations that will dovetail with the WTO’s trade logic. The development of an International Convention on Cultural Diversity has become a necessary step to strike a balance between the diverse perspectives of human endeavors, and until that time, commitments in this regard in international trade forums should be frozen.
16. Intellectual property must be at the service of a nation’s creators and wealth. Cultural endeavors generate creations that involve intellectual rights. Such creations are the inalienable wealth of their authors, as well as of the society to which they belong. These criteria are the foundation for intellectual property regulations. Therefore, we cannot accept these principles being reduced to commercial pragmatism, which would thereby give these rights to encroachers or commercial producers.
17. Changes in the laws that govern intellectual property rights are incumbent on citizens, since they necessarily compromise the country’s future. While unequal trade between the nations of the North and the South has increased exponentially in recent decades, the denouncement of this reality has strangely been abandoned. Regulations concerning intellectual property rights play a substantial role in the increase or limitation of this structure of inequality among countries. The debate on this issue concerns the future and cannot be addressed from a merely technical or economic perspective.
18. Countries’ development in the era of the knowledge society is a cultural gamble. The digital divide cannot be breached merely by teaching people how to use computers; rather, countries must be capable of creating in the era of the information society. This is achieved by strengthening the foundations of the “knowledge society.” This is a cultural gamble, which requires freedom and creativity in public policymaking. Cultural development cannot hinge solely on those in whom economic capital is concentrated, but on the coordination of their endeavors with the efforts of governments, civil society, creators, and micro-, small- and medium-sized cultural enterprises, which requires a framework of balance to survive, because the foundations of democracy, development, pluralism, and civic-mindedness depend on the quality of culture and education in our countries.