In the end, her argument rested on the assumption that we would be well advised to think of globalization as a particular state of "late capitalism". Globalization, whether new or merely accelerated, has shown that it is necessary to decouple the terms "nation" and "state" and to understand why people want to do this. The state has a key role to play as an arbiter, but the autonomy of any democratic state is necessarily limited. The goals of the state are necessarily an evolving, moving target. Because of extremely high immigration, Canada, as a nation, relies heavily on cultural industries (and has a history of public support) to provide and reinforce a national and cultural identity that is uniquely Canadian. The problem arises because the financial mission of cultural industries conflicts with cultural mission that the nation wishes to impose on these same industries. As a consequence it is necessary to have a much broader concept of cultural industries than entertainment/media. In particular should include cultural practices.

The discussion on this session was led by Robert Jackson, the panel chair and political science professor from the University of Redlands. He noted that we need to agree on definitions of globalization culture and come to some sort of understanding with respect to how we know when we win. Hal Wilensky (a political science professor from UC Berkeley) asked how effective efforts to control content could ever be. He believes in content controls, in principle, but is skeptical of the ability of any state to actually control content. Goff noted that commitments to democracy interfere with the ability of the state to control content; therefore effectiveness is limited. A recent international meeting of Culture Ministers tried to create a set of norms for cultural diversity. The focus was on supply rather than demand. Browne suggested that Canada does and can regulate content on TV and radio. This policy / strategy has been quite successful in the promotion of a domestic music industry but less successful with respect to film.

Ann Marie Mitchell (a librarian in the University of California system) asked about Quebec. She asked about the concern with the protection of Quebecois culture or Francophone culture? Can the viewer identify origin? Browne noted that protections are indeed aimed at Quebecois culture and that, for example, laws in Quebec demand that television and films be dubbed into Quebecois French.

Peter Grant (a communications attorney from Toronto and SAGIT member) stated that content rather than ownership is the key issue. He went on to say that we still need investment rules for small companies (like publishers) where ownership determines content. Goff suggested that this is an example of corporate logic rather than national logic. Browne responded by stating that government can reward content rather than restrict ownership. Wilensky reiterated his observation that ownership does count, but we should be concerned with public vs. private ownership rather than large vs. small players.

Terry Simmons (a geographer & attorney from Reno) started a new point, suggesting that there is a fundamental contradiction with "this" definition of culture. Much of culture is not economic at all. Goff agreed that narrow definitions of culture put us at risk of missing the things that are actually important to people/nations. Larissa Muller (a regional planner from Berkeley) agreed. According to her, we need to broaden the definition of culture. We should also consider the built culture/architecture. Ownership does not always matter with respect to corporate citizenship. Multi-nationals are often supporters of local cultures. Goff responded by noting that states are able to define culture broadly and that there is an emerging International Network of Cultural Policy which is attempting to develop lists of cultural products/practices. Browne noted that the GATS provides for international standards for professional services such as architecture. Culture cannot be frozen. Governments should not impose cultural standard on professional services.

Peter Dale Scott (a writer from Berkeley) noted that we also need to view this issue from the perspective of the United States, in particular from the vantage point of the state department that contends that US firms have the right to market their products everywhere and anywhere. Browne disagreed, noting that there is no monolithic position within the United States. Diversity is okay, but not as a disguise for protectionism. Goff suggested that different nations mobilize different arguments with respect to trade and culture. The United States tends to mobilize a market access argument.

Michael Hawes (political scientist from Queen’s University), returning to the issue of public vs. private ownership, noted it is not entirely clear that public broadcasters play an entirely educational or symbolic role. Can trade agreements work so as not to privilege private, commercial entities? Browne said that yes they could. Grant stated that broadcasting is not privileged within the WTO, but that the EU does address the protection of public broadcasting.

Michel Laguerre, Sociology Professor and Director of the Berkeley Center For Globalization and Information Technology at the University of California presented a keynote speech after lunch entitled "Diasporic Globalization: Reframing the Local/Global Question". His speech traced globalization to the Jewish diaspora in the 2^nd Century, but argued that currently globalization subsumes a multiplicity of concerns about the economic, political, and ideological and does so from a very ‘current’ perspective. Diasporic globalization includes the recent transnational migration to the United States and Canada. These are quite similar in nature. Globalization and relocation occur simultaneously. There is no single definition of a transnational/cosmopolitan place. The Global does not exist apart from the local. We need to distinguish between: a global ethnopole, a global pan-ethnopole, a global chronopole, a global technopole, global creolopole.

Professor Laguerre’s remarks sparked a great deal of discussion. A number of members of the audience asked about the term "minoritorized" and wondered by what mechanism minoritorized people/groups can become members of the majority? Laguerre noted that in the United States race matters. Since 1965 (at the height of the civil rights movement) the legitimization of minorities has come to represent the conquest of the majority as the cultural and social ideal. Peter Dale Scott asked whether "diaspora" requires a crisis as a catalyst? Laguerre responded by noting that the definition of diaspora is broader now and has come to include an exiled community with an imagined or a real homeland. Ted Magder (a professor of communications at NYU) asked whether there is a global structure and cultural integration between majority and minorities. Laguerre conceded that, to a limited extent, there is.

The second formal session focused on ‘the Canadian Question’ (panel two) and on the implications of cultural policy on Canada-US Relations (panel three).

The first speaker in panel two was Barbara Motzney, who is Director of Cultural Policy Initiatives in the International Affairs Division at Canadian Heritage addressed the question of the international cultural diversity agenda and the quest of the Canadian government for a new International Instrument on Cultural Diversity. She noted that the Canadian approach to cultural diversity is that culture is more than media issue: it includes pluralism and choice. Her presentation was driven by her articulation of the following assumptions. Cultural diversity has broad international appeal, but as yet there is no coherent international agenda. The natural evolution of technology and the market place is insufficient to sustain diversity. Therefore is it necessary to develop an international agreement for the promotion/protection of local/national/sub-national culture. She also noted that cultural diversity has a different definition depending on the forum. Canada’s aim is to: build security and civic participation, strengthen diverse cultural participation, create prosperity, and address particular needs of the developing world

The second speaker on this panel was Peter Grant (a communications attorney at McCarthy Tetrault and a member of the Canadian Cultural Sectoral Advisory group). Mr. Grant made a presentation entitled The Evolution of Trade Rules for Cultural Products and Goods. His presentation focused primarily on legal issues and Canadian participation in international organizations. He argued that the evolution of international trade rules is culminating is an attempt to develop rules for the internationalization of cultural goods and services. These are not aimed at protecting the status quo, but rather the notion that nations develop rules that make sense according to their own rationale. He stressed the widening gap between international law, and attending norms, and national preferences and priorities.

The discussion that ensued focused on the question of what governments could or should do to achieve cultural diversity and promote particular values and priorities. Goff asked how will we know when we have achieved cultural diversity and whether our "tests" will change over time. Robert Jackson wanted to know, "realistically", what is the likelihood of governments achieving their goals in the face of changing technological realities. Grant noted that this problem would differ from country to country. The proposed instrument gives broad rights to individual states to decide what heritage/culture to protect or subsidize and how to deal with technological challenges. The problem is most pronounced in highly developed countries. Grant also noted that at present the international mood is open to government regulation, but for how long is an open question.

Pamela Stern (an anthropologist at UCB and the conference rapporteur) asked whether Canada’s view of its moral position in the world caused it to take a leadership role on the international protection of cultural diversity? Others wondered whether political personalities were an issue. Motzney suggested that the matter was largely driven by Canada’s proximity to the United States. Grant agreed that it is mainly a practical issue as opposed to a moral position. Browne added that his understanding is that Canada has traditionally understood cultural diversity to mean cultural diversity within its borders.

The first speaker in panel three was Colin Robertson, the Consul General of Canada in Los Angeles. He used a highly image-intensive power point presentation to drive home the message that the US culture industry is dominated by two realities: image and technology. He noted that entertainment is the main US export and certainly a key element in the California economy. He suggested further that there is currently both horizontal and vertical integration in the information industries. This is worrying for a number of reasons. The impression is that technology makes all things possible. Canada views culture as part of sovereignty whereas the United States sees culture as part of financial capital and, in the end, sees cultural industries as industries and not vehicles for values. Robertson concluded by suggesting that Canada should do a better job promoting its domestic industries to Canadians.

The last speaker of the afternoon was Ted Magder, the Director of the Communications Studies program at NYU. His presentation was titled ‘Runaway Production and Split-run Magazine Case’. According to Magder, and contrary to popular belief, the United States does have a policy on culture and on cultural industries. The primary distinction between US and Canadian policy has to do with the difference between culture as a store of value (and values) and culture as an industry. Canadian law prohibits the importation of split-run magazines where advertising is the sole content difference, but Time Warner attempted to avoid this prohibition by electronically transporting the content of an issue of Sports Illustrated. A runaway production refers to US domestic culture produced abroad. Profit margins in the film and television are currently less than 9%. US entertainment industries do production work in Canada, mainly for cost related reasons. Canada has been particularly successful in capturing this work. The result in the United States, however, is a disgruntled labor force. To complicate matters even more, the multi-national nature of production and distribution make it nearly impossible to definitively label products as belonging to one nation or another. In the end, the problem is a political one, a practical one, and an ideological one.

During the discussion period Robertson suggested that the Magder thesis was driven too much by a mercantilist approach. One could argue that there are no runaway productions, just a Canadian niche labor market and an exchange rate situation that favors Canadian locations. Browne argued further that the United States has a cultural promotion strategy that Canada might do well to copy. Goff noted that the proposed Cultural Instrument presumes continued Hollywood domination of cultural production.

On a completely different note, a long discussion emerged from Robertson’s observation that international immigration aids multiculturalism and that cultural policy will increasingly be driven by immigration policy.

The final session, on the morning of March the 2nd, focused on the relationship between culture and technology. Michael Hawes (a political economist from Queen’s University and the conference convener) presented a paper entitled ‘The Final Frontier: Technology and its Fundamental Challenge to Culture and Cultural Industries’. This presentation focused on the larger systemic challenges presented by technology and on the increasing difficulty of national governments in coming to terms with these technological challenges. The process of globalization, according to Hawes, logically presents challenges to the preservation of indigenous (i.e., local) cultural values. It is very difficult to establish public policy to protect cultural values, in part, because culture, technology, and globalization are all diffuse, poorly understood concepts. Any realistic attempt to come to terms with this problem requires an improved understanding of the challenges posed to economies, governance, interest groups and society at large.

Hawes suggested that there are varying views of the relationship between culture and technology. Some theorists, like Samuel Huntington and Francis Fukiyama see culture as the servant of technology while others suggest that the post-nationalist/post Cold War world allows that technology IS culture. Hawes questions both of these positions, suggesting that globalization is much more complicated than either of these views suggests and that it involves the integration of an international economy AND shifting political identities and realities. In terms of Canada, he concluded with the observation that Canadian cultural policy has historically had a "content bias," but intellectual property is an increasingly contested concept made more complex by technological innovation and practical limitations.

The second speaker was Janet Creery, the Associate Coordinator of the International Network for Cultural Diversity, who approached the problem from the societal level and the point of view of non-governmental organizations. Her talk, titled Mobilizing in the Matrix, argued that localization could be viewed as a network or as domination. The mission of her organization is to fight hegemonic processes in cultural production/distribution by multinational corporations AND by protectionist government policies. Creery runs an international network of small artists and cultural producers. She sees both promise and concern with new electronic technologies and media. Lower costs of consumption and production enable easier communication between internationally disparate producers/consumers, but, at the same time, it better enables big conglomerates of squash upstarts. In the end, she sees the seeds of hope in consumer tastes which will resist homogenization and technology driven culture.

The final speaker was Charles Darrah, an anthropologist at San Jose State University and Director of the Silicon Valley Cultures project. His presentation, on Technology and Culture Creation in Everyday Life: A View from Silicon Valley, approached the problem from the personal or individual level of analysis. He presented a compelling view of how people actually use technology. People use technology is the course of solving the ordinary problems of their lives, but technology itself does not dictate the course of people’s lives. Ethnographic research among families in San Jose indicates that the workplace rather than technology a much more dominant presence in people’s lives. Workplace metaphors such as ‘management’ and ‘efficiency’ get superimposed on the intimate matters of family cultural life.

The discussion in this session was both far-reaching and open-ended. It began with a question to Hawes about technology and the implications of a "crisis-prone" international financial system? Hawes suggested that the conventional wisdom is that IT would solve all these crises, yet the evidence suggests otherwise. Goff pressed Creery to address what outcome her network seeks to achieve. Creery stated that their priorities lay in support for the greatest possible diversity. She stated that "We see trade agreements as filled with traps that eviscerate the protections they contain". Rita Ross (an anthropologist and Vice Chair of Canadian Studies at UC Berkeley) asked Darrah whether he could comment on what the ‘techies’ see as their place in the world? Darrah responded by stating that many people have fantasies of amassing huge wealth and then dropping out to run a bed and breakfast, but that there are huge sectoral/cohort differences. Some have a fascination with the hip nature of their industry and imagine that prosperity extends to everyone while others are lost in the technology.

The discussion proceeded to touch on electronic communication, new forms of affiliation, new forms of interaction, new definitions and redefinitions of culture, and the increasing blurring of the work world and one’s personal life.

By way of summary, though not conclusion, although the underlying assumption of the conference was that culture is something worthy of protection, the conference participants were unable to reach a consensus regarding what is exactly they mean by culture or what it needs to be protected from. Is culture a national treasure to promote and protect or is the key to protect international cultural diversity from the commercially predatory practices of multinational cultural industries? Is concern about culture merely a proxy for concern about financial and economic domination? Or is there genuine concern that certain commercial actors have the power to dominate the cultural arena purposely or as a by-product of their business activities? The one thing that everyone seemed to agree on is the importance of culture and the need to pay a good deal more attention to t he whole issue of trade, technology and culture.

Keynote Speaker: The Right Honourable Kim Campbell

Fellow at the Center for Public Leadership, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University;

Chair, Council of Women World Leaders; and, former Prime Minister of Canada

 9:45 Welcoming Remarks: Dr. Nelson Graburn, UC Berkeley, Anthropology & Canadian Studies

 Chair: Dr. Robert Jackson, Department of Government, University of Redlands

‘Should Trade Agreements Provide Specific Treatment for Cultural Goods and Services?’

Dr. Patricia Goff, Department of Political Science, University of Utah

‘Irreconcilable Differences? Protecting Culture in a Culture of Anti-protectionism’

 12:00 – 1:30 Lunch The Gifford Room, 221 Kroeber Hall

Keynote Speaker: Dr. Michel Laguerre

Director, Berkeley Center for Globalization and Information Technology

‘Diasporic Globalization: Reframing the Local/Global Question’

2:00 – 5:15 Session II: Canada, Cultural Industries, Cultural Policy and Canada-US Relations

The Gifford Room, 221 Kroeber Hall.

2:00 - 3:30 (A) The Canadian Response

 Ms. Barbara Motzney, Director, Cultural Diversity Initiatives, Canadian Heritage

‘‘Cultural Diversity: Toward a New International Cultural Instrument’

Mr. Peter Grant, Senior Partner, McCarthy, Tetrault Barristers and Solicitors

3:45-5:15 (B) Implications for Canadian-American Relations

Mr. Colin Robertson, Consul General of Canada in Los Angeles

‘The Maple Leaf Forever: A View from Hollywood’

Dr. Ted Magder, Director, Communication Studies, New York University

‘The Paradoxes of Policy in the Age of Globalization: Lessons from the Cultural Industries’

10 – 12 Session III: Culture, Technology and the Coming Clash

The Goldberg Room, 297 Simon Hall (Boalt School of Law)

Panel Discussion: The New Cultural Industries and the Great Technology Divide

Chair: Dr. Nelson Graburn, Anthropology/Canadian Studies, UC Berkeley

Ms. Janet Creery, Canadian Conference for the Arts, Ottawa.

‘Mobilizing in the Matrix’

Dr. Chuck Darrah, Department of Anthropology, San Jose State University

‘Technology and Culture Creation in Everyday Life: A View from Silicon Valley"?’

Dr. Michael K. Hawes, Department of Political Studies, Queen's University

‘The Final Frontier: Technology and its Fundamental Challenge to Culture and Cultural Industries’

Barbara Motzney is currently Director, Cultural Diversity Initiatives, International Affairs Branch of the Department of Canadian Heritage. This recently created group serves as a focal point within the federal government for the development of an international instrument on cultural diversity, and as Secretariat to the International Network on Cultural Policy. Prior to this position, Barbara was Director, International Strategy and Collaboration with the Electronic Commerce Task Force at Industry Canada. She was responsible for Canada's involvement in the policy and conference documents for the Ottawa OECD Ministerial Conference on Electronic Commerce and was actively engaged in a range of multilateral and bilateral activities, including lead responsibility for the WTO Work Programme on electronic commerce. Barbara worked for a number of years at Canadian Heritage as the Senior Policy Advisor, Information Society with the broadcasting Policy Branch. Barbara holds a B.A. in financial studies and economics from the University of Western Ontario, and an MBA from Concordia University.

Colin Robertson is the Canadian Consul General in Los Angeles. He received his B.A.H. from the University of Manitoba (1976) and his M.A. (International Affairs) from the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs at Carleton University (1978). After joining the Department of External Affairs in 1977, he served at the Permanent Mission to Canada at the United Nations (1977) and then at the Consulate General in New York (1978-81). He was a member of the team that negotiated the Free Trade Agreement with the United States (1985-87) and later was Coordinator of the NAFTA implementing legislation (1992-3) and the Canadian NAFTA Communications Coordinator (1998-2000). He is co-author of Decision at Midnight: An Inside Account of the Free Trade Negotiations (UBC, 1996).

He has had many posting in the department, including Counselor and Consul to the Canadian Commission in Hong Kong (1987-92), where he was instrumental in the creation of the annual Canada-Hong Kong Film Festival and the negotiation of the Canada-Hong Kong Film and Television Co-Production Agreement. He has also worked at the Department of Citizenship and Immigration (1994-96), where he was Director General of Public Affairs, and the Treasury Board Secretariat (1996-98) he was Director General of Public Affairs. He returned to the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade in 1998 as Senior Advisor for Trade Communications and was subsequently appointed Director General of Communications. He was appointed Consul General for Canada in Los Angeles in September of 2000. The consular territory includes California, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, Hawaii and Guam.

Ted Magder is Associate Professor of Media and Ecology at New York University. For the last four years, he was the Director of Communication Studies at NYU. He is the author of Canada¹s Hollywood: Feature Films and the Canadian State and Franchising the Candy Store: Split-Run Magazines and a New International Regime for Trade in Culture. Magder has also published numerous articles on the political economy of the cultural industries and the international trade in media products. Born in Toronto, Magder was the Director of the Mass Communication Programme at York University from 1987 to 1996. He co-teaches a NYU-University of Amsterdam summer abroad course on media globalization. In 1991, Magder won the Distinguished Teacher of the Year award in the Faculty of Arts at York University. In 1986 Magder was a post-doctoral fellow at the University of Westminster¹s Centre for Communication and Information Studies in London, England.

Janet Creery is the Associate Coordinator of the International Network for Cultural Diversity (INCD), whose Secretariat is presently housed at the Canadian Conference of the Arts (CCA). She handles communications and day-to-day operations for this network, whose aim is to unite cultural organizations around the world in resistance to trade agreements and other global forces that impinge on cultural diversity. She represented cultural interests at meetings parallel to Seattle conference of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and helped organize the founding conference of the INCD in September 2000 on the island of Santorini, in Greece. She is now working on the organization of the network’s next meeting in Lucerne, Switzerland, and coordinating the participation of network members in events such as the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre and the upcoming World Conference on Racism in South Africa. Before working at the Conference of the Arts, Janet worked as a writer, editor, and manager. For projects and publications concerned with public interest issues in environmental, cultural, social and international policy spheres. She studied Fine Arts at Concordia University in Montreal and New Media at Algonquin College in Ottawa.