Do you feel that countries should limit the influence of foreign cultures in their communities?

I feel that countries should not limit the influence of foreign cultures in their communities instead countries should understand and appreciate many cultures and also establish relationships with people having different cultures other than their own. And the countries should build a strong alliance with diverse cultural groups. Moreover the interaction patterns of individuals who have experience with culturally determined behavior and practice working in foreign languages, cultural differences incline to become less important. Individuals, who are experienced culturally determined behavior in interactions, are able to identify the applicable cultural characteristics and as a result know how to adjust to them. They will selected substitute forms of behavior, depending on the achievement of preceding actions. As a consequence a weak situation is turned into a strong condition (Tomlinson, 1991).

In order to build countries those are powerful enough to attain significant change than countries should have large numbers of people working together. And cultural groups that join forces, then they will be more active in reaching common objectives. Each cultural group has exclusive strengths and perceptions that the greater community can advantage from. Countries need an extensive range of ideas, customs, and wisdom to explain problems and improve community life. Receiving non-mainstream collections into the focus of native activity can deliver fresh perceptions and shed new light on tough difficulties. Moreover in order to understand the cultures that will help others to overcome and avoid cultural and ethnic divisions. Racial and ethnic dissections result in mistakes, loss of opportunities, and sometimes violence. Racial and ethnic encounters drain societies of financial and social properties and they confuse cultural groups from influential the important issues they have in common. Persons from dissimilar cultures have to be covered in decision-making events in order for programs or policies to be active. This above experience provides persons with a preview of the work life that is to monitor and leads experience, guidelines and enhances connections in the work setting, and also delivers the ground instructions under which everyday conduct is to be achieved.
This suggests that administrative socialization indicates to positive outcomes for workers and this will decreases role haziness and avoids role conflict. It means that for diverse people the cultural value of their own is very much valuable than to put a price tag on and no destruction can be considered creative. Traditional applies, tongues, and practices of arts are fading, and once misplaced they are tough to retrieve. This shows that on the one hand the complexity of the issues that arise that the cultural diversity is to be addressed and on the other hand, in a political context, the starkly different sensibilities and motivation of the parties when drafting legally binding instrument on the different cultural matters (Tomlinson, 1991).

1. Do you think that this convention might be used as a means of restricting trade in the guise of protecting cultural expressions and national identity?

Through the following two reasons the international trade and the culture become more interesting. First is that in order to make salient the contrasting attitudes held by advanced developed countries with respect to the regulation of cultural activities. Second is that the trade talks, procedures driven mostly by commercial considerations which deliver an exclusive frame on the connection of culture and economic benefits and consequently focus the normative impacts on trade policy. In order to respond the study question it is essential to examine this concerned association between corporate interests and the role of culture in a country, which was an important issue in the differences over the cultural exception as well as to the Agreement on the Cultural Diversity. Both arguments will be understood in relation to each other throughout this study. An impartial of this learning is then also to comprehend to what step the American position on the Cultural Diversity Agreement narrate to the fight over the cultural allowance, though this is not clearly expressed as part of the inquiry question. The purpose of this learning is not to appraise the possessions international trade has on cultures or whether or not the Cultural Diversity Agreement deliver the right means to realize cultural diversity. Also, this learning does not discriminate between high and low culture. Relatively, in the basis of the Convention, people emphasis on the country’s position and opinions on trade in cultural merchandises within an international framework, and analyze whether their opinion originate from a commercial or a normative aspect, or both.

This is the viewpoint at which the essential for regulatory measures which a national wants to take for the advantage of country first becomes specious. At the same time it develops strong that government actions to keep cultural uniqueness or reserve cultural diversity are not relaxed to device in the framework of globalized statement flows and can certainly have accidental effects. Moreover it shows that barriers obstructing market access do not essentially prime to the protection of cultural diversity, meanwhile in their arrival national producers rather let themselves be directed by the style of the dominant culture encouraged by network effects, which unavoidably leads to a loss of local cultural resources. Some media corporations have been predominantly aggressive in their challenges to defeat regulations and their energies have established legal blessing from the mediation courts of the WTO. The distinct economic characteristics of the cultural sector and the vibrant role they play in encouraging cultural diversity were not predictable by the WTO side (Devadoss & Kropf, 1996).

One certainly interesting feature of the culture and trade argument is the positions taken by NGOs and civil culture. All are in arrangement when it originates to rejection of the apparently extreme power produced by a grand United States and threatening cultural diversity. However when it comes to exception cultural, at least in terms of shares and market entrance barriers, views deviate as they do in the discussion on copyright. The toughest supporters of the exception cultural and severer regulation of intellectual stuff rights are to be originating in the positions of culture producers and representatives for the cultural sector and after all, such problems have a direct influence on their specialized earnings. Both network practicality consumers and NGOs functioning for free and egalitarian internet access exactly criticize limitations on online services and regulation of rational property rules and interestingly with the same dispute put forward by supporters of the exclusion culturally. Both collections wish to reserve the range of material bases as the origin for a well-functioning independent country.

1. Reconcile the terms of this convention with principles of free trade. What will be the effect on trade in audiovisual products? How would American industry respond?

Free trade basically refers to the bilateral efforts at the World Trade Organization (WTO) to open trade by reducing import taxes which is tariffs and eliminating nontariff barriers internationally. It also denotes to the joint and regional contracts that relax trade between exchange partners. Some opponents blame these concrete trade liberalization pains for annoying the disparities between countries and placing additional strain on the environment through quick industrialization. Others title that only free trade can endorse worldwide maintainable growth and development countries have been absorbed in the relationship between trade and sustainable development. Although the trade sustainability relationship is mainly indirect, the WTO claims that free trade clues to environmental sustainability through economic development, recognized stability and predictability, growing innovation, more-efficient resource allocation, and enlarged incomes. Trade liberalization, however, has not had an entirely positive effect on environmental (or even economic and social) sustainability. Moreover when bilateral and multilateral trade liberalization augmented, the resulting development often led to environmental deprivation. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), like worsened air and water pollution by heartening the creation of hundreds of export-focused maquiladoras (Devadoss & Kropf, 1996). Moreover, gaps between rich and poor nations have essentially widened since that time. Most countries see the market access delivered by free trade as a benefit to their citizens. Market contact includes right to use to goods, cross-border services, capital, and academic property. Unfortunately, necessities that encourage market access for one country may depress it for another. Even fully applied free trade cannot improve every person’s or every nation’s welfare concurrently. The ordinary economic policy response to environmental influences is to implement policies that internalize externalities. At the global level, however, the picture is more disordered. The encumbrance of environmental externalities related with trade may be borne by importers, exporters, or by others not straight involved in the manufacture or consumption of transacted goods. The specialist to formulate and trade environmental policies typically exists only at the general level. This can generate important problems when environmental influences are worldwide, since most international trade agreements do not comprise any necessities for environmental protection.

 Reference:

Tomlinson, J. (1991). Cultural imperialism. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Retrieved from 23 September 2018. Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9780470670590.wbeog129/abstract;jsessionid=35E645D339EE8D9507D1DE468283753D.f02t02?userIsAuthenticated=false&deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=

Devadoss, S., & Kropf, J. (1996). Impacts of trade liberalizations under the Uruguay Round on the world sugar market. Agricultural Economics, 15(2), 83-96. Retrieved from 22 September 2018. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169515096011930