text:
Management Of Social Transformations - MOST © UNESCO 1995
Paper prepared on the occasion of the "1995 Global Cultural
Diversity Conference", 26-28 April 1995, and the "MOST Pacific
Sub-Regional Consultation", 28-29 April 1995, both in Sydney,
Activities on the Cultural Rights of Persons Belonging to Minorities and
the Rights of Indigenous Peoples within UNESCO´s Fields of Competence
- Selective list of UNESCO's Normative Instruments in the field of
Cultural Rights
This paper is about coping with the management of ethnic and cultural
diversity through policies which promote ethnic and cultural minority
groups' participation in, and access to the resources of society, while
maintaining the unity of the country. That diversity characterizes the
great majority of the countries in the world, and that with the end of the
cold war and bilateral international order, identitarian claims of ethnic,
religious and cultural varieties are becoming stronger, are well-known
facts. Such developments, which sometimes lead to conflictual situations
and tragedies such as in Bosnia and Rwanda, seriously challenge the
States, which respond to it through different policies, which range from
assimilationism and integrationism, to differentialism. The latter, not
always intentionally conceived, involves indirect exclusion, implicit in
cultural and institutional practices and active exclusion, which may go as
far as apartheid and even genocide [Gamson, 1995]. Multiculturalism lies
in between, is one policy response for coping with diversity in society.
The analysis offered here takes an indepth look at multiculturalist
policies and assesses the benefits and limitations of such an approach.
Multiculturalism, as a systematic and comprehensive response to
cultural and ethnic diversity, with educational, linguistic, economic and
social components and specific institutional mechanisms, has been adopted
by Australia and Canada. The Australian multicultural policy is given
special attention here for two reasons: firstly, it constitutes an
extensive effort to cope democratically with diversity, developed in the
very short time-span of two decades, against the earlier, long-standing
assimiliationist, and later integrationist, tradition. Secondly, this
policy is founded on a civic and contractual definition of citizenship,
rather than on ethnic and cultural communitarianism, a feature which is
crucial for avoiding conflicts and reconciling diversity with societal
cohesion. This means that while ethnic and cultural specificities are
respected, they are to be subsumed under the Constitution, the democratic
system, the use of a national language (two in the case of Canada) and
certain norms, such as individual rights, social equity and gender
equality, which prevail in the country. It is only natural that Canada, as
the society which devised the term multiculturalism, is also given special
attention. Understandably, multiculturalism as one model of a democratic
policy response to cultural and ethnic diversity is of interest to UNESCO,
in so far as it corresponds to the ideal of a culture of peace, based on
respect of diversity, as well as universally shared values and norms. As
regards the latter, the Preamble of the Constitution of UNESCO accords a
high value to "the intellectual and moral solidarity of mankind", as the
basis for domestic and international peace. On diversity, the following
words of the French anthropologist, Claude Lévi-Strauss (1952), epitomize
the spirit of UNESCO's approach:
" The diversity of cultures is behind us, before us and all around us.
The only demand we can make of it .... is that it take forms that each
make a contribution to the utmost generosity of other people."
This paper, prepared in the framework of UNESCO's Management of Social
Transformations (MOST) Programme on the occasion of the "1995
Global Cultural Diversity Conference", 26-28 April 1995, and the
"MOST Pacific Sub-Regional Consultation" 28-29 April 1995, both in
Sydney, Australia, benefited from several valuable contributions. We are
particularly indebted to Michael Banton, Christine Inglis, Atieno Odhiambo
and William Safran, who provided us with their analyses and views in texts
especially written on this occasion. Another source of information and
analyses was a paper, previously presented in a UNESCO meeting by Nestor
Garcia Canclini. Additionally, we are grateful to Stephen Castles for his
thoughtful comments. We also drew on additional expertise available at
UNESCO, especially from the education and communication programmes, but
final responsibility for the text, and for any shortcomings, is ours.
Furthermore, the analyses proposed here do not commit the Organization.
The MOST Programme Secretariat
Paris, April 1995
" It is precisely because of the cultural diversity of the world
that it is necessary for different nations and peoples to agree
on those basic human values which will act as a unifying factor
Aung San Suu Kyi 1991 Nobel Peace Prize
Cultural and ethnic diversity is not a new phenomenon and, indeed,
social theorists have developed many schema illustrating different contact
situations and/or explanations for the presence or absence of conflict
between different ethnic groups (Banton 1967; Blalock 1967; van den Berghe
1967; Schermerhorn 1970). Multiculturalism in less than three decades has
become a word immediately recognised by policy makers, social
commentators, academics and the general public in certain countries. The
term, however does not necessarily enjoy such immediate recognition in all
parts of the world and furthermore, even where it is recognised, its
connotations are not necessarily shared. The reasons for the differential
recognition and understanding of the term are critical to the attempt to
assess the significance, operation and future of " multiculturalism ".
This text examines multiculturalism as an official policy response to
coping with diversity.
Western Canadians devised the term multiculturalism to protest
continuing hegemonic ambition by the anglophones and francophones of
Central Canada. The subsequent federal government policy of
multiculturalism and official bilingualism established in Canada set off
two decades of political change, leading to a new Constitution, a charter
of rights and a referendum on separation (Foster, L. and D. Stockley,
Broadly speaking, national approaches to the management of cultural or
ethnic diversity can be grouped into three categories, which themselves
have variants in the models they comprise. A first approach is well
illustrated by France which, calling upon Article 2 of its Constitution
(which makes no reference to cultural identity), avoids to recognize the
existence of national or linguistic minorities within its borders. This
approach is characterized by nationality based on jus soli and a
civic concept of citizenship. French citizens, whatever their ethnic
origin, enjoy equal civic, cultural and linguistic rights as individuals,
but not collectively, as minority groups. This integrationist response to
diversity assumes that the non-recognition of minority groups is a way of
preserving State unity and societal cohesion. It is also a model based on
the strict separation of the private from the public space (Birnbaum,
1995). This division is legally elaborated through the Law of 1901
concerning associations (Giordan, 1992) which approves associations as a
vehicule permitting citizens (regardless of their origin) to organize the
development of the minority cultures and languages to which they are
attached. This law is being frequently used by minority groups in France,
but the institutional frameworks guaranteeing the real practice of this
recognized right are lacking. Nonetheless, on the whole, France has been
integrating quite successfully its immigrant populations. However, at
present, with increasing immigrant populations, a sizeable number of whom
obtain French nationality (about 100,000 a year) the French Republic is
struggling to cope democratically with diversity. The educational system
has become a prominent arena for these difficulties with repeated rulings
against girls wearing the Islamic scarf in public schools. Another current
dilemma facing State authorities is the request for granting Jewish pupils
in public schools a particular status for the Shabbat.
In contrast to the individualistic French approach, the model
illustrated by Germany, Japan or Singapore is founded upon the principle
of jus sanguinis, as opposed to jus soli. Citizenship in
these countries is based on " blood "or ethnic origin. Concretely, this
means, for example, that German citizenship can only be granted to those
individuals of German ancestry. Consequently, this prevents, for example,
the third generation Turks born in Germany and whose native language is
German, from obtaining the nationality, whereas a German from the former
Soviet Union, who has never been in Germany before and hardly speaks
German can quickly obtain a German passport. A similar conception of
citizenship in Japan excludes from Japanese citizenship Japanese-born
Koreans and other ethnic minorities who have long been living in the
Finally, a third category, of which Australia and Canada are the
foremost examples, is accomodation of identitarian claims through the
adoption of a model of multiculturalism as an official policy response.
Although Australia and Canada have adopted this approach, it is important
to point out that not all groups in the two societies were favourable to
this decision. Additionally, a major difference between them which affects
the evolution of multiculturalism is that Australia is composed of one
indigenous population - the Aborigines - one founding population - English
- and was later populated by waves of immigrant populations. Canada,
however, has several indigenous or First Nation populations, and two "
founding populations ": one English, one French (with the French having
arrived about 100 years before the English). This split between the French
population, concentrated in Quebec and the English population, dispersed
among the other provinces, has had enormous political implications in the
discourse on multiculturalism in Canada. In particular, the phrase
multiculturalism was seen in the late 1960s and 1970s by the
French-speaking population as an English majority tactic for reducing the
" founding status " of the French to the same political significance as
that of late immigrant settler populations, such as the Ukranian settlers.
Linked to these three approaches are three interrelated, but
nevertheless distinctive, referents of " multiculturalism " and its
related adjective " multicultural " : the demographic-descriptive,
the ideological-normative and the programmatic-political.
The term " multiculturalism " gained currency after it was recommended in
the 1965 Report of Canada´s Royal Commission on Bilingualism and
Biculturalism to replace the bicultural policy based on the British and
French Charter groups in terms of which ethnic diversity in Canadian
society had been conceptualised for over a century. Since then, its usage
has spread rapidly to encompass the " demographic-descriptive " and the "
ideological-normative " connotation.
The demographic-descriptive usage occurs where the word "
multicultural " refers to the existence of linguistically, culturally and
ethnically diverse segments in the population of a society or State. It
represents a perception that such distinctiveness has some social
significance-primarily because of perceived cultural differences though
these are frequently associated with forms of structural differentiation.
The precise ethnic groupings which exist in a State, the significance of
ethnicity for social participation in societal institutions and the
processes through which ethnic differentiation is constructed and
maintained may vary considerably between individual States, and over time.
The ideological-normative usage of multiculturalism generates
the greatest level of debate since it constitutes a slogan and basis for
political action. Furthermore it is one where the limited implementation
of explicit multicultural programs and policies means that there is a
limited range of empirical evidence available on their operation and
outcome. The ideological-normative usage of " multiculturalism "
constitutes a specific focus towards the management and organisation of
governmental responses to ethnic diversity. Put in simplified terms, these
alternatives constitute a continuum from assimilationism to
differencialism, the extreme forms of which are exclusion, apartheid, "
ethnic cleansing" and genocide. While assimilationism views the
significance of ethnic or cultural differences as transitory and
disappearing over time as a result of full political, cultural and social
incorporation of minority groups into the nation, differentialism does not
envisage or consider possible such an incorporation.
As an alternative to assimilationism and differentialism,
multiculturalism emphasizes that acknowledging the existence of ethnic
diversity and ensuring the rights of individuals to retain their culture
should go hand in hand with enjoying full access to, participation in, and
adhesion to, constitutional principles and commonly shared values
prevailing in the society. By acknowledging the rights of individuals and
groups and ensuring their equitable access to society, advocates of
multiculturalism also maintain that such a policy benefits both
individuals and the larger society by reducing pressures for social
conflicts based on disadvantage and inequality. They also argue that
multiculturalism is an enrichment for the society as a whole. In
Australia, there is the further contention that cultural diversity
actually provides an important national resource for foreign economic,
political and cultural relations. This benign view corresponds to a
definition of " multiculturalism " as " the theory that it is beneficial
to a society to maintain more than one culture within its structure "
(Macquarie 1985, p.1125).
The third, programmatic-political, usage of " multiculturalism "
refers to the specific policies developed to respond to, and manage ethnic
diversity. Originally coined in Canada, mainly as a response to
English/French divide, the concept was subsequently endorsed by Australia
in a statement called " A multicultural society for the future ", launched
in 1973. Despite adopting this approach, there is still a question today
as to how the policy relates to the indigenous populations of these two
countries, and indeed in New Zealand, where the indigenous Maori people
resist the the notion of an official multicultural policy. Elsewhere,
although multiculturalism may not have been officially adopted as national
policy, at various sub-national levels or in non-governmental agencies,
multicultural approaches addressing issues of ethnic and cultural
diversity are put into practice in various ways.
An examination of " multicultural " policies indicates that while there
may be certain very general shared objectives (based on the
ideological-normative view of multiculturalism) the actual practices
underlying such policies vary considerably between States and have changed
over time within each State. As a programmatic response to diversity,
multiculturalism must be seen as located within a very specific historical
context, both nationally and internationally.
Diversity in patterns of ethnic identities and relations are today a
hallmark of the great majority of societies in all regions. Only 10 to 15%
of countries can be reasonably qualified as ethnically homogenous
(Väyrinen, 1994; Connor, 1994). Linguistic and religious diversity further
compounds diversity associated with life styles which draw on traditional
cultural forms, even if Western cultural forms become ever more present
throughout the world. Ethnic identities relate not only to culture but
also, in different ways, to national identities and nationalism. Social
science research monitors and analyzes such developments and a
considerable number of recent books and articles, building upon limited
earlier studies add to our understanding of issues linked to multicultural
and multiethnic societies (Krüger, 1993; Smith, 1991 and 1986; Hobsbaum,
1990; McNeil, 1986; Gellner, 1983; Anderson, 1988).
In many ways, ethnicity may be seen as a phenomenon of self perception:
an ethnic community is the one which believes it has a common ethnic
origin, and shares certain cultural traits, a common ancestry, history and
mythology. Nonetheless, beyond its cultural and historical basis,
ethnicity is also a political occurrence, at least partly elaborated by
the elites and often leads to claims for political sovereignty and
The understanding of the relationship between ethnicity, nation and
nationalism is of central importance. National identity and nationalism
have been defined as a modern phenomenon, linked to, and even forged by,
the modern State, even if its definition refers also to collective
cultural characteristics and occasionally to an ethnic component (Gellner,
1983). Another view, developed by Anthony D. Smith (1986) is that national
identity and nationalism have old historical roots, and that in many cases
they spring from a pre-existing ethnic group. To the " political " nation
is thus opposed the " ethnic " nation. The former view was summarized by
the 19th century French philosopher and historian Ernest Renan: " The
existence of a nation .... is an everyday plebiscite " (1882, 1992). In
contrast to such an individualistic and contractual outlook, the ethnic
national identity is a collective one; it is " received " from the past by
the whole community and does not involve a voluntary act of adhesion.
These two types of national identity do not exist in pure forms. The
political one has historical and cultural roots while the ethnic one, as
we have seen, has a politicial dimension. The significant factor is the
relative weight of these two components. In any given national identity,
when the weight of ethnic component is excessive, it may become an
obstacle to the peaceful management of diversity in a society, threaten
societal cohesion and lead to violent conflicts. Greater weight of the
political component, as compared to the ethnic component of the national
identity, facilitates democratic multicultural policies, which respect
identitarian claims and permit a degree of autonomy to ethnic communities,
while also promoting their full participation in, and access to, the wider
constitutional order. A dominant ethnic component in nationality is likely
to lead to conflictual situations.
In many countries in the Asia-Pacific, African and Latin American
regions, sources of ethnic diversity range historically from population
movements linked to the building of empires, spread of religions and
patterns of trade, to colonisation, labour migration accompanying rapid
economic growth, and refugee populations fleeing from civil disturbances.
Somewhat different patterns underlie ethnic relations in Australia, New
Zealand and Canada, as well as the USA. As regards the first three
countries, established as settler colonies of Britain (and France in the
case of Canada), they achieved their independence nearly a century ago,
with Canada achieving independence over 100 years ago. While British
settlers (and for Canada, British and French settlers) formed the core of
their populations, displacing their indigenous populations, Australia,
Canada and New Zealand have continued since independence to make extensive
use of immigration as a way of meeting perceived needs for economic
development and political security. The USA, a former British colony which
became independent more than two centuries ago, also displaced, and to a
great extent eliminated the indigenous populations, and until recent times
remained a country of immigration. In Latin America, the Spanish and
Portuguese, settler colonies also possessing indigenous populations that
were largely or totally displaced and eliminated are to varying degrees
immigration countries, from Europe, Africa and the Middle East.
Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the USA, as major countries of
continuing immigration have had to address the issues of national identity
and nation-building. While the decision to make citizenship easily
available to all new settlers partly resolved the issue of how to
incorporate the new settlers from non-British backgrounds, it still left
problematic other aspects of their incorporation. This was nevertheless a
more liberal approach than the one related to the indigenous population.
For example, the Australian Aborigines, effectively received
full-citizenship rights only in 1967. In the case of indigenous
populations, the specific socio-economic, cultural and territorial
problems continue to pose different problems, in Canada, New Zealand, USA,
Russia, Scandinavia and Latin America.
The question of indigenous, or First Nation peoples, is of foremost
significance in analyses of diversity. Such populations have specificities
which differentiate them from the general category of minorities. Over the
past twenty years, indigenous populations across the world have undergone
a remarkable rise in self-assertion and in many ways have " united " to
voice their grievances and assert their claims. The Governments of Canada
and Australia have undertaken policies to " restitute " or restore
historical justice to these populations. In Canada a large zone of the
Northwest territories was recently recognized as an autonomous,
self-governing unit. In Australia recent changes in the legal system have
recognized Aboriginal rights over land.
These national policy decisions have been influenced in part by
mounting international pressure channelled by indigenous groups through
the United Nations System. The international political arena has offered a
forum for indigenous peoples to voice their claims and in this framework a
series of normative instruments and agreements have been developed. It is
over the past decade that the international struggle has been of
particular importance and has resulted in a World Audience at the United
Nations for the rights of indigenous peoples. This framework has allowed
also Indigenous peoples declare that they are not " ethnic minorities ".
Such claims are based upon their rights as the original occupants of the
territory, consequently, their representatives maintain that the relations
with the immigrant peoples are inter-nation relations that should be
regulated by treaties between parties of equal status.
Among the most prominent international actions are the Task Force on
Indigenous Peoples, the proposed Declaration of the United Nations on
Indigenous People, the adoption of 1993 as the International Year of the
World´s Indigenous People and recently the proclamation by the UN General
Assembly the International Decade of the World´s Indigenous People, as of
December 1994. On the international arena, UNESCO considerably contributed
toward bringing about the awareness of the real situation of indigenous
peoples and of the need for them to be recognized as full partners in the
policy formulation process. This was clear from the meetings held, in
conjunction with the Mexican authorities, in Oaxaca, in March 1993 on
Education, Work and Cultural Pluralism and at Campeche, the following
month, on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in the Context of New
Relations. The statements adopted by these meetings were part of the
contribution made by the indigenous peoples of the America's to the World
Conference on Human Rights, held in Vienna, in June 1993 (UNESCO, 1994).
A rough typology of language policies can be used to classify responses
to cultural diversity at given points in a country´s history. The first
category, the smallest one in an increasingly intermixing world, includes
countries which are essentially monolingual and favour monolingual
language policies, including in education.
The second category of countries are those which hold a monolingual
national language policy and a monolingual educational policy, with
limited recognition of their multilingual nature, derived from regional
languages and immigrant populations. France is a good example of this
category. Since the French Revolution, it has perceived a monolingual
approach as essential to nation-building, but also in terms of maintaining
a centralized approach to education. At the same time, the teaching of
regional languages are allowed. The children of immigrant populations born
in France have also a chance to learn the language of their parents; this
is achieved through bilateral manpower agreements between partner
governments. The learning arrangements almost exclusively take place
outside school hours at the expense of the country of origin. The
possibility of learning the language of origin at secondary level depends
exclusively on the presence of that language in the programme of the
school or by special arrangements negotiated on a case by case basis in
which students can make use of distance education, for example, to study
the languages of their parents to high school examination level.
A third category of countries is somewhat similar to the French case.
Here the language of the majority is the dominant one, but it has no
constitutional or official status and there is some scope within the
school system for bilingual education on a transitional basis (i.e. use of
the mother tongue in order to better accede to the dominant language at a
later stage). The United States is an interesting example in this
category, in that there is no official status to English, although it is
unquestionably the dominant language. Attempts by States of this federal
system to render English official and restrict use of minority languages
in public services, including education have been declared
unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, as impinging on the civil rights of
citizens. Thus, the point of entry for respect for linguistic diversity in
the U.S. is respect for civil rights rather than an outright policy to
promote linguistic diversity. A large debate continues to take place
around what is called " official English ". Generally speaking, virtually
all intervention to promote transitional bilingual education is geared to
assisting non-English speakers to obtain equal educational opportunity and
accede to English as the major language of instruction.
A fourth category of countries includes Nation-States which give some
institutional recognition to their multilingual character without truly
promoting diversity. Indeed, these countries, also federal in nature, have
argued that national unity depends on strict respect for linguistic
diversity, but only in terms of specific territorial boundaries. This
category includes, inter alia, Belgium and Switzerland, where
language boundaries coincide with distinct populations, and triple and
even quadruple administrations exist to respect that diversity.
Nonetheless, in Belgium for instance, there is no strict obligation for
French-speaking Wallons to become fluent in Flemish, or vice-versa, within
their territorial jurisdictions. Immigrant populations are also in a
similar situation to those described in France. The interesting aspect of
this policy response to diversity is that some form of institutionalized
recognition of linguistic diversity is considered as essential to national
Canada represents the fifth category, as a country which has two
official languages but which recognizes the possibility of schooling in
other languages including native languages. The Canadian case is
particularly complex with certain provinces possessing specific provincial
language requirements. Quebec´s Bill 101, for example, requires that the
children of immigrants to Quebec go to French language schools. To further
illustrate the complexity of language and education, in 1988 the Supreme
Court of Canada ruled that the Quebec linguistic policy of limiting access
to public schooling in English to only the original English Quebec
minority, was against the Canadian Charter of Rights and Liberties. The
Quebec legislation had been devoted to protect the francophone community
in the Province from a strong anglophone immigration which could
eventually assimilate the French and reverse the power relationship
between the two linguistic communities in the province. The guarantee of
the linguistic rights of the anglophones, the minority in Quebec but the
majority outside the Province, could represent a serious threat to the
tiny francophone community.
A sixth category which has had a precarious history includes those
federal States which have attempted to develop linguistic diversity as
well as promote the use of a single language of wider communication. The
ex-Soviet Union and the ex-Yugoslavia have been outstanding examples of
the use of the generous policies regarding linguistic diversity and the
most fragile in times of social crisis. Initially, to convey the new ideas
of the revolution, the early Soviet policy included the creation of some
50 alphabets to give written form to languages some of which were on the
verge of extinction. The mass literacy campaigns which took place first in
the Soviet Union and later served as models elsewhere, were based on the
assumption that socialization to the new revolutionary ideas depended
primarily on education in the mother tongues and, at a later stage, the
learning of Russian as the language of national cohesion. Similarly, the
ex-Yugoslavia developed educational models with a high degree of respect
for diversity within individual territories, including that of language
minorities. Since the breakdown of these States, conflicts arose, which
appear to be based on various forms of particularisms, which may have been
repressed, or ill-addressed, in the preceding period.
Decisions regarding linguistic diversity are closely linked to
prevailing political priorities. During the International Literacy Year,
in 1990, countries such as Australia and Canada were the scene of
interesting stages of advocacy in this respect. While international years
declared by the United Nations are essentially used to promote awareness
of certain issues, they can also serve to highlight specific groups or
nation´s priorities at that time. It is interesting to note that the
Australian approach at that particular period was to promote a form of
multilingual recognition, which went under the policy position of "
English guaranteed for all ", rather than the earlier move towards
institutional recognition of linguistic diversity. At the same time,
Canada, officially bilingual English-French, produced major parliamentary
recognition of linguistic diversity to promote equality of opportunity,
notably for First Nations, or indigenous people (UNESCO, 1993). At the
same time, the Northwest Territories of Canada declared six other
languages official, beyond the first two languages of wider communication.
In both countries, it was considered timely, expedient and appropriate to
take these different stances. The impact of these policies today, in the
face of global diversity concerns, would need to be measured in terms of
actual resources applied to promoting bilingual or multilingual education
in the case of Canada, and improvements in the quality of education
offered to non-native English speakers in the case of Australia.
In much of the developing world, the issues are similar. In the African
continent, linguistic diversity may mean more than 80 languages within the
territory of a State. While a number of African States have opted for one
or the other of the various categories discussed above, others are
experimenting with use of local languages as essential building-blocks to
effective learning, with a transition to languages of wider communication
at higher stages of education. The debate concerning nation-building is
even more complex to the extent that language groups cross national
boundaries, and political instability and economic crisis have an
overriding impact on attemps to develop a coherent social policy and
promote general well-being, let alone respect for diversity.
UNESCO's position over some forty-five years has been to promote
wherever possible, the right to learn in one´s mother tongue, as well as
the right to access to languages of wider communication. An
increasingly-interdependent world characterized by diversity makes this
goal an essential priority. There is no lasting democracy or social
justice, let alone peace, without such respect and understanding (McAll,
The relationship of religion to ethnicity and to pluralism remains one
of the most controversial matters. There are numerous examples of
ethnocultures based on, or buttressed by, religion, such as the Armenian,
Jewish, Tamil, Sikh and Serb,-Croat and Bosnian cases. But it is unclear
what happens to an ethnic culture when faced with modernisation (i.e. the
process of secularisation). On the one hand, it can be argued that the
ethnic culture disintegrates, as the religious matrix on which it is based
weakens; on the other, as religion weakens, an ethnic identity focus, a
kind of secular religion, serves as a substitute cement of collective
consciousness of the minority group. Moreover, where religion maintains
itself, the communities based on it tend to become less " primordial "
more permeable, and less distinguishable from " functional " communities.
In fact, religious and ethnic minority communities in industrial societies
are not so inclusive, as is sometimes argued by Jacobin intellectuals.
This is particularly the case where several religious communities coexist
and where such coexistence is sanctioned either by a formal separation of
religion and state (as in the United States and France) or by an official
" co-legitimation" of several religions (as in Germany and Great-Britain).
Such contexts often contribute to the transformation of ethno-religious
communities from monistically to pluralistically oriented ones, as in the
case of various religions in the Netherlands, and the United States.
In many cases, the importance and impact of religion on politics has
not decreased with modernization, despite the hypothesis that science and
technology would increase access to education, and mobility would diminish
the socio-political importance of religion. In fact, social
transformations, which have led to the spread of a Western culture (that
nevertheless in many cases may only be skin deep), have also led to a loss
of identity. Migrants from developing to developed countries, or from
rural to urban areas are particularly influenced by the transformation
process, undergo a loss of values and are particularly open to political
calls based on religious precepts.
The mass media generally is a critical force in shaping society value
systems, as well as individual and collective behaviour. The mimetic
factor of mass media, difficult to measure empirically, does have effects
on society, whether it be in fashion, music, tastes for the " good life ",
status symbols, hero worship, to the extent of shaping opinions and
changing or reinforcing one´s attitudes and values - for better or for
worse. Such an influence of the media was not exercized to the same extent
just a generation ago. In the early 1960s, when the transistor revolution
began to spread radio throughout the world, radio receivers were owned by
less than 25% of households in the developing countries; television was
mainly an urban phenomena, as yet non-existent in many of the developing
countries. Today, radio has saturated practically the entire world, while
television reaches more than 65% saturation in many developing countries
of Asia and Latin America. The prime battles for people´s minds and hearts
are waged in front of a television screen or for many others, in front of
a radio receiver. Immediacy of information and opinion forming through the
electronic media is a characteristic specific to the present generation.
There are several levels on which the media might influence audiences,
in relation to issues of cultural diversity: firstly, through the
portrayal of stereotyped, biased, or otherwise unfounded images of other
people, such that they result in misrepresenting the authentic character
and socio-cultural values of these people. Often these images are
presented unwittingly, but the result can often be a casting of other
peoples in a certain mold from which it is difficult to remove oneself.
Media can have such a lasting judgemental effect that writers, presenters
and producers must be very careful to avoid falling into the lapses of "
buzzwords ", stereotypes and generalizations.
Secondly, there is the portrayal of violence which acts as a " softener
" to inhibitions. While it is difficult to substantiate a causal
relationship between violence on television and violence in reality,
empirical evidence from many studies seems to indicate that repeated
exposure to televised violence can de-sensitize one´s inhibitions against
violence. Violent TV programmes and video films that portray the " other "
as the villain, be it another national, ethnic or linguistic group, or
even people from the outer space in science fiction stories - and there
are hundreds of them available - may reinforce or encourage racism or
ethnic hatred.
As explained in the Guidelines for the Portrayal of Violence on BBC
Programmes (1993), while the relationship between the violence on the
screen and violence in real life is extremely complicated, and may not be
that of direct cause-and-effect, it must be borne in mind that violence in
programmes may be imitated.
Finally, there is the deliberate instigation against an ethnic group or
nation. This is the case of media being used by authorities in power to
actively provoke hatred and call for murder against another ethnic or
cultural group of people. The best known recent case, is that of " Radio
Mille Collines ", in Rwanda. In 1995, radio broadcasts were used to openly
and aggressively provoke listeners to commit outright genocide, against
another ethnic group of the same country, in an overall programme of
ethnic cleansing. A comparable use of the media is made by the leaders of
the Bosnian Serbs, against other Bosnian communities.
On the positive side, communication can contribute to improving the
understanding among peoples and the appreciation of other cultures. The
mass media, radio, television, and the printed press, are formidable means
for exchanging ideas, opinions, and inter-cultural understanding.
In countries that have several ethnic communities within the national
fold, it is often necessary to exercize utmost care in news stories, to
ensure that they reflect reality with objectivity, accuracy and fairness.
In certain countries, press institutes regularly convene journalists to
discuss fair ways of reporting events concerning ethnic or cultural
groups. Some press institutes and research organizations have published
manuals for journalists on ethnic reporting, with a view to encouraging
objective and fair portrayal of the issues. But this work must be
continued on a larger scale and the experiences shared more widely.
Mass media are for exchanging ideas and opinions, even in zones of
conflict. Radio and television particularly could be used to air public
debates on the issues that separate peoples: territorial lines, religious
beliefs, cultural mores, social behaviour, aspirations for development and
social betterment. Such media fora could contribute to consolidating peace
where basic accords have been reached and could support efforts towards
solidifying such accords in countries where conflicts still hold sway.
The emergence of multiculturalism as prominent term in Western
discourse concerning ethnic diversity, conflict and management coincides
with increasing awareness in the Western industrial societies, especially
over the last two decades, that ethnic groups had not lost their saliency
in the lives of large numbers of people. Their earlier perceptions about
such a loss of saliency coincides with the 19th century emergence of
modern-industrial states, where social theorists such as Durkheim, Weber
and Marx, theorised that status based social differentiation was replaced
by the social class as the driving force in society. Ethnicity and racial
differences were viewed as surviving anachronisms, dating from pre-modern,
traditional societies. This analysis was shared by social commentators and
policy-makers who operated with an often implicit view that assimilation
of minority groups had either occurred, or was in progress. The trend
towards global cultural homogenisation, typified by the metaphore of the "
global village ", presaged a quickening of this type of development. Even
in those industrial nations such as Australia, Canada or the USA which
continued to receive large numbers of immigrants, assimilation was viewed
as the inevitable process.
By the 1960s, the ethnic rights movement and unrest in a number of the
Western industrial countries led to increased questioning of assumptions
that ethnic differences were of declining significance. The re-emergence
of major ethnic divisions within the former USSR and Eastern Europe has
coincided with a major growth of international population movements as a
response to economic changes as much as political unrest or demographic
pressures (Castles & Miller 1993;Kritz et al 1992; Stahl et al 1993).
Together these changes have meant that in the last decade of the 20th
century the assumptions of the 19th century writers about the demise of
ethnicity as a socially significant force are no longer tenable. Outside
the Western industrial societies there was never the illusion that ethnic
and racial differences were unimportant or non-existent. Often they
constituted the fabric of everyday life and, especially for newly
independent states, an important dimension of " nation-building " involved
managing the issue of ethnic and cultural diversity. The proliferation of
new States following decolonisation has not resulted in the disappearance
of multi-ethnic/multi-cultural populations within the new States. In fact,
the colonial legacy of departing powers left the new rulers with the
dilemma of building a nation through the incorporation of diverse ethnic
In a number of countries, the significance of ethnic diversity has
ensured the development of government policies designed to directly
address issues of diversity. The circumstances of their formulation, their
assumptions and objectives interact to influence their content. For
example, contrary to Australia and Canada, New Zealand, despite its shared
British heritage and structures, has not adopted multiculturalism as an
overall policy. This different practice is indicative of important
differences in the situation of the indigenous minorities, as compared to
Australia and Canada. Under the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi, the New Zealand
Maori population was assured that its rights would be recognised. While
this undertaking was often ignored, it has provided a basis upon which the
resurgent Maori movement has been able to effectively argue that they have
a legal-political status very different to that of immigrant ethnic
groups. Any attempt to extend multicultural policies beyond the latter
would be viewed as a major threat to Maori rights. This reaction is very
similar to that of the francophone Quebec community in the 60s and 70s,
when multiculturalism was proposed by the English majority, as a solution
to the struggle between the two linguistic groups.
Multiculturalism, as Australia's official policy towards ethnic
diversity is only two decades old. It replaced earlier policies of
assimilation and, briefly, integration. The latter betokened a policy
which envisaged that while individuals might retain cultural traditions in
their private lives, they would in other respects accommodate to the
national culture and public institutions of Australia. The Anglo-centric
assimilation policies of the 1940s, 50s and 60s were first critized by Al
Granby, the frist Minister for Immigration of Prime Minister Whitlam´s
Governments (K. Patterson, 1990). This Government is also known for having
established the EA ethnic radio in June 1975. The incoming Fraser Liberal
Government (1975-1983) continued promoting Australia as a multicultural
society through a number of policy initiatives, including the
establishment of the Special Broadcasting Service in 1978, designed to
oversee EA ethnic radio and later multicultural television introduced in
1980. According to R. Patterson (1990), Australia has a main body of
ethnic press comprising 80 ethnic newspapers and periodicals appearing at
least monthly in at least 25 languages. The readership attains
approximately 500,000 people. All ethnic press is privately owned.
Since its establishment, the EA radio has been plagued with uncertainty
about its future. Much of this is linked to the Special Broadcasting
Service (SBS) and is due to the tension between the rights of ethnic
communities in the management of this service and the appropriate role of
Governments. The Government imposed restrictions on SBS granting ultimate
control of the sources to the Minister and imposed guidelines governing
the content of the broadcasting, particularly in avoidance of political
partnership. The guidelines were discontinued in 1985.
Multiculturalism in Australia has evolved through several phases, in
the short period of two decades. A characteristic of all the phases was
that it necessitated a far more pro-active governmental response than
required by earlier policies where it was assumed that, while there might
be a few delays and disruptions along the way, ultimately, ethnic
homogeneity would ensue so that no specific institutional change was
required. A major impetus for the changes in policy was the emergence of
an ethnic rights movement including articulate and politically active
immigrants from non-English speaking backgrounds and grass roots workers
in a range of welfare areas, education, health and social services,
concerned about the disadvantages faced by many non-English speaking
background immigrants. The 1972 elections of a non-conservative reformist
government committed to social welfare provisions and overcoming social
disadvantage was responsive to changes addressing class related
disadvantage and the potential contribution of ethnicity.
In the first major phase of Australian policy, when the target group
were newly arrived immigrants of non-English speaking background, the main
focus was on the provision of linguistically and culturally appropriate
services with the longer term acceptance that cultural maintenance,
especially involving language diversity, should be supported. Funding of
the nationwide Telephone Interpreter Service, and of welfare and health
services for specific ethnic groups were a major initiative which
continues. Other major initiatives in this period included the development
of " community " language programs and, to a much lesser extent, bilingual
education in schools as well as government funding of after-hours ethnic
community language schools and the setting up of government radio and
television networks broadcasting in languages other than English.
In the second phase of the policy the focus of concern shifted from
cultural maintenance to concerns about inequity and social disadvantage
and, subsequently, to community relations and racism. Contributing to this
shift was the perception that cultural maintenance and cultural pluralism
were insufficient to overcome structural inequities confronting many of
those of non-English speaking backgrounds, even if not themselves
immigrants. The response was not, however, to set up parallel
institutional structures but to move towards deep change in the major
institutions, especially those bureaucratic institutions associated with
the delivery of government services. The term " mainstreaming " was used
to refer to the strategies involved in changing the essentially
monocultural bureaucracies. Programmatic-political multiculturalism had
already resulted in a variety of Federal and State agencies to oversee
policy development and implementation, but the shift now was towards
changing the way general government agencies operated. These changes
intended to remove structural barriers to social participation and were
enunciated in the 1989 National Agenda for a Multicultural Australia. They
were part of the government's broader agenda for promoting social justice
and ensuring equitable access to government programs and services for a
range of groups perceived as disadvantaged, including Aborigines and
Torres Strait Islanders, the disabled and women as well as those of
non-English speaking background.
Practical outcomes of the National Agenda included improvement of the
procedures for recognising overseas qualifications; a campaign to improve
community relations; a strengthening of the government's access and equity
strategy; extension and improvement of multicultural broadcasting;
extension of English language teaching programs and support programs; a
commitment for continued support for second language learning and reviews
of law and administrative decision-making.
The Australian National Agenda is significant for the way in which it
heralded the shift from multiculturalism as a policy for specific targeted
groups to being a broader policy for " all Australians ". In this way, the
programmatic -political definition of multiculturalism shifted from an "
ethnic group " model to what has been described as a " social-democratic
concept of citizenship for an ethnically diverse nation " (Castles 1991,
p.196). The National Agenda identified three dimensions of
multiculturalism for all Australians. These were the right to cultural
identity, the right to social justice and the need for economic efficiency
which involved the effective development and utilisation of the talents
and skills of all Australians. These dimensions were seen as exercised
within limits which included a primary commitment to Australia; an
acceptance of the basic structures and principles of Australian society
including the Constitution and rule of law, tolerance and equality,
parliamentary democracy, freedom of speech and religion, English as the
national language and equality of the sexes, and the obligation to accept
the rights of others to express their views and values.
An important innovation in the specification of the dimensions of
multiculturalism is the inclusion of " economic efficiency " which gives
Australian programmatic-political multiculturalism a unique orientation.
Specifically, it is the key to the argument that multiculturalism is for "
all Australians ", since it specifies how cultural diversity is in the
interests of all, through its contribution to the economic development of
Australia. " Economic productivity " which follows from this dimension
involves utilising the cultural skills and talents of Australians from
diverse cultural backgrounds to extend Australian economic initiatives
both locally and internationally. The use of economic advantage as a basis
for achieving legitimation and national acceptance of multiculturalism is
not fortuitous. The changes heralded in the National Agenda articulate
with broader changes involving economic restructuring of the labour market
and the industrial relations system designed to ensure a more flexible
workforce where specific job competencies and skills were to replace
reliance on formal paper qualifications. As part of the restructuring of
the economy there was also a refocussing towards a highly skilled
workforce which was to be achieved through major reforms of the education
and training institutions.
The changes in Australian multiculturalism policy over the last two
decades are the outcome of a variety of factors, including changing
awareness of the limitations and outcomes of earlier stages of the policy
(as with supplementing cultural pluralism and maintenance initiatives with
efforts to reduce disadvantage by removing structural barriers), changes
in the policy objectives of different elected governments and the changing
outcome of the interplay of interest groups affected by multicultural
policies. An underlying factor of considerable importance is the emergence
of a generation of Australians who have grown up under the policy of
multiculturalism and accept the changes it has produced in Australian
society. These include a much more inclusive approach to the attributes of
Australian identity and a remarkably high level of tolerance. This is
indicated by an absence of extensive inter-group conflict involving either
those from the Anglo-Celtic majority as well as that between groups such
as those from the former Yugoslavia who outside Australia have become
embroiled in extensive and violent conflict. High levels of
inter-generational mobility have also contributed to acceptance of the
policy among those of non-English speaking background.
There is little to suggest that the multiculturalism policy has reached
an end point in its evolution. Australian society has continued and will
continue, to change. In addition to economic restructuring, the fiscal
crisis of the last decade has resulted in major reductions in the
commitment by governments to provide, and their ability to pay for, the
range of welfare activities which were common when multiculturalism
commenced. Inevitably, this puts pressure on expenditure associated with
multicultural, as well as other, programs. This is especially critical
given that the existence of such support services, especially for newly
arrived immigrants, has been viewed as contributing to successful
settlement in Australia and the absence of an emerging ethnic underclass.
The composition of new arrivals has also shifted to now include
substantial numbers of Asians, often skilled professionals, technicians
and managers. Their relationship to those of other ethnic backgrounds and
their response to multiculturalism has yet to be clarified.
In addition to these changes, there are also unresolved tensions within
the policy which could well produce further change. These include the
balance between policy provisions for specific ethnic groups and more
general provisions for diversity within existing institutional structures;
the balance between maintenance of cultural diversity or pluralism and the
attainment of equity; and the acceptance of a national identity based on a
concept not of unity but on diversity of cultures, a far more abstract
notion, the symbols of which may not always be easily identified. A
considerable level of pragmatism has characterised the policy responses
adopted by government in Australia to multiculturalism and, within fairly
broad limits, they have been successful in avoiding the highly emotive
critiques and opposition based on a politics of identity (Castles 1992;
Dorais, Foster & Stockley 1994). This is not to suggest that
multiculturalism is necessarily seen as an enduring policy by Australian
governments. As a background to this consideration and the examination of
programmatic-political multiculturalism internationally, a brief
comparison of Australian policies with those of Singapore and Canada may
provide an additional perspective from which to examine these broader
On the surface, there are many similarities between Singapore and
Australia in the emphasis they place on diversity. Singaporean tourist
advertisements makes much of the country as a microcosm of various parts
of Asia, while Australia too highlights its diversity as one of its
tourist attractions. Singapore has gone further than Australia in basing
its national identity on the constituent ethnic communities, although in
contrast to the still evolving Australian national identity, the extent of
interchange between them appears more limited. A closer examination
suggests that there are certain important differences between the two
approaches, over and above the failure of Singapore to describe its
policies as " multicultural ", although it describes itself as "
multilingual " and " multiracial " (Clammer 1985 p.135; Inglis 1985). In
Singapore, the structural differentiation between the constituent ethnic
groups is more marked than in the case of Australia. This appears to be
the result of the State policy being very much based on the older model of
ethnic separatism in Singapore. In continuation of the colonial tradition
of indirect rule, the government plays an important role in the
maintenance of institutional and structural pluralism. Much of the stated
reason for this is the contribution which maintenance of traditional Asian
values can make to economic development which has, of course, been
substantial in Singapore. There has, in recent years, been an indication
that such an economically rationalist approach is being supplemented by a
perceived need to avoid the alienation, which is seen as a threat
associated with Westernisation and loss of cultural roots (Clammer 1985).
The potential for such alienation to create political instability, even in
a situation of relative affluence, may also be noted. Alienation of this
type has never been such a concern within Australian policy debate. Indeed
the concern is almost the reverse, i.e. that attachment to the ethnic
group and the excessive prevalence of the communitarian interests over the
autonomy and rights of the individual may generate potential social
conflict. The Australian policy considers multiculturalism as a means of
improving democracy and respect of individual rights, whereas Singaporian
policies favour the community over the individual, and practice a
differentialist " multiracialism ", as a means of furthering a strict
social and political discipline.
Canada is frequently bracketed with Australia as an example of
programmatic-political multiculturalism. Again, there are many superficial
similarities but so, too, are there major differences. While some pertain
to the different nature of the governmental and administrative systems as
indicated by the existence of a Multicultural Act in Canada and a National
Agenda in Australia a key difference is the origin of the policies. In
Canada, multiculturalism was proposed as a means of giving representation
to those groups which belonged to neither the British nor the French
Charter groups upon whom the Canadian nation was based. In Australia, the
situation was somewhat simpler in that there was no question about the
dominant role of the Anglo-Celtic majority. This continuing significance
in Canada of the British-French dualism for national identity, especially
given major regional variations in the settlement of the various groups,
has been, until recently, a less significant focus both in Australian
policy development and in the discourse on multiculturalism. In Australia,
the role of education in cultural maintenance has been supplemented by
attempts to minimise the extent of structural disadvantage and the
structural barriers to equity in a manner which appears to have been
developed less extensively in Canada where education has been a major area
for change. In areas of cultural pluralism such as the media Australia's
commitment to multiculturalism has differed from the Canadian where the
provisions for French and English broadcasting have taken priority. While
in both countries there is a tendency to perceive multiculturalism as
being under threat from its opponents who refer to such matters as its
potential for divisiveness, in Canada, the far greater potential for
divisiveness tends to be seen as resulting not from the newer
multiculturalism, but, instead, from strains associated with the older
French-English dualism (Abu-Laban & Stasiulus 1992; Dorais, Foster
& Stockley 1994). In such circumstances, concerns about national
cohesion and identity based on the dualism inevitably take precedence.
Although multiculturalism as a description of demographic diversity is
a global phenomena, it has led to the existence of programmatic-political
multiculturalism at the national or sub-national levels only in a few
countries. There is no inevitable link between description and political
response. The dynamics of ethnic diversity is more important in the
Asia-Pacific region than anywhere else in the world. The links between
ethnic relations policy, national identity and social cohesion in States
of this region awaits further specification, but certain linkages between
national identity and multiculturalism clearly are discernible. The few
nations in the region which have national identity based on homogeneity
such as Japan and Korea, have effectively excluded ethnic diversity from
consideration and policy initiatives. In Japan the cultural diversity
advocated is the one associated with external countries and societies,
rather than internal diversity as linked to ethnic minorities. Familiarity
and incorporation of foreign cultures has been a hallmark of Japanese
society since well before the Meiji restoration, and the present policy
accords with this tradition of selective borrowing. This is very different
from the acceptance of internal diversity.
The majority of former colonial states seeking to build national unity
out of the diversity resulting from colonial experience have had to
directly address and seek to manage ethnic diversity, often in a highly
conflictual form. Their policies in key areas such as education have often
had to make provision for diversity while also establishing a unifying set
of cultural symbols, including especially, language. While diversity is
often an important part of their national ideologies, the objective of
minimal assimilation to key values coexists with a pattern of often
considerable structural and institutional pluralism. To view conflicts
springing from these intense ethnic divides as evidence of the inevitable
failure of multicultural policies is to confuse demographic-descriptive
multiculturalism with the programmatic-political form. Indeed, it is more
accurate to view such conflicts as a reflection of policies which have
pursued an ethnic group model over a lengthy period and in which a certain
level of cultural homogeneity veils extensive structural pluralism and
differentiation. Change is certainly possible in patterns of ethnic
relations as the changed situation of Chinese communities in many
countries demonstrates, but the mechanisms contributing to this have been
complex and are often only indirectly the result of specific policies
addressing issues of diversity.
The experience of Australia and New Zealand are, yet again, different
and clearly an outcome of a situation where national identity has been
newly constructed, although not under the immediate threat of dissolution
so prominent elsewhere in the Asia-Pacific region. In the Australian case
the earlier formulation of the Australian identity was partially developed
as a reaction against the perceived inadequacies of the European societies
from which the settlers came (albeit located on a dominant British
linguistic and institutional foundation which also had a strong
pro-European racist element). The most recent reconsideration of national
identity has been the consequence of earlier initiatives in
programmatic-political multiculturalism. The task of changing the national
identity is certainly contested, but, at a level very different to that
encountered elsewhere. This in part is because of the relatively weak form
of Australian nationalism (Castles et al 1988) which had as one of its
institutional elements a rejection of the strong nationalism evident in
19th century Europe a society which many early settlers had left to seek a
better life.
Given the significance of historical factors in ethnic relations,
Australian multiculturalism should be viewed as somewhat unique. Certainly
there are differences when compared with Canada. This highlights the need
to consider the transferability of policies to manage cultural diversity
from one state to another. While there is always the possibility of
transferring specific practices or programs from one society to another,
the outcomes in the new location may differ from that in their home
environment, not least because of the importance of the socio-political
context in shaping the society.
Nevertheless, the Australian example is instructive because it does
counter many of the now common critiques of ideological-normative
multiculturalism. These critiques tend to emphasise the volatility and
irrationality of the politics of identity which the critics associate
multiculturalism. They also highlight the inevitability of political
differences resulting not from the pluralism which has underlain much of
liberal democratic social theory but, rather, from the conflict which
Furnivall (1939) predicted would happen in the colonial plural societies
on the departure of the colonial administration. In doing so, they
overlook how these divisions in plural society were not merely cultural
but were also based on deep-seated differences in economic structures. The
differences thus, much more closely represent the earlier forms of ethnic
conflict where " class " factors and power differences overlap with
cultural differences.
Assertions by such authors as Schlesinger (1992), who criticize certain
exaggerations of the ideology of multiculturalism in the USA and claim
that it is leading to the disuniting of America, have ignored both the
marked absence of programmatic-political multiculturalism in USA
and much of Europe, and the presence of strongly ethnic based forms
of political representation, within which debate has occurred. The
situation which critics claim is the result of the changes involved in
multiculturalism is rather the result of somewhat different strategies of
managing ethnic diversity, which focus on cultural pluralism while
ignoring its structural elements, especially as these involve social
While the extremely diverse and relatively small individual ethnic
groups in Australia has clearly set the parameters within which policies
are developed, it must also be acknowledge that Australia has managed and
implemented programmatic-political multiculturalism in a manner which has
produced considerable cohesion, rather than opposition. Those of
non-English speaking background have not been fused into a unified
opposition such as happened with the very diverse groups comprising
Aboriginal Australian society. That even the latter are now considering
their place within a multicultural Australia, albeit within the framework
of specific policies of self-determination and self-management attests to
a growing acceptance of the potentially more diverse model of Australian
national identity.The tensions which exist within multiculturalism should
not be ignored but that they can be resolved within broad limits is
evident from the Australian experience.
Increasing changes associated with globalisation and the dynamic
changes involving population movements will inevitably produce newer forms
of ethnic contact and dynamic pressures for internal changes. The
potential for ethnic conflict to remain a major social phenomenon is
unlikely to end. One issue which will need to be monitored further is the
actual extent to which states retain their ability to formulate domestic
policies without reference to larger international imperatives.
Strictly understood, multiculturalism can be workable as a basis for
social cohesion and integration. However, it may not be the only way in
which social cohesion associated with ethnic diversity is produced. The
Australian experience has highlighted how (despite being under close local
examination and critique), in the absence of extensive power differentials
and despite recession, it has been very resilient as a specific set of
policies and programs.
Any effort to formulate policies of managing ethnically and culturally
diverse societies needs to consider not only the specific programs and
practices but also the social context and the objectives of the State and
its citizens. Successful management of multiculturalism and multiethnic
societies requires not only a democratic polity, but the struggle against
social inequalities and exclusion.
Abu-Laban,Y & Stasiulus, D. 1992 " Ethnic Pluralism Under Siege:
Popular and Partisan Opposition to Multiculturalism " pp. 365-386 in
Canadian Public Policy Politique, 18.
Anderson, Benedict, 1983 Imagined Communities: Reflections on the
Origin and Spread of Nationalism, London: Verso Editions and New Left
Bangura, Yusuf, 1994. " The Search for Identity: Ethnicity,
Religion and Political Violence ". Geneva, UNRISD, Occasional Papers No.
Banton, Michael. 1967 Race Relations, London: Tavistock.
Benjamin, G 1985 " The Cultural Logic of Singapore's Multiracialism "
pp 115-133 in R. Hassan (ed) Singapore: Society in Transition,
Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press.
Birnbaum, Pierre 1995. " Du multiculturalisme au nationalisme ", La
pensée politique, Paris, EHESS, Gallimard, Seuil.
Blalock, H. 1967, Toward a Theory of Minority-Group Relations,
New York: Wiley & Sons.
Castles, S 1992, " Australian Multiculturalism: Social Policy and
Identity in a Changing Society " pp.184-201 in G. Freeman & J. Jupp
(eds), Nations of Immigrants: Australia, The United States and
International Migration. Melbourne: Oxford University Press
Castles, S. et al 1988 Mistaken Identity, Sydney: Pluto Press
Castles S. & Miller M. 1993, The Age of Migration: International
Population Movements in the Modern World, London: Macmillan
Clammer, J. 1985 Singapore: Ideology, Society, Culture,
Singapore: Chopmen
Connor, W. 1994 Ethnonationalism: The Quest for Understanding,
Princeton: Princeton University Press
Dorais, L-J, Foster, L. & Stockley, D 1994 `Multiculturalism and
Integration' pp 372-404 in H. Adelman et al, (eds) Immigration and
Refugee Policy: Australia and Canada Compared Melbourne: Melbourne
University Press
Foster, L. and D. Stockley (1989) " Australian Multiculturalism: A
Documentatry History and Critique ". Clevedon: Multilingual 1988 Book
Reviewed in International Migration, Vol. XXVIII, No. 4.
Furnivall, J.S.1939. Netherlands India: A Study of Plural
Economy, Cambridge, The Cambridge University Press
Furnivall, J.S., 1948, Colonial Policy and Practice: A Comparative
Study of Burma and Netherlands India London: Cambridge University
Gamson, William A. 1995. " Hiroshima, the Holocaust, and the Politics
of Exclusion ", 1994, A.S.A. Presidential Address, American
Sociological Review, 60 (1), February 1-20.
Government Green Paper, ILY 1990. (which country, Australia?)
Gellner, Ernest, 1983. Nations and Nationalism. Ithaca, N.Y.:
Cornell University Press
Giordan, Henri, 1992, Les minorités en Europe. Edition Kime.
Glyn Lewis E., Multilinguilism in the Soviet Union (year,
Government Green Paper, ILY 1990.
Gopinathan, S., 1994, " Language Policy Changes 1979-1992: Politics and
Pedagogy " pp 65-91 in S. Gopinathan et al (eds) Language,
Society and Education in Singapore: Issues and Trends Singapore: times
Academic Press.
Gurr, Ted Robert, 1994, " Peoples Against States: Ethnopolitical
Conflict and the Changing World System ". International Studies
Quarterly 38, 347-377.
Hobsbaum, Eric J., 1990 Nations and Nationalism Since 1780,
Cambridge, U.K: Cambridge University Press.
Hugues, Ken, 1990, You may talk. Aboriginal Literacy and
Empowerment. A Parliamentary inquiry into the status of aboriginal
languages, House of Commons, Ottawa, Canada.
Inglis, C. 1977 `Chinese education in Southeast Asia' pp 108-136 in K.
Orr ed Appetite for Education in Contemporary Asia Canberra:
Development Studies Centre, ANU
Inglis, C. 1985 " The role of multiculturalism in Singapore's education
system " pp 615-631 in W. Mitter& J. Swift eds Education and the
Diversity of Cultures: The Contribution of Comparative Education
Koln/Wien: Bohlay Verlag
Kritz, M, Lim, L. & Zlotnik H. 1992, International Migration
Systems: A Global Approach Oxford: Clarendon Press
Kuper, L & Smith M.G. (eds). 1969 Pluralism in Africa
Berkeley: University of California Press
McAll, C. Class, 1990, Ethnicity and Social Inequality. McGill
University Press
McNeill, William H., 1986. Polyethnicity and National Unity in World
History. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Macquarie, 1985, The Macquarie Dictionary Dee Why Australia:
Macquarie Library.
R. Patterson (1990) " Development of Ethnic and Multicultural Media, in
Australia ". International Migration, Vol. XXVIII, No. 1
Reitz, J. & Breton, R. 1994, The Illusion of Difference:
Realities of Ethnicity in Canada and the United States Ottawa: C. D.
Hower Institute
Renan, Ernest, 1992. Qu´est-ce qu´une nation?, Paris, Presses
Pochet, p. 55 (Original edition: 1882, Paris, Calmann-Levy)
Schlesinger, Arthur M., 1992, The Disuniting of America, Reflections
on a Multicultural Society, New York, Norton.
Schermerhorn R. 1970 Comparative Ethnic Relations: A Framework for
Theory and Research New York: Random House
Smith, Anthony D., 1991, National Identity. London: Penguin
Smith, Anthony D., 1986, The Ethnic Origins of Nations. Oxford,
U.K.: Oxford University Press.
Stahl, C., Ball, R., Inglis, C & Gutman, P 1993, Global
Population Movements and Their Implications for Australia, Canberra:
Taylor, Charles, 1992, Multiculturalism and " The Politics of
Recognition ", Princeton, Princeton University Press.
UNESCO, 1993. Language Policy, Literacy and Culture. Geneva IBE,
published in honour of the International Year of the World´s Indigenous
People, 1993, prepared and edited by L. Limage, Education Sector.
UNESCO 144 EX/15 Item 4.4.1 " Protection and Promotion of the Cultural
Rights of Persons Belonging to Minorities within UNESCO´s fields of
Competence ", UNESCO Headquarters, Paris, April 1994
Van den Berghe, P. 1967 Race and Racism, New York: Wiley
Väyrinen, Raimo, 1994, " Towards a Theory of Ethnic Conflicts and their
Resolution ", Occasional Paper No. 6 of the Kroc Institute, Notre Dame
University, Notre Dame, Ind.
Wang Gungwu 1988, " The Study of Chinese Identities in Southeast Asia "
pp 1-22 in J Cushman & Wang, G eds Changing Identities of the
Southeast Asian Chinese since World War II Hong Kong: Hong Kong
University Press
Young, Crawford, 1994, . Ethnic Diversity and Public Policy: an
Overview. Geneva, UNRISD, Occasional Paper No. 8.
The question of how to define 'minority' was on the agenda of the
United Nations Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and
Protection of Minorities, established in 1947, from the very first days of
its existence. Since then, numerous atempts have been made to reach an
agreement on this question.
Although no definition of a minority was universally recognized and not
one of the normative instruments dealing with the rights of persons
belonging to minorities adopted by the United Nations or UNESCO contains
any formulation in this respect, nevertheless one can observe that draft
definitions, despite concrete formulations, repeat certain elements:
(a) a group numerically inferior;
(b) in a non-dominant position;
(c) having certain characteristics (identity), culture (ethnic,
religious, linguistic) which distinguish them from the rest of the
(d) with a sense of solidarity or will to safeguard their
However, some of these elements are subjective and, as such, open to
various interpretations and understandings, as the various studies carried
out by the United nations on this question show.
As is the case with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of
Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic
Minorities (1992), normative instruments may regulate questions of the
rights of persons belonging to minorities without containing any
definition of this notion. The notion of 'minority', as implied by
normative instruments, is a restrictive one and it applies only to
national, ethnic, religious, linguistic groups and is not related to other
disadvantage groups (women, children, aged, etc.), neither does it cover
indigenous people.
Two definitions are used in the international context. One is to be
found in an international law instrument and the other is a 'working'
definition which is used as an 'operational' definition in the elaboration
of an instrument that is international in character.
The first definition is found in the ILO Convention concerning
Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries (Convention Nº169
of 1989).
In Article I.1(b) of Convention Nº169, it is stated that this
instrument appllies to:
'Peoples in independent countries who are regarded as indigenous on
account of their descent from the populations which inhabited the country,
or a geographical region to which the country belongs, at the time of
conquest or colonization or the establishment of present State boundaries
and who, irrespective of their legal status, retain some or all of their
own social, economic, cultural and political institutions'.
The second definition is found in the conclusion of the Study on the
Problem of Discrimination against Indigenous Populations. The definition
reads as follows: 'Indigenous communities, peoples and nations are those
which, having a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial
societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves
distinct from other sectors of the societies now prevailing in those
territories, or parts of them. They form at present non-dominant sectors
of society and are determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future
generations their ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as the
basis of their continued existence as peoples, in accordance with their
own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal systems. This
historical continuity may consist of the continuation, for an extended
period reaching into the present, of one or more of the following factors:
(a) occupation of ancestral lands, or at least part of them; (b) common
ancestry with the original occupants of these lands; (c) culture in
general, or in specific manifestations (such as religion, living under a
tribal system, membership of an indigenous community, dress, means of
livelihood, life-style, etc.); (d) language (whether used as the only
language, as mother tongue, as the habitual means of communication at home
or in the family, or as the main, preferred, habitual, general or normal
language); (e) residence in certain parts of the country, or in certain
regions of the world; (f) other relevant factors' (paras. 379-380).
This definition is supplemented as follows: 'On an individual basis, an
indigenous person is one who belongs to these indigenous populations
through self-identification as indigenous (group consciousness) and is
recognized and accepted by these populations as one of its members
(acceptance by the group). This preserves for these communties the
sovereign right and power to decide who belongs to them, without external
interference' (para.381).
This definition was accepted as an 'operational definition' by the
United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Populations of the
Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of
(i) The International Covenant on Civil and Political
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights adopted by the
United Nations General Assembly in 1966, is of particular importance as
Article 27 states:
'In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities
exist, persons belonging to such minorities should not be denied the
right, in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their
own culture, to profess and practice their own religion, or to use their
own language'.
If the conditions laid down by the Optional Protocol of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are fulfilled, this
provision gives individuals the possibility of presenting communications
to the Human Rights Committee concerning the violation of their rights.
Iii) The Declaration on the Rights of Persons belonging to
National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities
On 18 December 1992, the General Assembly, by resolution 47/135,
adopted the Declaration on the Rights of Persons belonging to National or
Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities. The Declaration is the first
comprehensive, universal standard-setting instrument dealing with the
rights of persons belonging to minorities and will influence the State
practice and national legislation.
Article 9 of the Declaration on the Rights of Persons belonging to
National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities provides that:
'The Specialized Agencies and other organizations of the United Nations
system shall contribute to the full realization of the rights and
principles set forth in this Declaration, within their respective fields
of competence'. This provision, in unequivocal terms, impses an
obligation on UNESCO to contribute to the full realization of the
Declaration within its fields of competence: through education, science,
culture and communcation and by appropriate forms of action.
Among the rights of persons belonging to minorities, the Declaration
lists: the right to enjoy their own culture; to profess and practise their
own religion; to use their own language; to participate effectively in
cultural, religious, social, economic and public life, as well as in the
decision-making process concerning the minority to which they belong; to
establish and monitor their own associations; to establish and maintain,
without any discrimination, free and peaceful contacts with other members
of their group or other citizens of other States to whom they are related
by national or ethnic, religious or linguistic ties. To eliminate any
misinterpretation, it provides expressis verbis that nothing in its
text may be construed as permitting any activity contrary to the purposes
and principles of the United Nations, including the sovereign equality,
territorial integrity and political independence of States.
Iiii) The Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action
The Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action adopted on 25
June 1993 by the World Conference on Human Rights (II.B, paras. 25, 26 and
27), urges States and the international community to promote and protect
the rights of persons belonging to minorities as set out in the
aforementioned Declaration. Measures to be taken should include
facilitation of their full participation in all aspects of the political,
economic, social, religious and cultural life of society and in the
economic progress and development in their country. The World Conference
on Human Rights confirmed once again that persons belonging to minorities
'... have the right to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise
their own religion and to use their own language in private and in public,
freely and without interference or any form of discrimination' (I, para.
(iv) Other United Nations instruments relevant to the
non-discrimination of persons belonging to minorities
It must also be recalled that several United Nations normative
instruments, though they do not speak expressly about the rights of
persons belonging to minorities, have a direct bearing on the guarantee of
non-discrimination and equality of treatment. They are:
the International Convenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide (1948);
the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial
Discrimination (1965);
the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
against Women (1979);
the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of
Discrimination based on Religion or Belief (1981);
the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989).
(i) UNESCO Convention against Discrimination in Education
The first international convention adopted after 1945 which contains
provisions expressis verbis relating to the rights of persons
belonging to minorities is the UNESCO Convention against Discrimination in
Education (1960). The States Parties to the Convention agreed in ARticle
5, subparagraph 1(c): '... it is essential to recognize the right of
members of national minorities to carry on their own educational
activities, including the maintenance of schools and, depending on the
educational policy of each State, the use or the teaching of their own
language, provided however:
(a) that this right is not exercised in a manner which prevents the
members of these minorities from understanding the culture and language of
the community as a whole and from participating in its activities, or
which prejudices national sovereignty;
(b) that the standard of education is not lower than the general
standard laid down or approved by the competent authorities; and
(c) that attendance at such schools is optional'.
In Article 7, the Convention imposes on States Parties an obligation to
give, in periodic reports submitted to the General Conference, information
on the legislative and administrative provisions which they have adopted
and any other action which they have taken for its application.
(ii) UNESCO declarations
It is worth noting that, among UNESCO declarations, two are of special
importance for the recognition of rights of persons belonging to
minorities: the Declaration on Race and Racial Prejudice (1978)
which provides that: 'All individuals and groups have the right to be
different, to consider themselves as different and to be regarded as
such', and the Declaration of the Principles of International Cultural
Co-operation (1966) stipulating that:
' 1. Each culture has a dignity and value which must be respected and
2. Every people has the right and duty to develop its culture '.
Similarly, the Recommendation concerning Education for International
Undersanding, Co-operation and Peace and Education relating to Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1974) declares: 'Member States should
promote, at various stages and in various types of education, study of
different cultures, their reciprocal influences, their perspectives and
ways of life, in order to encourage mutual appreciation of the differences
between them. Such study should, among other things, give due importance
to the teaching of foreign languages, civilizations and cultural heritage
as a means of promoting international and intercultural understanding'
(Article 17).
(iv) Development and promotion of cultural rights
The Organization has worked out a number of standard-setting
instruments with a view to implementing, developing and classifying the
rights formulated by Articles 13 to 15 of the International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of 1966:
(a) the right to education (1960 Convention against Discrimination in
Education, and others);
(b) the right to participate in cultural life (1976 Recommendation on
Participation by the People at Large in Cultural Life);
(c) the right to participate in scientific progress (1974
Recommendations on the Status of Scientific Researchers);
(d) the right to information (19958 Convention on the Exchange of
Official Publications, and others);
(e) the right to the protection of the moral and material interests
resulting from any literary or artistic production (Universal Copyright
Convention of 1952 as revised in 1971);
(f) the right to international cultural co-operation (1966 Declaration
of the Principles of International Cultural Co-operation).
UNESCO's normative instruments added other rights to the list contained
in Article 15 of the Covenant:
(a) the right to cultural identity (Recommendation on Cultural Identity
adopted during the World Conference on Cultural Policies, Mexico City,
(b) the right to the protection of national and international cultural
property and heritage (1954 Convention for the Protection of Cultural
Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, the 1972 Convention concerning
the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, and others).
Analysis of the UNESCO standard-setting instruments concerning cultural
rights leads to the conclusion that the list of subjects is fairly
comprehensive and embraces individuals, regions, groups, peoples,
nation-States and evn humankind in general. Recognizing that States should
first of all create conditions and provide guarantees for the
implementation of cultural rights, not only to eliminate discrimination
but also to undertake affirmative action, UNESCO's normative instruments
also stress that this responsibility should be shared with other social
(v) UNESCO and communications relating to human rights
In 104 EX/Decision 3.3, the Executive Board of UNESCO laid down the
procedures for the examination of cases and questions submitted to UNESCO
concerning the exercise of human rights in its fields of competence. As
the rights that ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities are
acknowledge to have under ARticle 27 of the International Convenant on
Civil and Political Rights are an integral part of the system for the
protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, these procedures can
be followed when those persons are the presumed victimes, individually or
collectively, of a violation of one of the human rights in UNESCO's fields
of competence in education, science, culture and information.
The Declaration on the Rights of Persons belonging to National or
Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities does not refer to indigenous
peoples. The nature and the acuteness of the problems faced by indigenous
communities in areas such as human rights, the environment, development,
education and health, have led the United Nations to take the initiative
in developing specific international standards concerning the rights of
indigenous peoples.
(i) The draft declaration on the rights of indigenous
Further to the initiatives taken by the International Labour
Organisation (Convention 107 concerning the Protection and Integration of
Indigenous and other Tribal and Semi-Tribal Populations in Independent
Countries; Convention 169 concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in
Independent Countries), the Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination
and Protection of Minorities recommended, in 1971, a comprehensive study
on discriminiation against indigenous peoples. The predominantly positive
response to the study encouraged the United Nations Economic and Social
Council to create a working group on indigenous populations. From it svery
inception, this working group started to prepare a draft declaration on
the rights of indigenous peoples. In its efforts to establish durable and
mutually acceptable international standards, the working group paid close
attention to a number of sensitive issues (self-determination, collective
rights to territories and the significance of treaties between States and
indigenous peoples), as well as to the cultural rights of indigenous
peoples, among others.
Significant progress has been made towards finalization of a draft
declaration. The working group concluded its work in 1993 and it is
foreseen that the draft declaration could be submitted for consideration
and adoption to the Commission on Human Rights at its fifty-first session,
in 1995.
(ii) The Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action
The Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action includes very important
recommendations concerning indigenous people. In paragraph 31, it urged
States to ensure the full and free participation of indigenous people in
all aspects of society, in particular in matters of concern to them; and
in paragraph 32 it recommended that the General Assembly proclaim an
International Decade of the World's Indigenous People.
(iii) The Interantional Decade of the World's Indigenous
On the basis of this recommendation, the United Nations General
Assembly, in December 1993, adopted resolution 48/163 proclaiming the
International Decade of the World's Indigenous People, commencing in
December 1994, the period from 1 January to 9 December 1994 to be set
aside for the planning for the Decade in partnership with indigenous
people (see Annex III).
Within the framework of the standard-setting machinery described above
and in co-operation with the Member States and intergovernmental and
international non-governmental organizations concerned, UNESCO has for
several years been carrying out many activities for persons belonging to
minorities and for indigenous peoples.
The Organization's action in this field has been guided by the
following three principles:
1. The right to culture is firstly the right of everyone to participate
freely in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to
share in scientific advancement and its benefits (see Article 27 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights), and secondly the right of everyone
to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any
scientific, literary or artistic production of which he or she is the
author. Cultural rights therefore concern all members of a community and
all creative workers in the artistic, intellectual and scientific fields.
They represent the possibility for individuals, groups and peoples to
maintain, enrich and express their distinctive cultural features.
2. The main objective is to safeguard diversity while seeking to
strengthen the foundation of the common interests of majority and minority
groups, States and indigenous peoples. The diversity of cultural
identities - national or ethnic, religious or linguistic - must be
considered as a source of enrichment for the international community. The
protection and promotion of the different cultural identities that make up
a multi-ethnic, multinational or multicultural community are the sine
qua non for the prevention of 'cultural' conflicts.
3. Domocracty is the only institutional framework in which satisfactory
solutions can be found to guarantee the rights of persons belonging to
minorities and indigenous peoples. Respect for democratic values and human
rights is the basic condition for the develoment of all individuals in
tolerance and pluralism, non-discrimination and equality of rights. It is
nevertheless necessary to go beyond traditional democracy and apply the
principles of a modern, refined democracy that takes into account the
requirements of a culture and of an ethical code that are sensitive to
injustices that have long gone unnoticed and cannot be content just with
the rule of the majority.
(i) Struggle against discrimination
UNESCO is obliged under its Constitution to contribute to the struggle
against discrimination, including discrimination against persons belonging
to minorities, in all its fields of competence. It does so within the
framework of the standard-setting instruments mentioned in Part I of this
document. Among these, the Convention and Recommendation against
Discrimination in Education are of special interest since they provide for
the periodical collection of information on the steps taken in Member
States to secure their implementation.
So far, five consultations on the implementation of both instruments
have been organized. The fifth questionnaires on the implementation of the
Convention and Recommendation contained a number of questions addressing
directly the issue of minorities:
' 8. To what extent does your government give effect to the right of
members of national minorities to carry on their own education activities,
including the maintenance of schools, as set forth in Article 5.1(c) of
the Convention (Section V.C of the Recommendation)?
8.1 Are languages of national minorities used or taught in such
educational activities?
8.2 Is the standard of education of such activities equivalent to the
general standards laid down or approved by the competent authorities?
8.3 Is participation in such activities or attendance at such schools
Of the 172 States consulted by questionnaire, 71, or 42 per cent,
replied (including 46 States party to the Convention and 25 States
reporting on their implementation of the Recommendation). With regard to
legislation, the general picture that emerges is that there are
appropriate provisions at prsent in the 71 States to prevent
discrimination in education, including discrimination against persons
belonging to minorities - the Convention and Recommendation having played
a decisive role in this regard.
In 1994-1995, the focus of the sixth consultation on the implementation
of the Convention and Recommendation against Discrimination in Education,
in conformity with 27 C/Resolution 1.9, is on four population groups: (i)
women and girls; (ii) persons belonging to miorities; (iii) refugees; (iv)
indigenous people. It is essential that a maximum number of Member States
should answer the consultation so that the Secretariat can benefit from a
vast array of information that will allow it in the near future to
identify new needs and forms of action in this field.
This is all the more important because parties in conflict are calling
more and more on the Organization to mediate in order to reduce animosity
between ethnic, cultural or religious communities, some of which allege
violations of human rights in UNESCO's fields of competence, especially
education. This is a new role that the Organization has to play, for which
it must prepare itself. It is in this context for example that the
Director-General has appointed a high-level adviser in order to report on
the situation of Albanians in Kosovo (about 90 per cent of the
population), and to elaborate proposals for concrete UNESCO action. The
Adviser has led two missions to Kosovo (in 1993 and 1994) and held
extensive consultations with the Federal Yugoslav authorities,
representatives of the Government of the Republic of Serbia and the
President of the Democratic League of Kosovo, Mr Ibrahim Rugova.
In addition, it goes without saying that under the procedures laid down
by the Executive Board in 104 EX/Decision 3.3, communications may be
submitted to the Organization on the exercise of human rights in its
fields of competence, whether they relate to specific individual cases or
cases of massive and systematic violations.
Celebration of the International Year for Tolerance (1995) provides the
Organization an opportunity to expand what it is doing to make people
aware of discrimination and incite them to combat it. Special efforts will
be undertaken to make the content of the interantional standard-setting
instruments against discrimination widely known, with special emphasis on
discrimination in the fields of education and culture. A report on the
implementation by Member States of the UNESCO 1978 Declaration on Race and
Racial Prejudice will be prepared, while workshops devoted to the
prevention of discrimination will be organized in different regions, as
well as an international meeting on the sources and prevention of extreme
nationalism, xenophobia and racism.
(ii) Policy research on the management of multicultural and
multi-ethnic societies
The Management of Social Transformations (MOST) Programme is
developing interdisciplinary comparative and policy-relevant projects on
various aspects of multi-cultural and multi-ethnic societies.
A nine-country study in the Asian region is being launched on the
long-term social and political consequences of growing ethnic diversity
coming from increased migration within the region. The study is led by
Australia and will provide guidance for the planning, content and
implementation of public policy in the region. Similar large-scale
projects on related issues are being developed in Africa, Latin America,
Europe and North America. Regional MOST meetings, covering all regions are
being held in 1994-95, to establish priority research and policy issues.
(iii) Gathering, exchange and circulation of information
In the context of action taken by UNESCO to develop and promote
cultural rights, various studies have been carried out to improve
knowledge of the situation of minorities in different regions of the
world. Three studies have thus been carried out on ethnic group relations
in Africa, Latin America and in Asia and Oceania, as well as a special
study on the cultural evolution of countries with diverse ethnical and
national groups. In 1992, three supplementary studies were carried out on
the legal protection of the cultural rights and identities of minorities
in Asia, Africa and Europe.
UNESCO has also given encouragement to current activities aiming at the
further definition of cultural rights, their content and the means of
applying them. The most outstanding activities conducted in that
connection include: four meetings of experts held in Athens (Greece) and
San José (Costa Rica) in 1981, Ouagadougou (Burkina Faso) in 1982 and
Karasjok (Norway) in 1983 to study the rights of ethnic minorities in
different regions of the world; an international seminar on human rights
and cultural rights, held in Recife (Brazil) in 1987, at which the
'Declaration of Recife' on the linguistic rights of individuals and
peoples was drafted; and a seminar on the cultural rights of peoples in
Europe, held in Girona in 1991 by the UNESCO Centre of Catalonia
(Barcelona) in co-operation with UNESCO.
These activities will be continued in 1994-1995 with a series of
studies on the content of cultural rights, with emphasis on the protection
and promotion of cultural identities and linguistic rights. The copilation
of measures taken in different countries and regions concerning cultural
rights of persons belonging to minorities, which was started in 1993, will
be continued with a view to their publication.
(iv) Raising public awareness
For many years now, UNESCO has been endeavouring to preserve and to
make known the most representative expressions of minority cultures. In
addition to the inventory, study and archiving of elements of the
intangible heritable (languages, oral traditions, music, dance, performing
arts, etc.), various initiatives have been taken or encouraged in order to
make the general public aware of the ways of life and forms of expression
of these minorities and of action taken on their behalf. The recent
initiatives taken include a special issue of The UNESCO
Courier (June 1993) on minorities; the very recent UNESCO
Collection of video recordings on minority cultures (titles in 1994-1995
are devoted to China and the countries of the former Soviet Union); and
the project on The Red Book on Endangered Languages, carried out by ICPHS
in collaboration with UNESCO, under which an international information and
data base centre on the endangered languages of minorities has just been
set up.
(v) Education for human rights and intercultural
The World Plan of Action on Education for Human Rights and Democracy
stresses the need for appropriate informatin and education to be extended
to people in difficult situations whose rights may be particularly
threatened, including minorities. This will be one of the priority tasks
of the Advisory Committee established in order to follow up the
implementation of the Montreal Plan of Action and to identify strategies
to meet the specific needs of these priority groups. As part of the
follow-up to the World Plan of Action, too, but within the framework of
the Associated Schools Project, model curricula and materials dealing with
the problems relating to the consolidation of democracy in multicultural
societies will be prepared through a series of pilot projects and
teacher-training workshops organized in all regions.
It is also to be noted that the International Commission on Education
for the Twenty-First Century will take up issues concerning education and
minorities during one of its plenary sessions during 1994-1995.
(vi) Strengthening of endogenous capacities
Various activities (studies, research, publications, meetings) have
been undertaken in the last few years to identify more successfully the
educational needs of certain minorities and the specific measures that
would enable each group concerned to overcome the obstacles hindering its
inclusion in socio-cultural and economic life. Studies done by several
countries (China, Philippines and Malaysia) in co-operation with UNESCO's
Principal Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific are an example of this.
Under the communication programme, UNESCO has also supported a number
of radio and audio-visual productions made by and for cultural minorities
and marginalized groups in close co-operation with non-governmental an
dprofessional organizations. These include the Institute for Latin America
(IPAL), the VIDEORED group in Lima, Peru, the World Assocation of
Community Radio Broadcasters (ARMARC) and Mahaweli Community Radio in Sri
Under the culture programme, in addition to emergency action taken to
safeguard the endangered heritage of minorities, mention should be made of
action to revive the oral and written traditions of minority peoples or
nomads and action to strengthen pluralism by encouraging the cultural
expression of minorities and intercultural dialogue.
In 1994-1995, two target groups have been singled out for a series of
pilot projects: the gypsies in Europe and the minorities of Viet Nam.
The gypsies are today one of the most vulnerable minorities in
Europe, due, in particular, to their nomadic way of life that does not
allow for traditional forms of integration, especially in the field of
education. On the basis of the results of the pilot education/literacy
project for gypsies in Greece (Salonika region) and Spain (Catalonia),
carried out in 1993-94, an international symposium reviewed the most
appropriate strategies for securing the social and educational integration
of gypsies.
Support is also given to the International Centre for Studies on
Minorities and Intercultural Relations (Bulgaria) for the implementation
of cultural development projects for gypsies, particularly in South
Eastern Europe. An information kit on the creative dynamic of the gypsies
will also be prepared, on the basis of a compilation of their cultural
expressions in the fields of art and social representations. It is hoped
that the wide dissemination of this kit will help towards a better
understanding of gypsy populations to culture and to the progressive
elimination of many stereotyped representations of their way of life.
The Goverment of Viet Nam has decided to establish a global
policy for the 53 minorities of the country, with particular emphasis on
the safeguarding of their intangible cultural heritage. An international
meeting of experts was held in Hanoi from 15 to 18 March 1994 to draw up a
national plan for the safeguarding and promotion of this heritage. The
projects scheduled, to be funded from extra-budgetary sources, include:
the establishment of a training centre on the collection of the intangible
heritage; the establishment, in different provinces, of five cultural
centres for minorities; the establishment of an institute for the study of
minorities and an inventory of the crafts of minority groups. The main
potential sources of funds are Japan and France. Experience gained in
drawing up the national plan for the safeguarding and promotion of the
intangible heritage of minorities in Viet Nam will be of great value in
responding to similar needs in neightbouring countries.
In the past, UNESCO's activities for indigenous peoples focused
primarily on education. As examples, mention can be made of the activities
carried out by the Regional Office for Education in Latin America and the
Caribbean (OREALC) in conjunction with the Regional Network for Training
Personnel and providing Specific Support for Literacy and Adult Education
Programmes (REDALF). A workshop on literacy and intercultural bilingual
education in the Andean countries was thus held in 1990 in Ecuador under
the auspices of OREALC and UNICEF. Its objectives were to prepare a survey
of action taken in literacy, post-literacy and bilingual education, assess
its achievements and the obstacles encountered, and decide on priority
activities. Also in 1990, INEA (National Institute of Adult Education) in
Mexico, with the support of OREALC, organized a training programme on the
production of bilingual and intercultural educational materials. Teachers
from Argentina, Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala
took part.
The commemoration of the Five-Hundredth Anniversary of the Encounter
between Two Worlds (1992) and the International Year of the World's
Indigenous People (1993) afforded UNESCO an opportunity to strengthen
and expand its activities in this field. In 1992-1993, these activities
focused primarily on peooples in the Americas, with the prime objective of
creating a new area of dialogue among indigenous peoples and between them
and government experts or representatives.
In 1991, UNESCO thus brought together in Ottawa 800 representatives of
indigenous peoples from all the Americas to discuss 'Strengthening the
spiritual - beyond 500 years'. This first major indigenous meeting threw
new light on subjects such as inter-ethnic relations, cultural pluralism,
modernity, etc.
The meeting on Amerindia towards the Third Millennium, held in June
1991 at San Cristobal de la Casas, in the state of Chiapas, Mexico,
enabled a dialogue to be initiated between indigenous representatives,
intellectuals and government representatives. The declaration adopted by
the participants referred to 'the conditions of extreme poverty and
political marginality faced by the majority of the continent's indigenous
people' and invited political leaders 'to listen to the many voices
clamouring for dignity, justice and solidarity for all the peoples of the
continent'. This appeal was echoed in the Guadalajara Declaration, adopted
by the first Ibero-American Summit of Heads of State and Government held
one month later, which states 'We acknowledge the immense contribution of
indigenous peoples to the development and plurality of our societies and
we renew our commitment to their economic and social well-being, and the
obligation to respect their rights and cultural identity'.
UNESCO has thus made a considerable contribution to bringing about an
awareness of the real situation of indigenous peoples and of the need for
them to be recognized as full partners. This was clear from the meetings
held, in conjunction with the Mexican authorities, in Oaxaca in March 1993
on Education, Work and Cultural Pluralism, and at Campeche the following
month on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in the Context of New Relations.
The statements adopted at the end of these meetings - just like the
Chiimaltenango Statement approved at the first World Summit on Indigenous
Peoples organized by the Nobel Peace Prize winner, Rigoberta Menchu, to
which UNESCO contributed - were all part of the contribution made by the
indigenous peoples of the Americas to the World Conference on Human Rights
(Vienna, 1993).
The Organization has also supported various initiatives taken to
develop the endogenous capacities of indigenous peoples and to facilitate
their participation in socio-cultural life. In addition to the technical
support provided by the UNESCO Office in Bolivia for drawing up projects
for submission to the Fund for the Development of Indigenous People,
mention can be made of an international seminar, organized jointly with
the Ministry of Culture of Guatemala, held at Chichicastenango in March
1993 on Plans and Prospects for Sustainable Development in the Maya
Region. This seminar, attended by experts and representatives from many
international governmental and non-governmental organizations, highlighted
the extreme diversity of the environmental, social, cultural, political
and economic problems facing the Maya people and the need to strengthen
their endogenous capacities to enable them to devise and carry out their
own development projects.
An operation plan for the development of the Mayas (as part of the
project on the Maya World) has just been prepared along these lines, in
close consultation with organizations representing the Mayas in Guatemala.
This plan provides for UNESCO's active support for the organization of the
first National Congress on Maya Education; the establishment of an
association of Maya craftworkers; an inventory of work on Maya
linguistics; and cirulation of the Maya Forest Plan. On the basis of the
results of activities carried out in 1994, a major project consisting of
many components, the nature and objectives of which will be established by
the leaders of Maya organizations, will be implemented with UNESCO's
assistance as from 1995.
Within the framework of the Latin America-Caribbean 2000 project, the
Organization will also provide support to help indigenous peoples to
acquire the abilities needed in various fields that constitute key factors
in their development:
Crafts: training and further training courses for indigenous
craftworkers on management and the marketing of their products will be
organized in several Latin American countries.
Languages: increased aid will be provided for the preparation of
glossaries, dictionaires and grammars of indigenous languages in several
countries in the Latin America region, in conjunction with the National
In addition, the Organization will implement a series of educational
and cultural projects to facilitate the integration of migrant indigenous
people into life in the cities and to promote their cultural expression.
These projects, planned and implemented in co-operation with organizations
of indigenous peoples, will concentrate initially on Lima, Mexico City and
the border area between Mexico and the United States.
Lastly, UNESCO will contribute to the organization of courses and the
granting of fellowships to assist the training of indigenous leaders able
to represent their communities in discussions with national and
international institutions.
The proclamation by the United Nations of the International Decade
of the World's Indigenous People - as of 10 December 1994 - should
give new impetus to these efforts. A plan of action embracing all the
Organization's fields of competence is being drawn up. This plan will, of
course, include public information and awareness-raising activities to
improve knowledge of the cultures, ways of life and wishes of indigenous
peoples. A teachers' manual entitled 'A new partnership: Indigenous
peoples and the United Nations system' has recently been prepared under
the Associated Schools Project.
UNESCO's contribution will also include support to enable organizations
representing indigenous peoples to take part in meetings of international
bodies and to participate directly in the planning and implementation of
Decade activities.
In 1994-1995, the focus of UNESCO's activities is on Latin America
since it is already engaged in this region in different action-oriented
projects and because regional initiatives relating to indigenous people
have been taken at the highest level with the support of UNESCO (in
particular the creation of the Fund for the Development of Indigenous
People, with whose establishment UNESCO has been associated from the very
The Organization is also developing a number of pilot actions which
were begun in Africa during the last biennium. On the basis of the pilot
education/literacy project for pygmies in the frontier region of the Congo
and the Central African Republic, pilot projects on functional education
will be identified and prepared for pygmies in Central Africa. Two
feasibility studies will also be carried out concerning pilot projects for
nomadic and semi-nomadic peoples in the Sahel.
In the following years, UNESCO's action will extend to other regions
(Arctic peoples, Asia and the Pacific, etc.) in accordance with the
planning for the International Decade of Indigenous People.
Agreement for Facilitating the International Circulation of Visual and
Auditory Materials of an Educational, Scientific and Cultural Character,
with Protocol of signature and model form of certificate provided for in
Article IV of the above-mentioned agreement (the "Beirut Agreement"), 10
December 1949
Universal Copyright Convention, with Appendix Declaration relating to
Article XVII and Resolution concerning Article XI; Protocol 1 annexed;
Protocol 2 annexed; Protocol 3 annexed, 6 September 1952
Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of
Armed Conflict (the "Hague Convention") with Regulations for the Execution
of the Convention as well as the Protocol to the Convention and the
Conference Resolutions, 14 May 1954
Convention concerning the International Exchange of Publications, 3
December 1958
Convention concerning the Exchange of Official Publications and
Government Documents between States, 3 December 1958
Convention against Discrimination in Education, 14 December 1960, and
Protocol Instituting a Conciliation and Good Offices Commission to be
Responsible for Seeking the Settlement of any Disputes which may Arise
between States Parties to the Convention against Discrimination in
Education, 10 December 1962
Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit
Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, 14 November
Universal Copyright Convention as revised at Paris on 24 July 1971,
with Appendix Declaration relating to Article XVII and Resolution
concerning Article XI; Protocol 1 annexed; Protocol 2 annexed, 24 July
Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural
Heritage, 16 November 1972
Agreement on the Importation of Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Materials, with Annexes A to E and Protocol annexed (the "Florence
Agreement"), 17 June 1950, and Protocol to the Agreement and with Annexes
A to H, 26 November 1976
Recommendation concerning the Most Effective Means of Rendering Museums
Accessible to Everyone, 14 December 1960
Recommendations against Discrimination in Education, 14 December 1950
Recommendation on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit
Export, Import and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, 19 November
Recommendation concerning the Protection, at National Level, of the
Cultural and Natural Heritage, 16 November 1972
Recommendation concerning Education for International Understanding,
Co-operation and Peace and Education relating to Human Rights and
Fundamental freedoms, 19 November 1974
Recommendation on the Status of Scientific Researchers, 20 November
Recommendation concerning the Safeguarding and Contemporary Role of
Historic Areas, 26 November 1976
Recommendation on Participation by the People at Large in Cultural Life
and their Contribution to it, 26 November 1976
Recommendation for the Protection of Movable Cultural Property, 28
November 1978
Recommendation on Cultural Identity, 1986 adopted at the World
Conference on Cultural Policies, Mexico City)
Declaration of the Principles of International Cultural Co-operation, 4
November 1966
Declaration of Guiding Principles on the Use of Satellite Broadcasting
for the Free Flow of Information, the Spread of Education and Greater
Cultural Exchange, 15 November 1972
Declaration on Fundamental Principles concerning the Contribution of
the Mass Media to Strengthening Peace and International Understanding, to
the Promotion of Human Rights and to Countering Racialism, Apartheid and
Incitement to War, 28 November 1978
Declaration on Race and Racial Prejudice, 27 November 1978
To MOST Clearing House
To see the document in English Pour voir le document en Para ver el documento en