Page 99 - KATE_JOHNSTON_2017

asset and a ‘philosophic reserve’ (UNESCO & UNEP 2003, p. 48). Ethical dimensions were

put forward to suggest what a universal protocol for cultural diversity might look like. Some

of these contributions included detailed recommendations. For instance, Ms. Esther Camac

from the International Alliance of Indigenous and Tribal People of the Tropical Forests

proposed eleven grounded recommendations ranging from legal and constitutional changes

through to re-valuation of ethics. Her proposal ended with a strong working motto inspired by

an Argentinian theologian ‘[m]y right ends when I recognise the right of another’ (Camac

2003, p. 55). Such discourses, as I have just outlined, helped to generate a universalised value

of cultural diversity.

In addition to the recognition of rights to unique cultural identities and resources,

cultural diversity was promoted as an antidote to global environmental collapse and the

unsustainable practices of globalisation. As Appadurai (2003, p.16) states, ‘[t]ogether, these

two kinds of diversity [cultural and biological] are the best counterpoint to ideological and

technological uniformity that might result if market- driven globalization is allowed to run its

own course’. Globalisation was framed as a threat to cultural diversity through its

homogenising processes and products. Technological expansion, media control, consumption

and the spread of ideologies came with these products and processes. As Appadurai argues,

‘[g]lobalization poses the risk of an increased homogenisation of both cultural and biological

diversity’ (Appadurai 2003, p.10). He suggests that:

Globalization must be made fully inclusive and equitable. To achieve this, broad
and sustained efforts are essential to create a shared future based upon our
common humanity in all its diversity, as emphasized in the Millennium
Declaration. (Appadurai 2003, p. 13)

87