TO MOST of us, foie gras is either a rare delicacy or a culinary abomination — but for the French parliament, the liver of a force-fed goose is a cultural artefact as deserving of protection as a Rodin statue.

French deputies gave credence to this notion last week when they supported by large majority a Bill declaring that foie gras was emblematic of French gastronomy and culture and therefore deserving of legal protection.

You might think this quaint but unnecessary — mercifully, the monstrous regiment of animal-lovers has failed to make much impact on French eating habits — but this is not about dinner. It’s an important step in a long campaign to erect legal barricades in France against the commercial trade in alien ideas.

Last week in another forum, a vote was taken that explains the curious foie gras law. Unesco, the United Nations cultural organisation (yes, there is one and it’s in Paris) secured the support of 148 nations for a convention to safeguard cultural difference. Several years in the making, the Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions is dear to the hearts of Europe and Canada, but is vigorously opposed by the United States.

Victorious anti-globalisers, notably in France and Canada, were jubilant at the near-unanimous agreement (only the US and Israel opposed) on a treaty that has Hollywood squarely in its sights and would seek to prevent French-language media and other minority forms of cultural expression from being overwhelmed by the American media megaphone.

That sounds OK until you read the text, which, tellingly, never defines the cultural expression that it seeks to protect, nor what constitutes diversity. There are attempts — cultural expressions are “expressions that result from the creativity of individuals, groups and societies, and that have cultural content” — which are, ultimately, circular. Any industry or activity that looks trad or a bit ethnic fits the culture bill and deserves protection.

From goose-stuffing foie gras makers, it is an easy step to protecting Italian textiles, Swiss watchmakers and German brewers. And, while we are at it, why not save the Japanese whaling tradition or British fox-hunting from cultural extinction? Unesco’s convention has equal status with other international treaties, so its whining voice will be heard in the Doha Round of world trade talks. Endless exceptions will be pleaded to justify the protection of domestic industries and services that promote “cultural diversity”.

This is where Unesco’s writ moves from tiresome to sinister. Under Article 6, states can take “regulatory measures aimed at protecting and promoting diversity” and, in Article 8, states may take “all appropriate measures” to protect and preserve cultural expressions “at risk of extinction, under serious threat, or otherwise in need of urgent safeguarding” — licence for any government to oppress, suppress and otherwise meddle with the free trade in ideas, to intervene not just in defence of minority expression but in favour of the majority where the prevailing culture is “in need of urgent safeguarding” against alien intrusion. It’s not hard to think of countries that might find this treaty useful in defending dogmatic values and promoting conformity.

Look no further than France’s law of February 23 this year, which enjoins schools to promote a positive view of France’s colonisation of Africa. The law has enraged Algerians within and without France, who point to the bloody suppression of their struggle for independence.

Unesco ought to provide a solution, but it doesn’t. Whose right to cultural expression is to be protected, that of Algerian Muslims or the descendants of French colonisers? An infamous German propagandist is reputed to have said that hearing the word “culture” made him reach for his gun. With Unesco on the march, it’s almost tempting to agree.

Utilities face volatile future as spending frenzy pays off

JUST as Électricité de France receives its orders to march towards a flotation, RWE, the German utility, is preparing for the sale of Thames Water. RWE wants to focus on its gas and power businesses, a strategy greeted warmly by stock market analysts yesterday.

Anticipating corporate advisory fees, the City welcomes signs of an industry restructuring. There is also the issue of RWE’s valuation. Shares in the multi-utility tended to trade on a discount to third-party estimates of what the sum of its business parts might yield. In any event, the sale of Thames Water would yield up to £7 billion in proceeds, a war chest for RWE to use in building up its energy portfolio.

Already, Centrica is being touted once again as an obvious target for a consolidator with cash to spend, but there must be some doubts as to whether the energy play is as solid a one-way bet as is commonly supposed. The bullish view of the power sector points to declining North Sea gas reserves and strong oil prices combined with the gradual decommissioning of nuclear power plants. Meanwhile, the European Union’s carbon emissions trading scheme will maintain upward pressure on electricity prices.

The big question is whether gas supplies will continue to be stretched and will the oil price (which underpins the continental European gas price) remain high. Logic suggests it will not.

Huge investments are being made in new pipelines to bring Norwegian gas to market, while no less than three liquefied natural gas terminals are planned in Britain alone. Worldwide, investment in the oil industry has soared, a spending frenzy that inevitably will boost spare capacity and bring down prices.

The question is when? The answer is likely to be quicker than we expect. Much of the premium in oil and gas prices is predicated on supply risk. When that is removed, probably in late 2007, the downward pressure on gas and electricity prices in a more liberal European market could be intense.

That suggests a highly volatile future for RWE, E.ON and Électricité de France.

carl.mortished@thetimes.co.uk

Times Recommends

• C&G axed - 1,660 jobs to be lost
• UK house prices rise 1.1% as buyers return
• Mixed reaction to US banks repaying bailouts