OSCE Talks 2013: Cultural diplomacy in a global digital age

The OSCE since its inception has recognized cultural exchange and co-operation as an essential part of promoting comprehensive security. This one-day seminar focused on culture and education as a diplomatic tool, and the prospects for cultural diplomacy in the global digital age.

Speakers:

• John H. Brown, Georgetown University (United States)
• Yudhishthir Raj Isar, The American University of Paris (France)
• Oleksandr Lytvynenko, Council for Foreign and Security Policy (Ukraine)
• Chris Midura, United States Mission to the OSCE (United States)
• Uwe Petry, Permanent Mission of Germany to the OSCE (Germany)
• Bahar Rumelili, Koc University (Turkey)
• Hakan Yilmaz, Bogacizi University (Turkey)
• Tatiana Zonova, Moscow State Institute of International Relations/MGIMO, (Russia).
• Moderator: Ambassador Andrew Tesoriere (United Kingdom)

Full agenda

Report

Introduction

The potential for culture and cultural exchange to help overcome divisions and contribute to comprehensive security has been recognized by participating States since the very beginnings of the OSCE/CSCE.

The 1975 Helsinki Final Act, the OSCE’s founding document, devotes a section to culture (and another to education), stating “cultural exchanges and co-operation contribute to a better comprehension among people and among peoples, and thus promote a lasting understanding among States.”

The landmark 1990 Charter of Paris for a New Europe recognized “the essential contribution of our common European culture and our shared values in overcoming the division of the continent”.

The participating States agreed to hold a meeting devoted to the topic of cultural heritage. At the Cracow Symposium, held the following year in 1991, the participating States explicitly made a link between culture and freedom, stating that “respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms is essential to the full development of cultural creativity”.

The 1999 OSCE Review Conference, held in Vienna and Istanbul, further emphasized the role of culture and education in promoting democratic stability. The States recommended that the OSCE “make more use of cultural tools in preventing and resolving conflicts. OSCE field presences could play a useful role. Further study should be undertaken regarding the relationship between culture and conflict prevention”.

Despite this early and continued emphasis by OSCE participating States on culture as a means of promoting comprehensive security, and while OSCE structures certainly engage in activities that promote cultural exchange and co-operation in the spirit of OSCE commitments – some examples include the OSCE Mission to Moldova’s support to concerts and music festivals for people on both banks of the Dniestr/Niestru river, or the OSCE Mission in Kosovo’s support for a concert featuring a multi-ethnic band to bring different communities together  – the role of culture in promoting wider security is arguably not often discussed in the OSCE context.

Meanwhile, cultural diplomacy - defined by US political scientist Milton Cummings as “the exchange of ideas, information, values, systems, traditions, beliefs, and other aspects of culture, with the intention of fostering mutual understanding” – has reemerged as a topic du jour. It is often seen as a component of “soft power”, in Joseph Nye’s definition, “the ability to get what you want through attraction rather than through coercion.”

Does culture have currency as a means of soft power in a globalized world connected by the Internet and social media?

The OSCE Talks series of seminars and publications aim to raise awareness of the OSCE among key target audiences, including academia and young people, and provide an opportunity for the OSCE and its participating States to benefit from insights from leading experts that could enrich the Organization’s policy thinking.

Summary of presentations

The panel discussion was divided into two sessions, with the first session focusing on the “objects and objectives of cultural diplomacy”. The speakers discussed what governments and other actors seek or should seek to accomplish through cultural diplomacy, particularly in a globalized world connected by the Internet and social media. The session also turned the question around to look at the issue from the perspective of countries and peoples who are on the receiving end.

The second session focused on the potential for culture to build trust and enhance security in the wider Europe, looking more specifically at the European Union’s cultural diplomacy initiatives, the role of culture in Turkey’s relations with the EU, and the potential for the OSCE in this sphere.

The sessions were moderated by Ambassador Andrew Tesoriere.

John Brown looked at U.S. experience of cultural diplomacy, explaining some of the contradictions and tensions involved in mixing artistic endeavour with diplomatic objectives, and using government funding for something that does not deliver clear and instant results.

Taking Ukraine as an example Oleksandr Lytvenenko looked at what it is like to be the target of soft power efforts of different countries.

Tatiana Zonova discussed perceptions of Russia in the European Union and the role that greater cultural understanding could play in breaking down stereotypes and building trust, particularly among young people through exchange programmes.

Christopher Midura gave a case study presentation of some specific examples of U.S. cultural diplomacy from his experience as a cultural attaché in US diplomatic missions in the Czech Republic, El Salvador and xxx, presenting the case for why such efforts were an effective use of resources.

Yudhishthir Raj Isar followed up on the morning’s session highlighting the need for clear and precise definitions of the various terms being used in the discussion, for example drawing distinctions between “cultural diplomacy” as a tool of foreign policy and “intercultural dialogue” to promote mutual understanding. He presented the EU’s approach to culture in its external relations and outlined an ongoing project to explore this area.

Bahar Rumelili discussed the meaning of culture in the context of Istanbul’s designation as a European City of Culture in 2010 at the same time as some EU member states were arguing against Turkey’s EU membership for “cultural” reasons. She pointed out that cultural diplomacy can’t control what culture is and what it does and invited the audience to think critically about what culture actually is when discussing cultural diplomacy initiatives.

Hakan Yilmaz presented the findings of a research survey that looked at perceptions of Turkey and its people among EU citizens. He identified a "culturalization" of the Turkish case, with respondents indicating that cultural factors mattered more than economic or political factors with respect to their views about Turkey's EU membership. Contrary to popular belief, this divide between what was perceived as European and as Turkish was grounded in gender and rights, not religion.

Uwe Petry looked at the German experience, including the work of the Goethe-Institut and Germany’s approach to promoting intercultural dialogue. He highlighted the role of culture in Franco-German reconciliation, and looked at the affinities between cultural diplomacy and the role of the OSCE in promoting intra-State co-operation.

Conclusions

Wrapping up the discussions, the moderator made reference to the report of a Ditchley Foundation meeting on 8 to 12 March 2012, the recommendations of which include the “possibility of joint international efforts at cultural diplomacy should be explored more thoroughly, where individual national promotion was not the point, but the conveying of ideas and values to a particular audience or region.”

The moderator proposed three points for further consideration in the OSCE context:

• The difficulty of terminology. There is a danger of conflating terms like cultural sensitivity with cultural diplomacy. Is cultural diplomacy a force for good and if so, what is its potential?
• Recognition of a multiplicity of actors active in the cultural domain – youth, business as well as national governments and multilateral bodies. This provides the potential for synergies if we can work together on a shared agenda.
• The OSCE and cultural diplomacy. Can the OSCE bundle cultural diplomacy within its toolkit dealing with the challenges and issues of hard security, as well as human rights, economic and environmental issues?