CULTURAL DIPLOMACY TODAY - Romanian Review of Political ...

CULTURAL DIPLOMACY TODAY — ASPECTS FROM THE ONGOING DEBATE LUCIAN JORA*

Abstract. How do countries integrate all aspects of their hard and soft power? And how can they animate loose coalitions of state and non-state actors in pursuit of a common goal? It is these questions that lie at the heart of today’s public diplomacy in general and cultural diplomacy in particular as the most essential form of public diplomacy.

Keywords: Cultural Diplomacy, Public Diplomacy, International Relations.

The era of generating policies in a Foreign Office silo has gone, considering it was ever the case for such policies to be de facto officially generated only. The answers to global challenges are out there often at the grass roots.1 The contribution of ‘citizen diplomats’ and the ‘people-to-people’ public diplomacy carried out through work like town twinning. The communicational revolution the intervention of new non state actors into the “diplomatic game” allows us to consider that today’s ‘network diplomacy’ is very different from the ‘club diplomacy’ of the past.2 Since the advance of globalization, national image and reputation have become more important with bigger repercussions directly felt by ordinary citizens. The generalization of overseas travel for tourism or work opportunities means than more and more people are capable to travel overseas, however travelling is a matter of visas, finding work and overseas treatment is directly depending on the country of origins perception and prestige. The same logic is applicable to business relations too, with rocketing implications within the globalization of trade and investment relations. We would agree with S. Anholt invitation to compare the experiences of a Swedish and an Iranian manager on the international job market, or the struggles of an exporter from Bangladesh with one from Canada or to compare the way consumers in Europe or America will willingly pay more ———————— * PhD, researcher at the Institute of Political Sciences and International Relations of the Romanian Academy, [email protected] 1 Jim Murphy, A new Approach to Public Diplomacy, Foreign & Commonwealth Office, 2008. 2 Simon Anholt, Places: identity, image and reputation, in: Frank Go & Robert Govers International Place Branding Yearbook 2010: Place Branding in the New Age of Innovation, Palgrave publication, London, 2010, p. 13. Pol. Sc. Int. Rel., IX, 1, p. 182–191, Bucharest, 2012.

2

CULTURAL DIPLOMACY TODAY — ASPECTS FROM THE ONGOING DEBATE 183

for an unknown ‘Japanese’ product than for an identical ‘Korean’ product that was probably made in the same Chinese factory3. Countries’ image matters and a solid chunk of this image is build trough cultural diplomacy techniques. Attempts to enhance these assets are sometimes pursued by governments under the name of ‘nation branding’ — all too often a naive, ineffectual and wasteful application of commercial marketing techniques — and sometimes in a narrow and primitive form of public diplomacy. However, new forms of cultural diplomacy and a more sophisticated approach to nation branding or competitive identity can work together to help create prosperity and improve international relations.4 Though one cannot accurately methodologically measure the tangible benefits of cultural diplomacy, what can be measured is the degree to which cultural diplomacy programs and actions have a positive impact on the people or institutions who participate in them. Only a little over seventy years ago a renowned philosopher, Joseph Sieberger, stated that Germans and French each symbolize the complete opposites of human kind, illustrating the vast differences among the cultures, values and national identities of these two countries. Indeed, for the early part of last century, France and Germany were fierce enemies, engaged in wars and violent conflicts. Yet, today the two countries maintain close diplomatic relations and have been tightly linked with a ‘special relationship’ during the second half of the twentieth century. However talking about French, German reconciliation process we can address again the issue of attribution. What is the percent/the degree this reconciliation is a result of various cultural diplomacy projects and to which degree the reconciliation as such is the result of a certain geopolitical context (the Cold War), a certain recent historical experience (WWII), shared economic common interests and a favorable combination of political will coming from an exceptional generation of visionary political leaders. And let’s not forget the danger of deviating out of paradigm. We are talking about ‘Cultural Diplomacy as a form of Public Diplomacy’ not about ‘international cultural communication’. For many scholars by definition ‘Diplomacy’ is instrumental and it relates to governance and politics — not primarily to education, journalism, business, and other ways that people communicate within and between societies across the borders. Cultural diplomacy imports methods and norms from these areas of social discourse, but it is a kind of ‘Diplomacy’ in the strict acceptation of the term as far as remains bounded by governance and keeps its instrumental nature. Anything else is cultural internationalism or a kind of ‘citizen diplomacy’ however it is not stricto senso ‘Diplomacy’ even if may help a lot to set up the preconditions for a successful intergovernmental cultural relations or Cultural Diplomacy. However some well renowned scholars consider that there is little evidence to suggest that private-sector marketing techniques can change national images although many governments spend large amounts of money on such campaigns ———————— 3 Ibidem. 4 Simon Anholt, The Importance of National Reputation, in: Engagement — Public Diplomacy in a Globalised World, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, London, 2008, p. 30-40.

184

LUCIAN JORA

3

without the support of credible case-studies — there are none in the literature. There are often set up various mechanism and scales to measure success criteria or performance. However without considering the several disturbance variables as the ‘attribution problem’ (the temptation to attribute any positive changes to particular actions) the same strategy or model of miracle recipe would not work with the same spectacular promised effects in another political, cultural or economical environments. Sectorial marketing and branding campaigns can, it is true, have an indirect influence on national image, if they are carried out well and consistently — for example, the tourism and export promotions of Switzerland and Nepal have helped to raise the profiles of those countries in recent decades. These successes should not be conflated with ‘nation branding’ as it is rather a result of their quality products and services being sold around the world (a good example of attribution disturbance of cultural diplomacy/branding evaluation attempt). The target of Cultural Diplomacy is to establish or to improve a national image which is not to be confused with the attempt to sell a product (and a product can just as well be a holliday) a case in which advertising is legitimate, useful and necessary. National image is rather stable because human beings need comforting stereotypes. Images of foreign countries are a part of the culture of the country that holds the perceptions: Hungary’s image in Romania, for example, is part of Romanian culture, and vice versa. It is the duty of every government in the age of globalization to recognize that the nation’s reputation is one of the most valuable assets of its people (asset understood even in economic terms). The historic experience show us that, in fragile states, development cannot simply be ‘bought’ through large transfers of resources. There is a renewed focus on culture; on the power of ideas and values; and on the complex relationship between hierarchical organizations and informal networks. How do countries integrate all aspects of their hard and soft power? And how can they animate loose coalitions of state and non-state actors in pursuit of a common goal? It is these questions that lie at the heart of today’s public diplomacy in general and cultural diplomacy in particular as the most essential form of public diplomacy. For an effective cultural diplomacy strategy we need to understand the nature of the global issues that now dominate the new international agenda.

Development as cultural diplomacy

The challenge of promoting effective states is very much about influence — and only partly about disbursing money. As with terrorism, the key need here is for international actors to begin by understanding the context in which they are operating: who has influence, which ideas and narratives have traction, and what sort of leverage they can hope to exert. The quality of content is everything in effective cultural diplomacy. Only compelling narratives and visions of the future can animate networks over the long term. Cultural relations, with its emphasis on developing long-term, mutually beneficial relationships, can contribute to the development of solutions by building the networks through which diverse

4


communities can develop new approaches to their common challenges. The power of cultural relations as a precondition for an effective Cultural Diplomacy is that it can turn listening from a passive into an active notion yielding positive benefit. Some may confuse this active form of listening with audience analysis and research on public opinion. Joseph Nye refers to the passive kind of listening when he states that ‘by definition, soft power means getting others to want the outcomes you want, and that requires understanding how they are hearing your message, and fine-tuning it accordingly’5. In contrast, listening as part of cultural relations ‘reflects a genuine interest in the other’s perspective’ and ‘demonstrates that different viewpoints are taken seriously and that other perspectives are given consideration’. The idea of mutuality, of benefit for all, is a fundamental organizing principle in cultural relations. Cultural relations activity is based on exchange, from which each partner gets something tangible. As Jan Melissen noted in describing Cultural Diplomacy as a type of public diplomacy, ‘success requires listening to others, recognizing the “value of other cultures, showing a desire to learn from them, and conducting programs as a two-way street’6. Cultural diplomacy as any other form of public diplomacy naturally seems to be most effective when civil societies are interconnected. People require activities and messages to be tailored to their own unique needs. Also as a valuable strategy breaking audiences down into smaller, more homogeneous groups gives government a far better chance of reaching them with the right policies and propositions. Making the right connection is an approach that puts people first has another benefit: namely, the generation of a more media-neutral perspective in planning a communications campaign. Armed with the knowledge that a press announcement, TV and national newspaper campaigns and some leaflets no longer constitute effective communication, strategic planners will set out to identify the most influential ways of engaging with audiences and then work out the most powerful combination of elements to achieve measurable success. Collaboration, participation and co-creation. The more interactive, collaborative and experiential a communication is, the more successful it will be. Government needs to look beyond one-way ‘announcement-style’ communication and start the process of engagement, participation and collaboration in pursuit of joint outcomes regardless the often rigid diplomatic practices. In the case of Romania the recent developments and cultural affairs hand over form the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to ICR (Romanian Institute of Cultural Diplomacy) is supposed to be the right step to allowing such a flexible approach. The potential for gearing impact through collaboration is creating open debates and involving directly in a way or another members of the target group. Just as an example in some countries instead of producing communications for teenagers, road safety department’s work with teenagers to create a campaign that illustrated the dangers of not paying attention when crossing the road. No doubts diplomacy may still begin and end with interstate relations, especially in ———————— 5 J. Nye, Soft Power: The means to succeed in world politics, Public Affairs, New York, 2004. 6 Jean Melissen, Reflections on Public Diplomacy Today, Speech Delivered at the Conference “Public Diplomacy”, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Turkey, Ankara, 6-th of February 2006.

186

LUCIAN JORA

5

authoritarian and underdeveloped settings, but the effective exercise of influence is related increasingly to forging partnerships, leveraging private sector support, managing networks and shaping public opinion. Few foreign policy objectives can now be achieved in the absence of initiatives designed to engage, understand, advocate, influence and cooperate. Countering insurgency in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere is a very different from negotiating a trade deal and is also a matter of diplomacy. A diplomacy requiring a creative, empathetic public/cultural diplomats, aware of the background and details of a given conflict which can use local knowledge to learn to think like, and in certain respects identify with, the insurgents. It is through such activities and attitudes trough which diverse foreign publics have been connected to the idea of international society, and from there to attempts to build coalitions and forge consensus around shared interests, mutual gain and common values and norms. But let’s be more specific. What are the essential skills and personal attributes of the public/cultural diplomat? What are the knowledge requirements? Is there an associated set of core public/cultural diplomacy values? And how might any of the above be acquired? Some people are just born with personal qualities essential to effective political communication in various cultural environments and have the capacity to do that spontaneously. Others develop them through education, experience, training and professional development. The best public/cultural diplomats probably demonstrate a winning combination of the two. Daryl Coperland7 considers that to be effective, the modern public diplomat must be characterized by the following broad competences: ‘Values — who the public/cultural diplomat is: The public/cultural diplomat’s core values and ideals include continuous and lifelong learning, historical knowledge and cultural understanding. Dialogue and communication will be favored over compulsion or force, just as cooperation and teamwork will be preferred over “one-upmanship” and showboating. Humanism, a real interest in people and an abiding commitment to humanitarian thought and action provide the firm foundation upon which these values rest. Personal qualities — how the public diplomat behaves: supple force. The public/cultural diplomat must be capable not just of exchanging views with interlocutors at the foreign ministry or chatting with other diplomats, but of swimming without effort in the sea of the people beyond the embassy gates. Personable and enthusiastic, the public diplomat will display a set of clearly defined attributes which flow from vitality and a positive disposition, as well as the possession of natural curiosity, an open, enquiring mind and a critical consciousness. Cultural sensitivity and personal awareness will lead naturally to the display of empathy and compassion, just as the capacity for quick study will find expression in improvisation, creativity and innovation’. This kind of work will require ample and equal reserves of determination and commitment, energy and resilience, flexibility and adaptability. An affinity for risk management, collaboration and team-building will be crucial in establishing ———————— 7 Daryl Coperland, No Dangling Conversation: Portrait of the public diplomat, in Engagement — Public Diplomacy in a Globalised World, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, London, 2008, p. 135.

6


partnerships and mobilizing coalitions of the similarly inclined. A high tolerance for, uncertainty and ambiguity will be essential8. In terms of skills and abilities — what the public/cultural diplomat can do: the right person must be master of the latest developments in information and communications technologies, and able, among many things, to assess the public and political environments. Before acting, the public diplomat will research and analyze, frame and position the players and issues, situate them within a strategy, and then make a plan to follow through with representation, contact-making and the activation of existing networks. Effective dialogue will require deployment of listening and feedback skills in order to negotiate and compromise advocate and persuade. Doing things ‘by the book’ and according to standard operating procedures were never among the public/cultural diplomat’s favored tactics just because the most successful ones are usually not career civil servants but rather cultural personalities to rebellious to go by the ‘book’. Awaiting instructions, following orders and referring to operating manuals won’t necessarily produce results in the sorts of fast-paced, high-risk environments best suited, for instance, to public diplomacy’s irregular expression — guerrilla diplomacy9.

The benefits from international cultural exchange

Some EU countries cultural sector produces direct and indirect economic benefits. Some of these benefits can be quantified, but many cannot, and this study does not attempt to calculate the overall economic windfall for the specific EU countries, a figure which would be highly approximate and the subject of intense debate and disagreement. The figures that are available paint a convincing picture of the value of culture in particular for some EU countries economy. First, culture generates income. Even capacity — building is a competitive market place for cultural diplomacy.10 Cultural tourism and cultural exports are competitive marketplaces, but so is the cultural battle for hearts and minds. Even the seemingly generous act of capacity-building is competitive: the BM’s plan to assist in the development of an ethnographic open-air museum in Addis Abeba at the invitation of the Ethiopian government is marching in parallel with French assistance in refurbishing the National Museum, and US involvement in constructing a display on early human remains. Capacity-building is not only about creating good relationships but also a matter of pure business.11

How to evaluate public/cultural diplomacy actions?

The last ten years have seen a significant shift towards evidence-based policymaking in most EU countries. However, in the area of foreign policy, and public/cultural diplomacy in particular, there has been much debate over the

———————— 8 Idem, p. 138. 9 Idem, p. 139. 10 Kirsten Bound,Rachel Briggs, John Holden, Samuel Jones, Culture is a central component of International Relations-Cultural Diplomacy, Demos Publications 2007, p. 32-52. 11 Ibidem.

188

LUCIAN JORA

7

extent to which measurement and evaluation techniques can, and should, be applied. Can we set out the rationale and techniques underpinning such activities? In particular during a financial crisis the public opinion expects more of policy makers. More new ideas, more willingness to question inherited ways of doing things, better use of evidence and research in policy making and better focus on policies that will deliver long term goals. There is a growing emphasize on various kind of informed assessment of the impact and value for money of public/ cultural diplomacy efforts as a whole. It is not only a matter of accountability but also an attempt with the potential to enable policy-makers to develop strategy, and deploy resources, more effectively. The first concern would be to investigate the feasibility of a shared measurement system for public diplomacy, beginning with a review of systems already in place. We can notice some evaluation techniques (such as opinion polling and some media analysis) which were being used, over the years but there was no systematic approach. Probable the British Council has one of the most developed evaluation system in place. It operates a corporate performance scorecard, assessing performance across a range of factors including project impact, customer and stakeholder satisfaction, reputation, financial and management results, and the perceptions of staff. This focuses mainly on outputs, but, given that much of the Council’s work requires the development of long-term relationships, the Council also uses evaluative research with leaders and influencers to try to measure longer-term outcomes. From the start, we were conscious of the obstacles. Public diplomacy is about building relationships between diverse nations and cultures, and these are constantly influenced by many external factors. And because the full effect of any cultural diplomacy actions activities may only become evident after long periods, its changing impact is very difficult to measure year-on-year. Most specialists are considering three main difficulties in measuring public/cultural diplomacy: its frequently long-term ambition; the challenge of measuring concepts that may be intangible; and the problem of attributing observable changes to one’s own activities. Professor Nick Cull has commented, in reference to the timescales involved in cultural diplomacy (and the same can be said of much public/cultural diplomacy)12: ‘Attempts to evaluate cultural diplomacy can seem like a forester running out every morning to see how far his trees have grown overnight. The intangible nature of some public diplomacy objectives, such as increased ‘trust’ or improved ‘relationships’, adds further complication. The question of attribution is the most difficult challenge of all. In a world where multiple organisations and influences are acting upon the same complex policy issues, how do we identify changes that can be attributed to our own actions, and, more specifically, to our public diplomacy activities? With these challenges in mind, we must create a reasonable accurate evaluation framework. These strategies were developed using a complex logical framework which traces a course from the government’s policy goals, through long-term ———————— 12 Idem.

8


outcomes, intermediate outcomes, outputs and activities, and back to inputs. At the level of input, resources are measured in terms of staff time and direct project spend. At the level of activity or outputs, the focus is on a systematic approach to monitoring media coverage, to the collection of feedback from participants in public diplomacy activities and to follow-up evaluation after completion of each such activity’13. The emphasis is at all times on evidence-based evaluation rather than narrative reporting. Then is used a combination of three evaluation tools: • a media tracker which seeks to identify changes in the nature and tone of coverage of targeted issues, and, where possible, the reasons for these changes; • an influencer tracker to generate information on opinion change among those individuals considered key ‘influencers’ on policy issues related to the intermediate outcomes. This involves systematic mapping of influencers and semi-structured interviews, repeating the process year on year in order to track changes in opinion; and • a concrete changes tracker for recording objectively verifiable changes in the environment that are related to the intermediate outcomes, whether positive or negative. Input: Staff time and direct project spend is compared against the Output; Follow-up evaluation 3 to 6 months after activity; Expectations; quality; relevance; objectives met; Media coverage: Reach tone and impact rating. The finishing touch of the entire evaluation formula would be the ‘Impact measurement’: 1. Media tracker (however with relevance depending on several variables) tracking changes in media coverage issues; 2. Influence tracker (tracking changes in influencer opinion); 3. Concrete changes tracker (tracking observable changes). The evaluation framework tackles the challenge of long-term ambition through its treatment of public diplomacy as a journey from input to policy goal, indicating the various staging posts along the way. The articulation of the links between each stage and the next is critical to the validity of the evaluation process. Intermediate outcomes, the central focus for the measurement of impact, are staging posts in this sense and are defined as the medium-term changes (0-5 years) which the outputs from a program of activity are expected to help deliver. They allow impact to be evaluated from a shorter-term perspective while still enabling the overall ‘direction of travel’ to be assessed in relation to longer-term outcomes. In the case of the influencer tracker, the use of semi-structured interviews provides a means to explore complex issues with more nuance and shade. The problem of attribution is managed by the recognition that public diplomacy activities are never carried out in isolation — and that what matters is in fact contribution rather than attribution.14 In analyzing the evaluation data, one may

———————— 13 Nicholas J. Cull, Public diplomacy: lessons from the past, Los Angeles: University of Southern California, April 2007. 14 Louise Vinter and David Knox, Measuring the impact of public diplomacy: Can it be done?, in: Engagement — Public Diplomacy in a Globalised World, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, London, 2008, p. 161-165.

190

LUCIAN JORA

9

need to interpret what are sometimes fairly weak signals. Colin Wilding15 acknowledges in a paper on the subject: ‘it may well be possible to demonstrate that public diplomacy activities have made a positive contribution even if the magnitude of the effect cannot be quantified precisely’.16 But what we may quantify ‘precisely’ when we are dealing with ‘the cultural influence’ as a political tool? In the area of evaluating media coverage, various experts are using standard measures of reach, tone and prominence across pilot countries, and sometimes are able to pick up more systematically the relationship between media campaigns, as part of individual strategies, and media coverage. This is then considered alongside more detailed content analysis from the media tracker, in order to assess the effectiveness of that coverage in influencing the overall media debate on an issue. This system is a challenging tool requiring correct identification or mapping of influencers, interviews with often quite senior individuals, and analysis of qualitative and quantitative data.

Who is in charge of Cultural Diplomacy?

Road Fisher, Director of The International Arts Bureau, London, was recently asking few legitimate and inspiring questions regarding Cultural Diplomacy: Where are the demarcation lines in responsibility? Are trade or cultural ministries setting the agenda or are foreign affairs ministries still pulling the strings? To what extent can international policies be arts-led? What of the emerging role of regions and cities in international cultural co-operation? How are cultural institutes and agencies responsible for international cultural exchange adapting to reductions in financial aid? How can programs of support at European, national, regional and local levels more adequately respond to the needs of cultural practitioners who wish to engage in transnational collaboration? Globalization processes also are affecting the old structures in many ways.17 Hierarchies are being eroded and giving way to networks. The process — driven by international conglomerates rather than wholly owned national (usually Western companies) — is enlarging choice. At the same time it is also perceived as generating popular culture tastes worldwide. Some countries feel powerless to react. Others have enhanced their international efforts to promote and defend their culture, language and identity. The new technologies offer exciting creative opportunities for artists and are revolutionizing communication. E-mail is transforming international negotiation across frontiers much more than the way the introduction of the fax machine did at the beginning of the last decade. Nevertheless, most governments have begun to recognize the need to safeguard the distinctiveness of their cultures, traditions, language and heritage. This presents new challenges for cultural policies which

———————— 15 Idem, p. 168. 16 Colin Wilding, Numbers that count: Measuring the BBC World Service global audience, in Participation, Journal of Audience & Reception Studies, Volume 8, Issue 1 (May 2011). 17 Road Fisher, Beyond Cultural Diplomacy — International cultural co-operation policies: whose agenda is it anyway? An Introduction to the issues. http://www.circle-network.org/activity/cracow1999/ beyond.htm

10


some countries and regions have responded to in their international objectives. It has taken some of them longer to recognize that the multi-cultural dimension of many countries should also be reflected in the international cultural co-operation policies they pursue. The rapid pace of trade and investment liberalization is increasingly recognized as a catalyst for enhancing the flow of creative work across frontiers and providing nations with enhanced access to cultural expression from other countries. New economic opportunities have emerged for each nation’s cultural industries. Trade ministries have recognized that film and TV programs, design companies, publishers, music industries and others contribute to export objectives and have promoted their product through trade fairs and exhibitions. The skills of craftsmen and heritage restoration or conservation experts are being promoted in export-led initiatives in some countries. On the face of it, a convergence of cultural and trade interests has much to commend it. However, difficulties can arise when minorities use the arts as decoration to underpin trade missions, and thus confuse the different imperatives of the cultural and trade sectors. It is a well know and widely used slogan that ‘Cultural policy and trade objectives need to be developed in harmony’. How to put it into practice in a way which satisfy all parts is another story (a long one). One of the most significant developments in the last two decades is the growth of interest in regions and cities in international cultural exchange. Regions and cities have capitalized on new economic and political opportunities to forge cultural alliances across borders, region by region, city to city. Some regions, ambitious for nationhood status, have used culture and language as tools to position themselves on the world stage; key cities have actively promoted their arts and culture to project their profile in the European arena often independent and ‘over the head’ of the national authorities. The most successful have established international cultural profiles that act like a magnet attracting others to collaborate. Are there lessons to be learned here, or will only a select number of cities and regions be able to advance their image through exporting their culture this way? SELECTIVE BIBLIOGRAPHY Anholt, Simon, Places: identity, image and reputation in Frank Go & Robert Govers International Place Branding Yearbook 2010: Place Branding in the New Age of Innovation, Palgrave publication, London, 2010; Anholt, Simon, The Importance of National Reputation, in Engagement — Public Diplomacy in a Globalised World, published 2008 by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, London; Coperland, Daryl, No Dangling Conversation: Portrait of the public diplomat, in Engagement — Public Diplomacy in a Globalised World, published 2008 by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, London, p. 135; Cull, Nicholas J., Public diplomacy: lessons from the past, Los Angeles: University of Southern California, April 2007; Murphy, Jim, A new Approach to Public Diplomacy, Foreign & Commonwealth Office, 2008; Melissen, Jean, Reflections on Public Diplomacy Today, Speech Delivered at the Conference “Public Diplomacy”, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Turkey, Ankara, 6-th of February 2006; Nye, J., Soft Power: The means to succeed in world politics, Public Affairs, New York, 2004.