Main Page | Month Archive | Email Updates | RSS Feed | Print Version

The Public Diplomacy Blog is intended to stimulate dialog among scholars, researchers, practitioners and professionals from around the world in the public diplomacy sphere. The opinions represented here are the authors' own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the USC Center on Public Diplomacy at the Annenberg School.

THE FUTURE OF AMERICAN CULTURAL DIPLOMACY
JAN 15, 2009 - 3:07PM PDT
Posted by Nicholas J. Cull
All posts by this author

Quincy Jones's welcome appeal for the creation of an American cultural tsar has fascinating implications for the world of public diplomacy. Jones himself has been a figure in American cultural diplomacy from his early days as the manager for the Dizzy Gillespie band tours of the Middle East and Latin America in the late 1950s to his own work as a powerful international voice of American cultural creativity. He well knows the way in which the arts can help transcend international barriers as well as domestic barriers of race, class and gender. Boosting the arts and culture within the United States could not but help the international image of the United States. It would be a fine example of practicing what is preached and proving that America is about more than just superficial Disney-esque instant gratification. It would also be a sound use of resources in a time of economic crisis. The new cultural agency could target cultural stimulus spending and get artists working in the manner of the Works Project Administration during the New Deal of the 1930s. The artists who flourished in that era as a result of those programs went on to becoming multipliers within American culture at home and abroad for years to follow - John Steinbeck being the most famous example. This said, the future of American cultural diplomacy is a slightly different question. America's cultural diplomacy does not sit well within the Department of State. Government and culture don't mix well, and the embrace of the State Department merely politicizes and undermines the credibility of U.S. cultural diplomacy. There is a reason why the British, Germans and many other countries trust their cultural diplomacy to firewalled agencies with cultural credibility like the British Council and Goethe Institute. The first step to relaunch U.S. cultural diplomacy should be to establish an American equivalent to the Goethe Institute -- call it a Benjamin Franklin institute -- by moving the activities of the present State Department Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs to an arms-length agency. Such an agency should have its home base in New York rather than Washington DC. This would promote a connection to its sources of culture rather than the sources of policy -- which in the world of cultural diplomacy is a massive boost to credibility. It would also help create legislative constituency for cultural diplomacy the same basic way that housing Camp Pendleton in Southern California rallies that state's legislators behind the Marine Corps. America's cultural tsar should be an ally of this cultural diplomacy agency, perhaps as a member of its board along with the Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy, Librarian of Congress and other players. But to make America's cultural diplomacy a wholly owned subsidiary of a new ministry of culture would be to reproduce the flaws of the old State Department system under a new flag. The Europeans also know to keep their cultural ministries apart from their cultural diplomacy. Such worries not withstanding, Jones's proposal…... FULL TEXT
 
Read Comments (2) | Add Your Own

Read Comments:

Foreign Service Officer on January 17, 2009 @ 2:12 pm:
Three cheers for getting this debate into the open. "PD" ideology as practiced at State and the former USIA rests on the idea of a marriage between culture and information -- a model, as you indicated, rejected by other developed countries. One important (though usually unmentioned) justification for separating cultural diplomacy from the rest is -- fittingly -- cultural. An independent cultural agency would nurture a professional esprit de corps, a bureaucratic culture of cultural diplomacy. Then information (and thus strategic communication) could remain at State with "policy". But Nick, you're challenging half a century of USIA ideology that continues to underpin assumptions in the ongoing PD discussion. Brace yourself for a tidal wave of criticism.

John Ferguson on January 20, 2009 @ 3:57 am:
My organization does dozens of cultural diplomacy programs per year in places ranging from Iraq and Afghanistan to Japan and Mexico. We long for the days of the USIA when officers were given a clear mandate and budget to focus on cultural programs. Now they are often a distraction mandated by a well-meaning Ambassador to a junior State Dept officer who has good intentions but at least one thousand other responsibilities. Cultural Diplomacy should be done with a clear mandate, goals and expectations for results. It should also be done with a long-term vision despite the constant turnover of diplomats in difficult posts such as Iraq. The off-the-cuff way things are most often done does nothing to advance dialogue and the lack of follow-through often mystifies both local partners and the US artists involved.

I would also argue for a return to Embassies being given their own budgets to work with for cultural programming. The system in place for the past few years has vastly reduced the number of cultural performances at most posts due to having no dedicated cultural budget and the onerous tasks of submitting (yet another) competitive request to Washington. The officers, often junior, don't have time for this or do not understand the process well.

In my experience, the live performances, joint presentations with local performers and workshops are the most effective cultural diplomacy we can do. There can be huge multiplier effects when these programs are broadcast by local media - much more effective in my opinion than Al Hurra TV or Radio Sawa broadcasts who focus only on a limited geography and are the subject of much derision locally.

Back to the basics please! More people to people contact and joint performances, cultural programs chosen locally based on local knowledge, and more support for the organizations that provide cultural diplomacy programs full time.

Add a Comment:

Your Name:
Your Email:
Comment:
Please enter the word you see in the image below:

NOTE: Comments are moderated by CPD and will typically be posted if they are relevant and respectful.