local produce
12 Jan 2010
The Fine Art Of Diplomacy
The lack of Australian cultural diplomacy in China has ramifications which reach far beyond the cultural sector, writes Dan Edwards from Beijing
Australia’s international cultural profile is not something many at home tend to think about. Given the myriad competing demands on the Federal Government’s budget, many would no doubt ask why it’s even worthy of attention. The Federal Government itself attaches some importance to the issue — at least at the level of rhetoric.
The reality on the ground, however, at least in our biggest trading partner China, is that few locals know anything about Australia beyond daishu (kangaroos) and Nicole Kidman — and that’s exclusively through her Hollywood films.
So why does this matter? Australian art consultant Reg Newitt, who has been working in Beijing for over two years has this to say: "You can’t just look at cultural events in isolation from what might be happening in other fields such as business and the economy, because not only are there interrelated elements — there’s also the potential for each to positively reinforce each other."
Shanghai-based Australian stage and screen producer Barry Plews is more blunt, "Promoting our culture internationally demonstrates — and it certainly does need demonstrating — that Australia is an intellectually capable and culturally endowed nation, open to ideas and examination by other nations." This is particularly important in a nation like China, where other aspects of Australian society like sport generate little interest.
One of the difficulties in discussing cultural diplomacy is defining exactly what it means, since those working in the cultural sector tend to see it in broader terms than the Australian Government. A 2007 Senate Inquiry into the conduct of Australia’s public diplomacy — which included the question of culture — defined it as "work or activities undertaken to understand, inform and engage individuals and organisations in other countries in order to shape their perceptions in ways that will promote Australia and Australia’s policy goals internationally." The emphasis on "policy goals" reflects the instrumental approach underlying the current government’s thinking.
"A lot of people [in the bureaucracy] want to see what it means in terms of financial or commercial results, which is really hard to measure in the arts world," say Australian Brian Wallace, who has owned and run Beijing’s Red Gate Gallery — one of the oldest contemporary art galleries on the Chinese mainland — since 1991. "One of my friends who was high up in the embassy for a number of years said all these things are just [seen as] a means of achieving higher trade levels … but you’ve got to think beyond those numbers. The relationships which are forged through all of this exchange are very valuable. It’s hard to quantify, but it’s very effective diplomacy." The focus on narrow policy objectives, Wallace adds, "Makes it harder to put proposals in, and harder for proposals to be considered … You have to jump through a few hoops and it’s pretty easy to be knocked down."
Barry Plews is more damning in his assessment of the federal government’s attitudes. "As far as Australia’s diplomatic service is concerned, being appointed to one of the very few cultural positions within DFAT is very much regarded as a demotion," he claims. "The powers-that-be in governments across Australia believe that cultural engagement is unimportant — a waste of time."
The Australian Embassy’s Counsellor for Public Affairs and Culture in Beijing, Jill Collins, refutes Plews’ comments and says promoting Australian culture abroad is "a high priority for the Government, from the top down". Budgetary figures, however, belie this assertion.
In his submission to the 2007 Senate Inquiry into Australia’s public diplomacy, the former Counsellor for Public Affairs at Australia’s Embassy in Jakarta, Kirk Coningham, claimed that, "Australian public diplomacy has been relegated to a level of importance equivalent to that of Embassy gardens."
In its own submission to the inquiry, the Melbourne-based funding, training and information centre Asialink backed up Coningham’s claim with figures: "Australia spends just 17 cents per capita on cultural diplomacy compared to Germany which spends approximately $3, and the UK which spends an impressive $19 per capita."
These comparative statistics were disputed by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), but the fact is, funding for the Australia International Cultural Council — the consultative group within DFAT charged with coordinating Australian cultural diplomacy — has been maintained at $1 million per annum since the council’s founding in 1998. Allowing for inflation, that represents a decline in financial support of more than a third over the past decade.
DFAT’s Public Diplomacy Branch also currently leverages an additional $1 million in cultural funds through bodies such as Screen Australia and the Australia Council for the Arts. Many of these organisations stated during the 2007 Senate Inquiry that their funds were unable to meet existing demands. For example, Jane Cruickshank of the Australian Film Commission (later merged into Screen Australia) informed the Standing Committee that she had a list of requests for assistance to bring Australian films into various territories that the AFC couldn’t meet due to limited resources.
In relation to China, it should also be noted that the money spent on international programs in the Asia region by the Australia Council for the Arts shrank from a high of 35 per cent of their international spend in 1993 to a paltry 23 per cent in 2006.
The final budget of the Howard Government in 2007 went a long way to addressing this lack of funding, massively boosting DFAT’s resources for cultural promotion through the "Australia on the World Stage" initiative. This program earmarked $20.4 million over four years to "showcase Australian arts and our other cultural assets to the world". One of the first moves of the Rudd Government was to axe all unspent funding for this initiative — $19 million — in early 2008.
Limited finances mean Australia is ill-equipped to compete with many other nations in a place like China where the sheer size of the land and population requires a sustained, long-term and widespread series of initiatives to have any impact. Reg Newitt stresses the importance of an ongoing effort over one-off "blockbuster" events: "In terms of big hits, you might be reaching the top levels of business and government, but at the ground level people aren’t experiencing things because they aren’t being given access," he explains. "Rather than any one thing it’s a combination of many, many hits that provides a presence."
The recent Australian Film Festival in Beijing is illustrative in this regard. The festival attracted some significant audiences over two weekends of screenings in early December, but a one-off showcase of eight feature films in a commercial multiplex cannot hope to compete with countries like France and Spain, who maintain year-round screening programs (which are often free) in purpose-built cinemas within cultural centres that also feature cafes, libraries and galleries. Germany similarly stages many screenings in Beijing throughout the year. The UK was involved in multiple film festivals in China during 2009, and also funded several film-related awards. All of these nations have bodies dedicated specifically to cultural promotion abroad in addition to the activities of their embassies. Screen events are only one small part of their programs but the example demonstrates the importance many nations attach to a holistic, sustained approach to their cultural diplomacy.
Without generating the kind of interest a permanent cultural presence provides, few locals in a nation as large and as important as China will go out of their way to find out about a small country like Australia. Without a basic level of awareness, Australia will always be perceived as a poor runner-up to Europe or the US in terms of trade, tourism and a place to seek higher education. A lack of awareness also severely limits our ability to exert influence at all levels of society which can have serious implications when Australians such as Stern Hu are caught up in complex transnational economic and political situations.
Finally, cultural diplomacy is a two-way street. Exchange programs could potentially enhance levels of understanding in Australia which, in the case of China, is sorely needed. In short, our lack of a cultural profile internationally not only does a disservice to our vibrant cultural sector, it also makes our place in the world much smaller than many Australians would like to imagine.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Newsvine
Facebook
Twitter
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
Thanks for this article. Utterly correct on all counts. The government’s bafflingly myopic attitude towards international culture exchange is an embarrassment, especially in a country where artists themselves are significantly engaged with international culture.
Alison Croggon Theatre Notes
mr james
It is unfathomable that Rudd of all people, cancelled that “Beijing cultural budget” except it is one assumes all about control. Perhaps he should put Cate Blanchett in charge—in all likelihood he will never trust the general arts world types. His Beijing days probably leads him to disdain many of the Oz cultural attaches, who in Les Patterson tradition, spend an undue fraction of the budget on “entertainment”.
Compare to our embassy in Paris—created by Gough W, at gigantic expense, designed by Harry Seidler—nevertheless it serves to both impress and to allow non-stop displays on the voluminous groundfloor lobbies (though actually there is more Australian indigenous artwork at Jacques Chirac’s Musee du Quai Branly nearby).
Our Parisian palace is a bit over the top—probably still our grandest in the world and it is not even our EU embassy—but there is something to be said for such edifices, and the cultural programmes they administer. If not China then exactly what message is that sending, to the Chinese and everyone else?
Cultural diplomacy is very tough to develop, ex nihilo, as a government programme. Governments are more likely to be successful by harnessing pre-existing cultural ‘ambassadors’ as government assets. An example: The famous Canadian TV personality Dashan has been made the chief of Canada’s pavilion at the Shanghai Expo. An estimated 70 million visitors, mostly Chinese, will attend the Expo, and the Canadians have a figurehead who is well-known and liked in China. What is Australia planning for its pavilion?
Australia suffers from not having a Dashan-type figure of its own - someone famous and respected in China. (Although the novelty of Lu Kewen, a white prime minister who speaks Chinese, seems fairly well-known.) However, the large community of Australians in China involved in the arts, media and sport gives government an opportunity for cultural diplomacy on the network model.
But there’s another question about ‘soft’ or cultural power which might be asked more often: What can it be leveraged for? Certainly not, in my view, obtaining favourable outcomes in cases such as that of Stern Hu. (Although Hu’s position is especially difficult because he’s an overseas Chinese.) Cultural diplomacy is more likely to be useful for making a positive impression on the local people (potentially changing government-level calculations), conveying info re: national character and intentions to reduce suspicion, and (yes) improving trade flow.
Anne-Marie Slaughter’s recent article in Foreign Affairs looks at cultural diplomacy in the ‘networked century’. The ‘Embassy of the Future’ report looks at how social media can be utilised in cultural programmes.
Stephen Minas
culture!
defined as “work or activities undertaken to understand, inform and engage individuals and organisations in other countries in order to shape their perceptions in ways that will promote Australia and Australia’s policy goals internationally.”
That is outrageous…
www.jameswaites.com
Same old same old sadly. I was in Shanghai in late 2004 as an observer for the INCD (International network for cultural diversity) meetings hosted by the very prestigious Shanghai Art and Literary Circles. The INCD was at that time involved in lobbying the UN directly about the promotion and preservation of culture (particularly Indigenous) globally - you may recall that Australia abstained from voting on the issue. The meeting was timed to coincide with the International Cultural Policy Ministers’ meeting being held in Shanghai. Needless to say Australia did not seem to think it was important to be represented in that forum.
It’s also worth noting that the INCD is one of 2 NFPs based in Canada and supported by the Canadian govt that enables cultural advocacy on an international scale and not simply on the basis of national interests. We can’t even support appropriately qualified cultural officers within our embassies.
The overturning of the Australia on the Stage program was unbelievably stupid but but we can’t just expect to put Australian money into Australian work and not demonstrate reciprocal interest in the art and cultural activities of countries in the Asian region. Thank the deity of your choice for the Asia Pacific Triennial at the Queensland Art Gallery with its sustained commitment to contemporary art and artists from the region for more than 15 years now.
Should we making, or even allowing the government to take responsibility for the cultural relationship between us and China? Those permanent cinema complexes smack of cultural imperialism to me. The task at hand is to become increasingly relevant to the Chinese people and surely the cultural exchange will flow naturally.
It’s unfortunate that all this talk of culture revolves around Beijing. Beijing is the Cultural capital of China, but China is an enormous place and there needs to be a way to access other cities as well. I’m based in Shanghai, where exposure to Australian culture could reap more tangible economic benefits.
Having said that, I agree that there is far too much concern with economic results. Sad that that’s the way everything is measured by, at the moment.
Sarah, interesting angle you touched on with regard to reciprocity. I was thinking about this article last night and wondered if i would be comfortable getting involved in something expressly Australian (in an exclusive sense). Many expats are involved in groups and workplaces that are international, so cultural awareness should be inclusive.
I started a cooperative called “Art+” (www.artpluscoop.org) and this is a real mix- a kiwi, me, Americans, locals (from Shanghai). Where could we get funding if there was support? An inclusive level of support for international cultural expression would be a great advert for Australian diversity.
Sorry, its www.artplus-coop.org
The role of culture in international relations today it seems is image building. For this reason we’d like to portray ourselves in China these days less as crocodile hunters, fast swimmers, and laid back country singers than technologically adept and in tune with Asian flows and sensibilities. A quick fix in cultural diplomacy will do little. We just don’t have a British Council and in any case our films don’t stack up with slick Hollywood product that is more identifiable even if the people of China don’t get to actually see them. Positioning in China by educators, businesses and cultural practitioners is, and will continue to play a more significant role over the longer term and possibly more thought should be given to how we actually communicate best with China and the rest of Asia, and this includes learning Chinese culture and languages.
Michael Keane