Summarized by Francisco Zepeda Trujillo

September 20th, 2021

César Villanueva Rivas (Universidad Iberoamericana) and Lynda Jessup (Queen’s University) welcomed participants emphasizing that diplomacy (official or not) is always related to culture; indeed, culture always goes ahead of any diplomatic practice. Eduardo Tadeo (Universidad Iberoamericana) mentioned that this report results from a North American and transnational critical exercise, proposing an alternative to Eurocentric and colonialist diplomacy. Ricardo Castillo was the event’s moderator, which followed the format of five-minute lightning talks around three thematic axes:

(1) How do we conceptualize cultural diplomacy? (2) Why is it important to view the planet as a place of many worlds, rather than a set of states? (3) What is the future of Cultural Diplomacy?

1. Where are we about the concept of cultural diplomacy? Guadalupe Moreno explained the following ideas: (1) Culture, increasingly accessible through tourism, migration and technological integration, is an indisputable resource of international politics. (2) Versus “hard power,” which is coercive and exclusive of the state, “soft power” is open to all citizens. (3) Tourism, migration and technological integrations can be mediator agents that lead to decentralizing cultural diplomacy by including local and regional governments. María Montemayor discussed the complexity of the concept of “culture,” usually represented as stable and delimited; instead, we need to rethink it as something fluid. Thus, the importance of Cultural Diplomacy as a critical practice.

Eduardo Bermejo stated that in the last 20 years, there has been a change in paradigms. Before, there was an exercise of showing/exhibit ourselves before others from national pride. Now, it is more from regional or local perspectives. Then he mentioned the return of the totalitarian Taliban or Latin American migration as examples of failures of Europe, the United States and Mexico. Finally, he stated the absence of the Cultural Diplomacy perspective in the last meeting of CELAC, which resulted in the exclusion of the “Ibero” perspective (related to Spain, Portugal, and Andorra) and focused on a sectarian Latin Americanism.

2. The planet is a place of many worlds rather than a set of states. Priscila Magaña discussed the failure of Western Cultural Diplomacy, which has expressed itself as a form of colonialism. Something similar happened in China, where the political elites have thought of culture as an element of power and cohesion. These failures suggest that we are still stuck in a paradigm where the nation-state is the more prominent agent. In the context of the third millennium in which China is an emergent power, it is necessary to use Cultural Diplomacy as a communication tool in the face of an anti-China narrative.

Andrea Matallana asked how to transit from Eurocentric vision to intercultural dialogue. To illustrate the Eurocentric view, she played a video from Alberto Fernandez, president of Argentina, who stated that he is a Europeanist and believes in Europe because Argentinians came in boats from there (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBuKulWvHcI). Then she discussed two ideas that are being deconstructed based on the history of subaltern histories: (1) The idea of Argentina as a country of European migrants, with fascination towards France and England, even though only 30% of the population are European immigrants and 50% of them have Italian ancestors. (2) The fact that historians insist that the nation’s founders wanted to create a European branch, but in practice, they followed the North American model of a federal republic.

Vianka Robles Santana mentioned that artists have used abroad education to validate themselves and that museums have considered European art as the most refined form of art, excluding the cultural productions of American peoples. She also explained that Eurocentrism and Anglocentrism had produced phobias and racism. At the same time, ethnocentrism has created phobias for foreign people. Consequently, there is a need to reinvent cultural identities. Cultural Diplomacy, developed by embassies, consulates and universities, plays a role. However, other factors are also relevant (diasporas, human rights work, preservation of original languages, expansion or narcotraffic). Finally, she concluded that Cultural Diplomacy is necessary to promote peace, inclusion and diversity.

3. The future of Cultural Diplomacy: Amanda Rodriguez explained the role of technological developments as new civil society actors and the importance of digital space in the construction of values and identities. She expressed that the COVID 19 pandemic significantly reduced the possibility of direct contact and resulted in the cancellation of in-person cultural events. However, new opportunities for imagined connection emerged, which can create intergroup empathy and positive relationships (f.i. the Games for Change Foundation promotes the creation of social impact video games). Non-state actors may have increased access to financial, political and technological resources. Similarly, sectors non represented by the state agenda, such as Indigenous communities, became more relevant actors expressing themselves and resisting public policies.

Mariano Zamorano contrasted the colonizing, hegemonic gaze with the culturalist, democratizing, counter hegemonic gaze. He also argued in favour of relocating culture within diplomatic relationships to promote mutual understanding, emphasizing the need to stop seeing Cultural Diplomacy as an exclusive competence of the state.

André Dunham shared some views based on twenty years of experience as a Cultural Diplomacy practitioner. For him, an essential aspect is to acknowledge that power is always present; there is no “neutrality” of culture. Also, the central element of any diplomatic action is the recognition of the other. Regarding the centrality of the state in diplomacy, he accepts that it is insufficient but at the same time affirms that it is inescapable. Thus, for state diplomacy, the selection of more representative contents and of people who choose those contents are relevant. He also mentioned that within the boundaries of the state, it is possible to practice counter hegemonic diplomacy. Such is the case of the diplomatic action of BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa). Finally, he asked how cultural diplomacy can strengthen political multiculturalism.

At the end of the lighting talks, César Villanueva Rivas commented on two ideas:
(1) Culture goes ahead of diplomatic themes in international relationships. Culture is prominent in international relationships, and diplomacy follows it. (2) The path to follow is disengaging from the traditional form of practicing diplomacy and academia and committing to a dialogical approach.

Finally, Pablo Raphael closed the event highlighting the difference between culture as a social and thought phenomenon and culture as a component of cultural diplomacy projects. He highlighted the necessity of reflecting on cultural diplomacy in moments of change and presented as examples the inclusion, for the first time, of a Culture Ministers’ Meeting by the G20 (on July 29th-20th, 2021) and the OECD. He recalled Stuart Hall’s definition of culture as a mechanism for building and crossing bridges. In this sense, the organization of Mondiacult 2022 by UNESCO in Mexico is excellent news.