Chapter 9 - Coordinating public diplomacy activities - Cultural and educational institutions
9.1
Public diplomacy involves not only government departments and agencies
but a range of other bodies, including cultural and educational institutions
whose activities can be described as 'cultural diplomacy'. This chapter looks
at the role of cultural and educational institutions in public diplomacy and considers
how well their activities are integrated into the government's public diplomacy
framework. The committee uses the term cultural diplomacy to mean 'the exchange
of ideas, information, art and other aspects of culture among nations and their
peoples in order to foster mutual understanding'.[1]
9.2
Many commentators and numerous reviews or inquiries have expounded on
the contribution that cultural diplomacy makes to enhancing a country's image
and to improving its relations with other countries. They recognise that
cultural diplomacy builds goodwill and helps create 'a foundation of trust'
with other people.[2]
Cultural diplomacy is able to speak a common language when formal relations are
strained and to reach communities that traditional diplomacy cannot. It can
open doors that would otherwise remain closed and bring people together despite
political and cultural differences. In this way, cultural diplomacy is a
foundation plank of public diplomacy.
The role of cultural institutions in Australia's public diplomacy
9.3
The committee received a number of submissions from cultural
institutions all of which were fully aware of their role in building a positive
image of Australia. For example, the Arts Council of Australia recognised the
importance of the promotion of the arts to Australia's international
reputation. It stated:
With Australia playing an ever-increasing role in the global
arena from business and trade relations to environment and security issues, it
is vital that Australia's 'world class' creative sector is part of the
Government's broader international strategy of building a better understanding
of Australia's identity, culture and values.[3]
9.4
DFAT similarly appreciates that international cultural relations are an
integral part of the government's public diplomacy. It understands that there
is a clear and definite connection between cultural diplomacy and public
diplomacy. Furthermore, it accepts that government departments and agencies often
rely on the achievements of cultural diplomacy to promote Australia's foreign
policy objectives. DFAT's submission observed that cultural programs:
...can provide a more neutral platform for projecting an image of Australia
and generating a better understanding of our values. Where audiences might be
wary of more official, apparently political PD activities, CD can foster a
sympathetic environment in which to pursue foreign and trade policy goals.[4]
9.5
As mentioned earlier, over the past few years, the JSCFADT and the
Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee have inquired
into Australia's relations with a number of countries including Japan, China,
the Republic of Korea and Indonesia. Although not focused on public diplomacy,
each report has commented on the centrality of cultural exchange as a means of
building strong and enduring relationships between Australia and overseas
countries.
9.6
The importance of cultural links resonates through many of the
submissions made to this inquiry.[5]
Dr Gerard Vaughan, National Gallery of Victoria, noted that 'art exhibitions
and the loan of works of art to promote the interests and the cultural persona
of a particular country has never been stronger'.[6]
He explained that:
...the presence in another country of great cultural objects or
works of art can give tremendous focus to the culture and history of the
country from which they have come.[7]
9.7
In this way cultural exchanges not only inform other people about the
culture, creativity and ideals of a country but they help to build bridges
between countries that in turn support formal diplomacy. The Art Gallery of
Western Australia noted:
In places like the Indian Ocean Rim, often personal and cultural
understanding is the key to advancing diplomatic and other initiatives in the
area. As well, in countries where political and diplomatic relations are
strained, it is often possible to maintain cultural relations and use them as
the way back into relationships in other areas. It is a two-way street and
cultural responses in Australia to these areas are as important as any event in
the Indian Ocean Rim countries.[8]
9.8
Making a similar point, Museums Australia cited the role museum staff
had in keeping communication open and conversations going among colleagues in
both East Timor and Indonesia at a time when relations between the countries
were at their lowest ebb.[9]
9.9
The range of cultural institutions and activities with the potential to
be part of Australia's public diplomacy is extensive as shown by Ms Erica Sanders,
Executive Director, Museums Australia, Victoria Branch. She informed the committee
that coordination of these activities would go across galleries, museums,
science centres and heritage. Furthermore, she would include 'botanical gardens
and national parks and the environmental heritage in that collective statement'. She stated:
They have got a lot to offer in terms of public diplomacy. The
people and professionals involved with it are looking after Australia’s
cultural heritage. They have the stories of Australia’s culture, they have the
networks that capture and present a current and past Australian culture, and
they are professionals in presenting and interpreting Australian culture, which
is very useful in public diplomacy.[10]
9.10
Asialink underlined the need for all those involved in promoting Australia
overseas through cultural activities to co-operate:
Collaboration between government, NGOs, universities and the
private sector is now clearly identified as the way of the future as all
parties share networks, expertise and experience and all benefit strategically
from an enhanced image of Australia abroad.[11]
9.11
Clearly, the challenge for governments is to work closely with the various
cultural institutions to form creative and productive partnerships that will be
instrumental in achieving Australia's foreign policy objectives. The following
section considers two main aspects of cultural diplomacy in Australia—the integration
of cultural diplomacy into the broader public diplomacy framework and the level
of government support it attracts.
9.12
The Australian Government has its own idea about the type of contribution
that cultural institutions could be making to public diplomacy. Dr Strahan
informed the committee that Australia's cultural diplomacy is guided by its
foreign and trade policy objectives. He maintained that the policy 'is not to
have isolated or feel-good cultural events that are not part of a thought-out
strategy for moving forward these broader public diplomacy goals'.[12]
9.13
Although cultural institutions recognise their role in promoting Australia,
their priorities may not necessarily reflect those of government. Their
objectives tend to be more specific and narrow. Indeed, one of their strengths
from a public diplomacy perspective is their perceived independence from
government.
9.14
The Australia International Cultural Council (AICC) is one of the
government's key mechanisms for ensuring that cultural diplomacy is a vital and
productive component of Australia's public diplomacy. It aims to promote Australia
and its cultural assets in a coordinated, targeted and innovative way.[13]
The Australia International Cultural Council
9.15
The AICC was established in 1998 and is a consultative group chaired by
the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Its objective is to project a positive image
of Australia which advances Australia's foreign and trade policy interests and
promotes and enhances the export of Australian cultural products.[14]
Two of its primary functions are:
- to coordinate programs of high-quality Australian artistic
presentations and collaborations overseas; and
- to enhance cooperation and coordination between government, arts
and business organisations involved in promoting Australian culture overseas.[15]
9.16
DFAT noted that the AICC 'draws together representatives from
government, the arts and cultural community and business with a common interest
in more effective international showcasing of Australian arts and culture'.[16]
It added that 'a senior officials group—comprising DFAT, the Australia Council,
the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts,
Austrade, the Australian Film Commission, Tourism Australia and a
representative of State and Territory Arts agencies—advises the Council'.[17]
9.17
According to DFAT, the AICC 'supports and funds Australian cultural
campaigns in priority countries in Asia, North America and Europe'. These focus
programs run over several months to two years and involve a wide range of activities.[18]
9.18
The Australia Council for the Arts (the Australia Council) is another
major body that has a role in coordinating the promotion of Australian arts.
The Australia Council for the Arts
9.19
The Australia Council is the Australian government's principal arts
funding and advisory body. The organisation was restructured in 2005 and now
comprises the office of the CEO and eight divisions.[19]
Two of its key objectives are to invest in artistic production and the
development of artistic practice and to present Australia's distinctive
cultural works nationally and internationally. To this end, it supports 'the
excellence, diversity and distinctiveness of Australia's arts and artists'.[20]
According to the Council, as part of its responsibilities, it supports a range
of international initiatives. It stated that it has consistently focused on 'promoting
and showcasing contemporary Australian arts internationally through long-term
artistic engagement for Australian artists and companies'.[21]
9.20
More specifically, in its Annual Report, the Council cited three
programs as part of its 'taking Australian arts to the world'
objective—Australian Performing Arts Market; Undergrowth: Australian Arts UK;
and cultural exchange residences. With regard to the last program, the Annual
Report stated that the '100 much-prized international residencies...in the past
year gave artists a valuable career boost, built important world networks and
contributed to the continuing evolution of Australian contemporary art'.[22]
9.21
The Council informed the committee that it has been an active facilitator
of partnerships with key agencies to deliver international programs.[23]
It supports the work of Asialink and noted, for example, Asialink's Arts
Residency Program which supported 39 artists residencies in 12 Asian countries
and the Asialink Literature Touring in Asia program.[24]
It stated that to make certain that its work continues to maintain a highly
positive interest in, and understanding of, contemporary Australia, it needs
'to ensure that all agencies responsible for promoting and profiling Australia
internationally, work closely and collaboratively in their efforts to achieve
long-term success'.[25]
Planning and coordination of cultural activities
9.22
Despite the work of these two major bodies, representatives from some
cultural institutions indicated that the potential to promote Australia's
reputation was not fully exploited.[26]
They believed that opportunities and possibilities were not explored.[27]
One problem area they cited in particular concerned planning and coordination. Museums
Australia argued that 'Australia's cultural endeavours in other countries are
dependent—often haphazardly—on the...commitment of individuals at the local level
of missions abroad. Such officers have to balance...multiple demands of the
post'.[28]
The Art Gallery of Western Australia gave the following example:
...although there have been attempts in the past to use culture to
underpin initiatives with other countries during periods of exchanges for the
development of trade and other relations between countries, it seems that the
use of culture was at best last minute, funding was not always related to costs
and timing and exploitation of the use of art exhibitions, symphony orchestra
tours, etc., were not tied strongly enough to the activities aimed at
particular outcomes in such exchanges.[29]
9.23
Asialink added weight to the view that cultural diplomacy does not
receive adequate support. It drew attention to what it termed 'a disturbing
trend'—the increasing under-representation of Australia in significant regional
events.[30]
It was of the view that there is scope for greater coordination between federal
agencies involved in public diplomacy and between federal and state agencies.
It cited its Visual Arts Touring Program as an example of where:
...a planned and collaborative approach from DFAT's Foundations,
Councils and Institutes and Cultural Relations Branch would enable us to
significantly expand the reach and impact of the program through strategic
regional or multilateral touring.[31]
9.24
The representatives from the cultural institutions identified, in
particular, the lack of overarching long term strategic planning as a
significant impediment to the more effective use of culture to promote Australia
abroad. They could see the potential for strong cultural content to underpin Australia's
diplomatic and other initiatives, but argued that it would need 'advance
planning and funding in place to proceed.' In the view of the Art Gallery of
Western Australia, there is an opportunity:
...to build key events and infrastructure that reflect these
interests in international relations within Australia itself. To work, all of
the above would have to be part of a long term strategy for the future
international interests of Australia.[32]
9.25
Ms Helen O'Neil, Australian Major Performing Arts Group (AMPAG), also
called for better strategic planning in Australia's cultural diplomacy. She told
the committee:
...to make cultural diplomacy really work, we need clear,
long-term strategic planning. Most of the AMPAG companies are working three
years ahead, and it is no use thinking up a good idea for a culturally based
event to fit in with a diplomatic event if there is just six months advance
notice.
We need a plan that clearly identifies the resources and
investment needed to carry out the goals it sets. There is no point in great
ideas and good goals, if you cannot actually achieve them. We also need regular
checks on the effectiveness of the plan. It might be monitoring of the regard
in which our work is held amongst peer groups, public opinion surveys, reviews
and, of course, the return invitations. We have been attracted to a proposal
floated by the former minister for the arts, Senator Kemp, for a special fund
to tour performing arts...[33]
9.26
Ms Jane Cruickshank, Australian Film Commission, drew the same
conclusion about the need for strategic planning. She stated that the 'building
of audiences for Australian film needs to be more than just a one-off event'.[34]
9.27
Clearly, a number of cultural organisations were of the view that they
had a valuable contribution to make to Australia's public diplomacy but that a
lack of strategic planning in particular meant that opportunities were not fully
exploited.
9.28
Dr Vaughan identified a practical example of where opportunities existed
but were not taken advantage of because there were no appropriate systems in
place.
...we would welcome the establishment or perhaps some further
definition of a mechanism whereby the kinds of exhibitions that we put on
overseas...could be used more by Australians: by the government of Australia, by
diplomatic channels, by trade organisations. If you take that exhibition European
Masterpieces from the National Gallery in Melbourne, 200,000 people came to
see the show in Portland, Oregon, for example. Wouldn’t it have been fantastic
if somehow that had all coincided with a trade mission or some Australian
events that might have taken place in Portland, Oregon?
We want to do a bit of business in Los Angeles. We want to try
and raise some money from expats in America because we want to start buying
more contemporary American art for our collection, and we think that perhaps a
visit to Los Angeles and New York at some point in the future would be great.
How much we would value the opportunity to tag along with that Australia in Los
Angeles Week, for example. So many things happen. Perhaps we could have a
presence there and have some events and see whether we could perhaps get a few
Aussies living in the US or a few Americans who do business in Australia to
think about supporting our fund for contemporary American art, because we need
to get more of it into the collection. It is that kind of thing. We do feel
that there are great opportunities all the time, but we do not really have
systems in place to take advantage of it.[35]
9.29
Taking up this point, Ms Carroll, Asialinks Arts, noted that DFAT
officers are fantastic but that cultural diplomacy is not their focus which
often shows. She particularly mentioned that they are 'often moving through'
and added:
There are reasons for that, and often very good reasons, but one
of the problems is continuity and the long-term relationships that you do build
in this area. If there were a capacity to have it more centralised with some
proper funding then everybody would commit to that. I cannot speak for the
states. Everyone, I am sure, would commit to that because I think everyone in
my area acknowledges that it is an area we do not do well enough in.[36]
9.30
Museums Australia suggested that most countries operate through one
international agency when pursuing cultural presentations outside of their own
country. It recommended that a dedicated national organisation or agency be
created to coordinate and manage Australian cultural presentations abroad. It gave
the example of the British Council, Germany's Institut für Auslandsbeziehungen
(IFA) and France's Association Française d'Action Artistique (AFAA).
9.31
It should be noted that, in the May 2007 Budget, the Australian
Government provided $20.4 million over four years to enhance Australia’s
cultural diplomacy and improve market access for Australia's cultural exports.
This budget allocation will be implemented through the AICC. This increase in
funding is discussed in chapter 14.
Committee view
9.32
The committee notes the observations made by a number of representatives
from cultural institutions that there is scope for better and more effective
coordination between the institutions and government agencies involved in the overseas
promotion of Australian culture. It is also aware of the criticism that, at the
moment, there is a lack of long-term strategic planning which means that
cultural institutions are not able to take full advantage of opportunities to
showcase Australian art and culture and to contribute more effectively to Australia's
public diplomacy.
9.33
The committee believes that there should be closer liaison between the
IDC and the AICC in order to encourage better coordination and cooperation
between cultural institutions and relevant government agencies in the area of
public diplomacy. A stronger, more accountable IDC, as envisaged in the committee's
Recommendation 6, should result in cultural institutions being recognised in
the government's long-term strategic planning and in better collaboration
between these institutions and relevant government agencies, especially
overseas posts. A number of key departments having dual membership of the IDC
and the AIIC could be a practical way to ensure that the interests of cultural
institutions were represented in the main coordinating body for public
diplomacy and that communication between the two groups was regular and focused.
9.34
The committee also suggests that, in light of the concerns raised by the
cultural institutions, especially the need for longer-term strategic planning, the
AICC review its responsibilities, functions and performance in this area.
Having considered evidence relating to the coordination and planning of
international cultural activities, the Council then report on its deliberations
and findings that would be made available to the committee and also made public
by publishing them on DFAT's and the Department of Communications, Information
Technology and the Arts' website.
Recommendation 9
9.35
The committee recommends that the AICC take note of the evidence
relating to the coordination and planning of international cultural activities with
a view to addressing the concerns raised in evidence. Close consultation with
the relevant sections in the Department of Communications, Information
Technology and the Arts, DFAT and Australia's cultural institutions would be
central to AICC's consideration. The committee suggests that a report of the
Council's deliberations and decisions be made available to the committee and
also made public by publishing them on DFAT's' and the Department of
Communications, Information Technology and the Arts' websites (also see
recommendation 6).
Recommendation 10
9.36
The committee recommends further that the government consider that the
AICC be co-chaired by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for
Arts and Sports. The committee suggests that this would contribute
significantly to greater coordination and cooperation in the area of cultural
diplomacy.
9.37
The committee draws attention to the call by NGOs, particularly cultural
institutions and universities, for a better industry framework. Many believe
that their efforts to contribute to Australia's public diplomacy are undermined
by a system that does not take full advantage of the complementarities that
exist between the many organisations that engage in public diplomacy.
9.38
Recommendation 9 would alert the AICC and relevant departments to the
absence of long term strategic planning that continues to frustrate and
disappoint cultural institutions endeavouring to take Australian art and
culture to the world. The recommendation would not, however, tackle the
practical problems of ensuring that the activities of government agencies,
particularly the overseas posts, and cultural institutions complement one
another. The committee believes that there is a need for a formal institutional
structure to provide the necessary framework for the long term planning and
coordination of cultural activities overseas.
9.39
It suggests the establishment of a modest unit in DCITA that would be
the central point of contact for all cultural institutions planning overseas
activities. The committee believes that this unit should have responsibilities
similar to that of the IAB in DFAT. It would advise and inform the arts and
diplomatic communities about proposed cultural events and help coordinate,
where necessary, overseas cultural activities. It would act as an effective
conduit between the arts and diplomatic communities to ensure that
opportunities to promote Australia's interests through culture are fully
exploited.
Recommendation 11
9.40
The committee recommends that the government establish a small but
specifically tasked cultural and public diplomacy unit in the Department for
Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. In liaison with DFAT, the
unit would provide the necessary institutional framework to ensure that
Australia's cultural institutions are well placed and encouraged to take full
advantage of opportunities to contribute to Australia's public diplomacy.
Public diplomacy and the education sector
9.41
The committee has highlighted the important role that Australia's educational
institutions have in public diplomacy. In chapter 7, it mentioned specific
programs such as the Australian Leadership Awards Program that have been, and
continue to be, highly successful in boosting Australia's reputation overseas
and generating goodwill toward the country. As noted earlier, graduates from
these programs return to their homes better informed about, and well-disposed
toward, Australia. They go on to build careers in all walks of life and make ideal
ambassadors for Australia.
9.42
The committee also referred to seminars, conferences and 'conversations'
held by Australian educational institutions that provide opportunities for
foreign students, post-graduates, professionals and specialists to come together
to discuss issues of shared importance. These meetings lay firm foundations for
continuing exchange between the participants and the deepening of relationships
between people of different countries. (paragraphs 7.10–7.11, 7.16–7.38).
9.43
Educational institutions, however, offer many other and diverse means to
nurture people-to-people links. Professor Joseph Siracusa, RMIT, spoke of the opportunities
offered through university programs for Australian students to be actively
engaged in promoting Australia. He gave the example of 80 young Australians who
were working on designs with 80 young counterparts in Ho Chi Minh City:
For the next 26 weeks, they will be communicating with and
getting to know each other. Groups of four will be designing certain projects which
will go on display at our campus in Ho Chi Minh City and Melbourne...I could not
believe that they are doing our homework for us...I did not realise that they
were right at the cutting edge. They are dealing with young Vietnamese of their
age and past that entire Vietnam War generation...They are doing all of our work.
I said to them, ‘...you’re doing exactly what we want to do, which is tell the
story,’ and you do that through individuals. We only want government help to
assist.[37]
9.44
He suggested that the relationship between the universities and the
Australian government was symbiotic.[38]
9.45
Presenting the general view, Asialink noted that school education
provides 'a major opportunity for Australia’s public diplomacy to build and
strengthen international collaboration, security and harmony into the future'.[39]
Dr Wells, Director, Policy and Planning, RMIT University, also recognised the
opportunities that universities offer to advance public diplomacy.
9.46
Although she noted that RMIT's relationship with DFAT was 'very constructive
and positive', she observed that it was 'issues based and ad hoc'.[40]
Her concern was that the current approach did not offer a broader framework for
engagement that would allow opportunities to be explored.[41]
She spoke of the context-free zone and of the ad hoc means of conversing or
consulting with DFAT particularly in terms of alumni, marketing, recruitment
and transnational education provision.[42]
The matter of alumni was considered in chapter 7.
9.47
Dr Wells informed the committee that they were 'struggling with silos'
and called for a 'systematic approach to industry partnerships in furthering
Australian public diplomacy, with universities at the front and centre of it'.[43]
She elaborated on her argument for a strategic and systematic approach:
...we need a different relationship with government which is more
of recognising government as... a key client and a partner, because we have a
very strong public benefit mission built into our activities. For me, this is
not a discussion about regulation or even a discussion about pumping more money
into universities—although of course we would like that; it is an argument
about facilitating an active partnership with government where we have common
goals.[44]
9.48
She suggested that 'if DEST is the government’s departmental vehicle for
promoting its policies around universities, there are opportunities for more of
a whole-of-government approach to the contribution universities can make to
advancing Australia’s image abroad'.[45]
According to Dr Wells:
It is not just a matter of our contact being ad hoc and
irregular and issues based. It is also that I think the departments do not
always talk to each other around their common goals and interests. There is
opportunity for interagency work, but I think there is also an opportunity for
DFAT to address what struck me as a bit of a vacuum in its discussion of public
diplomacy when I read its annual report, and also in its submission to the
inquiry, which is that it is very focused on cultural diplomacy, sporting
diplomacy and political diplomacy dressed up as ‘soft power’, I suppose. It is
not focused on industry engagement and so I would like to see an industry
engagement strategy which engaged DFAT but also brought in the other agencies
which have an interest in the outcomes of such a strategy—such as DEST—and
which provided an overarching framework within which universities and DFAT
could actually explore these opportunities in a more systematic way. At the
moment the points of contact are not well understood or well known.[46]
9.49
RMIT drew its concerns together and recommended that the Government 'recognise
and support the education industry’s capacity to support public diplomacy by
establishing an explicit strategic dialogue with institutions; perhaps through
Australian Education International'.[47]
Committee view
9.50
The comments made by the Australian educators appearing before the committee
follow closely those put by the cultural institutions. Both cultural and
educational activities involve the exchange of ideas and information. They
bring people together to develop a greater understanding and mutual
appreciation of different cultures and ways of life. Witnesses spoke in broad terms
about how cultural and educational activities help to portray a positive image
of Australia and gave specific examples drawn from personal experience of where
an activity had made a difference. They were of the view, however, that the
government could do more to take full advantage of their activities to promote Australia's
interests overseas.
9.51
In this regard, the committee makes a similar suggestion to DFAT as it
did to the AICC. It suggests that DFAT take note of the evidence presented to
this committee, especially the comments and recommendations by RMIT in relation
to the establishment of a better framework for industry engagement that would
allow opportunities to be explored. The committee suggests that DFAT initiate
and sponsor an open and public debate on measures that could be taken that
would allow both government departments and educational institutions to work better
together as partners to promote Australia's interests abroad. It would appear
that a more structured and formal arrangement is required to allow people from
educational institutions who are promoting Australia abroad to meet and plan
activities. The objective of such a group would be to develop an industry
engagement strategy and to establish clear 'points of contact' between
educational institutions and relevant government agencies. Any such formal
grouping should be in direct and regular contact with the IDC and be part of
Australia's strategic plan for public diplomacy.
Recommendation 12
9.52
The committee recommends that DFAT ensure that its public diplomacy
framework accommodates the concerns of the educational institutions especially
with regard to industry engagement by formulating with DEST and the Vice
Chancellors of Australian Universities appropriate strategies to facilitate a
more productive engagement by these institutions in Australia's public
diplomacy.
Recommendation 13
9.53
The committee also recommends that DFAT initiate and sponsor a public
debate on measures that could be taken to promote a more productive partnership
between government departments and educational institutions in promoting Australia's
public diplomacy.
9.54
In the following chapter, the committee continues its consideration of
the coordination of Australia's public diplomacy activities but looks at the
activities of associations and individuals not always readily identified with
public diplomacy.
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page