bout de papier, Vol. 9, No. 4 (1992) — Fall 1992 // Automne 1992, pp. 5–6
On March 17 last, I gave a lecture at the University of Victoria to the students of a course on cultural policy on the theory and practice of cultural diplomacy, or, as it is more generally called, international cultural relations. The main theme was that although many cultural exchanges occur on either a private or commercial basis, a significant number come about as a result of government policy and official initiative. Especially since the end of World War II, programs of this latter category are now intimately correlated with a government’s foreign policy. As cultural relations underpin all aspects of foreign policy, particularly the political and economic, they have become an integral instrument of diplomacy for major and middle powers and for many smaller ones as well. Indeed, former German Chancellor Willy Brandt deemed cultural relations the ’third pillar of foreign policy”
I went on to point out that to ensure cultural diplomacy is carried out in support of foreign policy objectives, the foreign office of every government having a major program of cultural relations is assigned responsibility for policy formulation, coordination with other levels of government and private organizations and allotted virtually the total budget. Illustrating the point by analyzing in some detail how this is done, and taking as examples France, Germany, Great Britain and Canada, I showed that although the manner in which policy is implemented may vary from country to country, the role of the foreign office in each case is pivotal.
I concluded with the following comment which provoked a good deal of discussion:
“You may have noticed that in the recent federal budget, effective April 1, the international cultural and academic programs for which the Department of External Affairs has been responsible will be transferred to the Canada Council. The Council’s charter already permits it to conduct cultural foreign policy. But the Council will now find itself, in the foreign field at least, in a very different role, that of an instrument of government policy and not the organization independent of government the legislation creating it states it to be … The Canada Council will need foreign policy guidance and External Affairs will have to be involved in the decision-making process. There will be a number of questions that will require careful examination if the new relationship is to be effective. Both organizations have always worked well together and I am sure they will continue to do so.”
It was not by accident that in the 1960’s the government of the day determined External Affairs’ key position. Initially it came about because Quebec had negotiated its own agreement with France for cultural cooperation. As the federal government” wished to assert its exclusive responsibility in the field of treaty-making, its response was to negotiate an accord cadre with France and at the same time begin a modest program with the francophone nations of Europe. At the time, no other federal department or agency was willing or able to undertake such a program. But, in assuming this leadership role, the Department was also exercising its central agency role of coordinating and directing foreign policy as first conceived and initiated by O.D. Skelton and subsequently followed by successor Under Secretaries.
In time, the program grew both in diversity and geographically and, though the funds allocated to it were never sufficient to meet expectations or goals, the role of that of central agency, traditional to a foreign office, was formally confirmed by the government in 1974. The purposes of the program were stated to be: first, to support the achievement of Canada’s short-term and long-term foreign policy objectives; second, to reflect internationally the growing creativity and scope of Canada’s cultural scene and thereby improve professional opportunities for Canadian artists, academics, writers and others, and open new markets for Canadian cultural exports; and thirdly, to provide continuing and new sources of enrichment of the national life.
The second objective is one which sets Canada apart from other foreign offices as it gave External Affairs a dual role: the already established foreign office responsibility for policy formulation and coordination of implementation and, in addition, responsibility for the promotion abroad of Canadian artists and academics. I must confess that I was never completely comfortable with this “marketing” obligation. It was the source of much criticism and constant tension between External Affairs and the cultural and academic communities. Our capacity to carry it out was limited and the budget was never large enough to meet even a modicum of requests for support. I believed the Canada Council should exercise this responsibility as an extension of its domestic role. Now it will.
The Canada Council and the Department will have to work out a modus operandi. Leaving aside the difficult questions of personnel that will have to be resolved, I visualize three matters which will require special consideration.
In the first place, the Council will now take on a much more active role in cultural diplomacy and will do so as an agency involved in executing the government’s foreign policy. It is therefore essential that External Affairs be intimately involved in the decision-making process. It will have to advise the Council, not just on the minutiae of projects such as the appropriateness of a particular venture for a given country, but also to ensure that the requirements of the larger questions of our foreign policy objectives and priorities are met whether they be bilateral or multilateral. The Council will have to bear in mind as well that as a nation of regions, each seeks to form special links with other regions of the world with which it has a particular affinity. British Columbia looks to East Asia and the Pacific Rim (and now we have the growing notion of Cascadia embodying B.C. and the States of Washington and Oregon); Ontario to the American States to its south; Quebec to the francophone world; and the Maritimes to the New England States. Moreover, as foreign policy objectives have a habit of changing suddenly, the Council too will have to be equipped to respond. Inevitably, the Department will have to create a coordinating unit, smaller than the present International Cultural Relations Bureau, if it is to exercise its new role constructively.
Secondly, as culture is both a provincial as well as a federal responsibility, the Council will not only have to bear in mind the constitutional aspects but to assure the cultural community and the provinces, some of which have important programs of their own, that it will continue the constant and time-consuming efforts made by the Department to consult with them, to enlist their cooperation when required or respond when it is sought, and to involve them in the implementation process when this would be productive.
Thirdly, the Department should be assured that the Council will have the necessary funds to meet the new obligations that it is assuming, not merely to maintain the present level of cultural and academic programs and the operations of our cultural centres and libraries abroad, but also to honour commitments previously made to other governments as well as to meet any sudden new priority. This seems particularly important in view of the Council’s lack of success in increasing its own budget.
View the original scanned pages →
Originally published in bout de papier, Vol. 9, No. 4 (1992) — Fall 1992 // Automne 1992, pp. 5–6. Read the rest of this issue →
