Culture and Creative Industries in the EU's External Relations

Report More Europe debate Amsterdam, 19 September 2012 Beyond markets: culture and creative industries in the EU’s external relations

by Tsveta Andreeva, European Cultural Foundation

More Europe is a cultural civic initiative. The initiators are:

LESÉLÉMENTS CONSTITUTIFS 01.1. LE LOGOTYPE

PRÉSENTATION

Un logotype qui fait autorité pour poser une nouvelle marque et installer l’Institut français dans le monde.

La modernité minimaliste du logotype est là pour affirmer que l’Institut français existe depuis toujours, à travers un réseau présent partout dans le monde.

Le logotype ne s’écrit pas et ne s’imite pas. Il s’agit d’une image originale et non modifiable, qu’il convient d’utiliser en respectant la charte graphique qui l’accompagne.

IMPORTANT

Le logotype Institut français est destiné à remplacer les précédentes marques employées (Centre culturel français, Maison, etc.), et sera utilisé en marque unique et de manière identique dans le monde entier pour ce qui concerne la signa- létique. En revanche, tous les Instituts français ont la possibilité de faire figurer leur pays ou leur ville de rattachement au-dessous du logotype pour des opéra tions de communication (affiches, programmes, événements, publications).

Les supports qui permettent également une décli- naison locale, au niveau des villes, des régions ou des pays, sont les éléments de papeterie.

> 5

REPORT MORE EUROPE DEBATE AMSTERDAM, 19 SEPTEMBER 2012

SETTING THE SCENE The More Europe Amsterdam debate was based on the idea that culture and creative industries have an invaluable, but underestimated, potential to make a shift in international relations, in particular when it comes to the European Union’s external relations. While this point of view is obvious to cultural and creative practitioners, high-level EU foreign policymakers are yet to be fully convinced. And even if some of them are already aware of these issues, they still need to be provided with good arguments and positive examples to be able to translate this knowledge into appropriate policies. This debate engaged cultural entrepreneurs and managers, diplomats, creative minds, economists, politicians and journalists in a conversation about current practices and models capable of fostering international cultural relations and strengthening EU‘s position as a global player. In this function, the EU must go beyond a purely economic or developmental approach. To achieve this in the context of 21st-century globalisation and the shifting centres of power, we need to engage in new thinking, new approaches, new tools, new actors and new partnerships.

Culture and creative industries are often brought together in these political discussions. However arts and culture operate differently than the market-based creative industries. Hence, when it comes to external relations policies, different diplomacy competencies and approaches have to be applied. The products of creative businesses can be exported under trade agreements and therefore form direct economic value. International cultural cooperation is usually subject to “soft” diplomacy. Both provide important added value that every state and the European Union can capitalise on, if they are embedded in smart diplomacy portfolios. The debate in Amsterdam addressed this dichotomy by bringing together resourceful cultural players and letting them express their (often) very divergent, yet also complementary, opinions and experiences. New arguments were found to further nurture debate and inform coherent policymaking.

The Report on the cultural dimensions of the EU’s external relations by the MEP Marietje Schaake was adopted by the European Parliament in 2011. It delineated a possible strategy for embedding culture in the core of EEAS’ activities. These valuable ideas need to be pursued, in particular by getting the input of practitioners in the field to help bring this strategy to life. In 2012, the European Commission initiated a Preparatory Action called “Culture in external relations” that should contribute to formulating recommendations for a strategy on culture in European external relations1. The time is now.

1 See Call for proposals EAC/09/2012.

ON THE ECONOMIC AND INTRINSIC SOCIAL VALUES OF CULTURE AND CREATIVE INDUSTRIES Ideally, diplomacy “is about positioning a nation globally, and culture should be a part of its story,” said Dr. Alexander Rinnooy Kan. In reality, we may need to involve economists to help translate our message to the diplomats, and let them answer the question: “Do culture and creative industries represent economic value only?” For those already convinced of the value of culture as a public good and of the creative industries as an important pillar of the economy (in the Netherlands, anyway), the answer seems obvious. Culture and creative industries form the “culture stock and flow” that encompasses the past, present and future. It must therefore become “an eye opener, a mind opener and a door opener” for diplomacy. The case of the Netherlands, where human rights and trade coexist peacefully on top of the foreign relations agenda, is quite unique. Here, the economic value of arts and creative industries has been realised a long time ago and embedded in sound policies. How can the European Union, as a supranational framework, go beyond the cultural policies of individual states and develop a strong and much-needed cultural dimension. And how can the EU do this while still taking into account “the creative stock and flow – and making it extremely accessible for people despite their backgrounds”.

THE POWER OF ART AND CREATIVITY “If you want to know where hell is, ask the artist. If you can’t find the artist, you know you’re in hell.”

Opening with this quotation taken from a wall in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the MEP Marietje Schaake presented an invigorating set of new ideas while still pointing to the heart of the issue: It’s the power of the artist is what matters most! And this power of expression cannot be beaten by any oppressive authority. Reinforced by several well-known examples, such as the Chinese contemporary artist Ai Wei Wei whose artistic work poses a threat to the Chinese government, and the Syrian cartoonist Ali Farzad who was beaten up because his drawings offended Assad, a clear setting was established. Europe must play a crucial global role in peace-making, democracy-building and the establishing of respect for fundamental rights and freedoms.

“Arts and culture can help people connect beyond government control.” (M. Schaake)

The EU is developing a Common Foreign and Security Policy in which a strong cultural aspect needs to be introduced. Cultural relations are already taking place (e.g. in development, enlargement, trade, human rights policies, etc), but we also need high political leadership and concrete responsibilities to be taken on by the EEAS. We need to make these actions more effective and help make them more mainstream.

Artists are already de facto cultural diplomats. However diplomats are not always aware of the effects and impact of culture. Inspiration and empowerment transcend borders and we are currently seeing this facilitated and widely spread across the globe by new technologies. Arts and culture can connect people where diplomacy tools are inefficient. The people-to-people contacts that exist in culture should be taken more seriously, namely in respect to their capacity for challenging the status quo and for fostering freedoms and rights. Return on investment in culture “cannot be monetised one-on-one and we should celebrate that, because culture brings different value added in terms of process,” said Schaake during her speech.

Marietje Schaake took the lead in visualising what in fact we want to achieve by adding an explicit cultural dimension to the EU’s external relations, by attaching concrete ideas and proposals to it:

“I would like to see what More Europe can actually mean: -‐ More political leadership to facilitate smart policies for including culture in EU external actions -‐ European university on Tahrir square, not only American university -‐ More visas for artists and professionals to come work in Europe -‐ More content and heritage uploaded on Europeana – the Europe’s digital portal for culture and heritage -‐ More global audiences listening to the concerts at the North Sea Jazz festival and more people dancing to European techno -‐ EU inviting more journalists to see and experience the press freedom -‐ ‘One-stop shop’ with information on EU culture programmes in each EU diplomatic representation -‐ Etc… […] and I would like to see less: -‐ Bureaucracy for small cultural organisations when applying for an EU grant -‐ Fragmentation of copyright management in the EU -‐ Emphasis on the economic value of culture but more on its intrinsic value.” M. Schaake

The most important appeal is for civil society and cultural and creative practitioners to get organised and start giving their input into policymaking. The politicians cannot do it alone. In this respect More Europe is very much needed.

HOW CAN CULTURE AND CREATIVE INDUSTRIES FOSTER INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMACY?

Several antagonistic fronts developed during the debate. Discussing what European culture is, and how it can be defined for the purposes of the future European external relations’ portfolio, turned out to be an unavoidable trap. “Is it more of Europe we actually wish for?” wondered Schaake. Meanwhile Charles Esche argued that we cannot avoid defining what culture is, if we want to promote culture beyond Europe and truly make it a key pillar of EU’s external relations.

Such controversial statements as “Nobody cares about European culture outside Europe!”, as stated by Frédéric Martel, fired the discussion. He was immediately countered by Katelijn Verstraete who said that there was much curiosity about European culture in Asia. However this curiosity is changing under the strong influences of the emerging power centres in the region and may therefore be addressed in the future. At the end of the day we would like to have stronger impact than Japanese tourists going on a “European tour”. Are we aiming to export European mainstream cultural industry or to create relevant frameworks for independent artists to cooperate? Can artists become missionaries of European values? Elisabeth Sjaastad wondered if they should actually become missionaries at all and, if so, what responsibilities this would entail. Markus Appenzeller asked “do we need such a policy at all?” since Europe already has its intellectual capacities and acts as a role model for others. How can we avoid the dangers of projecting European values as superior to the values of other cultures? Are we really the ones

to “teach”? Or do we need this cultural dimension to better understand cultural (and historical) specificities and be aware of the important developments in other parts of the world, as suggested by Michael Reiterer. Meanwhile Europe is “boxing” itself in as it debates its relations to others, while not involving these others in the conversation.

European past versus European future Alexander Rinnooy Kan rated Europe’s heritage and its contemporary culture and creativity as the most important assets for building its international relations. Meanwhile Frédéric Martel persistently argued that Europe has only its past, and no present and future. “European culture is dead” and obviously has nothing to attract the rest of the world, argued Martel. In the context of increasing global competitiveness of the so-called “emerging economies” it is easy to blame the incapability of Europe to consolidate its real cultural and economic power internationally, on the basis of its plurality (with its 27 states and 27 cultural markets). Is Europe feeling “an urge to establish a European cultural policy, because we feel we have to justify our own role in the world?” wondered Markus Appenzeller. Isn’t it suicidal to promote a European “mainstream” to conquer world markets, instead of promoting our diversity? Yes, probably, as long as we rely on our legacy of the past and apply old-fashioned diplomacy tools.

“We have to engage in a different way”, affirmed Andrew Senior who brought his extensive experience at the British Council developing creative economy policies and tools through foreign relations. Europe must offer messages that are tied more closely to contemporary values rather than to the values of the past. Contemporary artistic values, embedded in the creative industries, represent the present and the future in the above proposed formula and are capable of permeating borders, markets and minds. They are also an attractive concept for arts, businesses, policymakers and young people.

Mainstream or opposition Another divergent point emerged, and was expanded on, during the second panel. Mainstreaming is usually backed by economic tools. Industry, not subsidies, is what boosts US mainstream culture across the globe. Market rules apply when it comes to the massive worldwide distribution and consumption of US, Brazilian or Indian cultural industries. In this way, Europe is from Venus and the US is from Mars. Europe wants to counterbalance the global streams, but has no uniform means for mainstreaming its cultural and creative production, because of its fragmentised markets and state protectionism, according to Frederic Martel. Relying on the culture of our past is not a solution – or at least not the only solution. Charles Esche made a clear statement about what’s most important for the cultural sector, that the European Union promotes to the outside: “a culture that is critical, oppositional, resistant and self-critical to Europe”. These messages must also include the existing models that support such culture. We will have much more to learn when we take these models to the outside and see how they work. Moreover, our messages shall inspire NGOs in other parts of the world to spread what they believe is the most important message – which may not necessarily be the “mainstream”.

As Rinnooy Kan suggested, states reinvent themselves while making their foreign policies and while doing this they should also offer a balanced portfolio of “present-past-future”. Is this applicable to the European Union?

The difficult equation between “soft power” and “hard diplomacy” Diplomacy can and cannot do certain things with and for culture. According to Michael Reiterer, diplomacy can open up opportunities for exchange, set facilitating frameworks for trade and cultural relations, and provide for respect for rights, freedoms and intellectual property rights. The EU-China Year of Intercultural Dialogue 2012 is of particular strategic importance for Europe and shall set the tone for long-term future relations. Despite the intensive bilateral actions in culture, core topics such as freedom of expression remained untapped, emphasised Elisabeth Sjaastad. Will these actions indeed lead to mutually beneficial long-term relations?

Artists acting as “missionaries of European values is an uneasy role to play”, continued Sjaastad. Artists should be aware of the level of provocation their work involves and assume more responsibility. A simple artistic act in an international context risks to be misinterpreted in an environment dominated by differing stereotypes, especially if not enough research is done beforehand. Such an act can even provoke the wrong emotions, if not considered from the point-of-view of the recipients’ culture.

Diplomacy is definitely needed to set the frameworks for cultural relations. But arts and cultural relations operate better independently or at least outside of the domain of foreign ministries, according to Frédéric Martel.

In reality not many “hard power” diplomats listen to the voice of the independent sector’s innovative ideas, while they work to elaborate their plans and instruments for international relations. What works in certain areas of diplomacy does not work in others. Martel pointed to the division between “hard power” and “soft power” diplomacy2 and how they are often two different worlds. ”Hard power” diplomats are supposed to follow the policy line by their governments in service of their countries, but their actions may contradict values such as freedom of speech and human rights – something “soft power” players would never agree with.

“When hard power says yes, the soft power says no” (F. Martel)

Diplomats tend to disagree with the simplification of this complex matter to only yes-and-no answers, as expressed by Michael Reiterer. In this respect, diplomacy needs to create an effective framework for cultural relations.

On the other hand, creative industries (being strongly trade-related) cannot solely belong to the “soft power” side. As an example, the EU cultural cooperation protocol of the CARIFORUM-EU Economic Partnership Agreement3 was evoked. Cultural and creative operators from the Caribbean countries are not in an equal position to European operators in this relationship: their access to European markets is

2 Frédéric Martel, based on examples of more than 45 countries he had looked into for his research (Mainstream, Enquête sur la guerre globale de la culture et des médias (éds. Flammarion, 2010; rééd. Champs/Flammarion, 2011) 3 CARIFORUM-EU Economic Partnership Agreement (2008) including a Protocol for cultural cooperation, as a result of the EU implementation of the UNESCO Convention on Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions (2005). See also Discussion paper on the implementation of the protocol here (by KEA European Affairs 2011).

physically limited despite of the enabling legal provisions, according to Andrew Senior. When it comes to trade relations, hard power takes the lead.4

WHAT ADDED VALUE DO CULTURE AND CREATIVE INDUSTRIES BRING TO THE EU’S EXTERNAL RELATIONS?

“Europe is more than the totality of its parts. It has additional value.”

A. Rinnooy Kan

“The European dimension does not replace national identity. It is an addition to it.”

D. Pack (MEP)5

“A European dimension brings added value to cultural activities, but what can culture bring to Europe?” wondered Tracy Metz. European film festivals bring much more value for the public in other continents and regions, than the promotion of one nation’s production only, pointed out Elisabeth Sjaastad. Film, media and even social media develop and promote images of Europe. Culture brings connections where governments cannot.

“There are two sides to the coin: what can culture bring to the external relations, and what culture do we want to engage in external relations policies?” Charles Esche reiterated.

Europe, as a political construct is a convenient place for the artists that work and travel within it, but also vis-à-vis some other countries. There are no borders and visas; there is public support for arts (albeit shrinking), as well as some supranational sources from the EU. Esche pointed to the advantages of this supranational framework, before addressing the core problem that preoccupies the artist: “What are the values that Europe wants to take outside Europe, beyond the import-export model?” Can we identify with them and can we share them?

A clear added value for Europe and to our potential partners outside is to promote “the critical, oppositional, resistant, self-critical culture” (C. Esche).

“Our culture of debate” is something we can promote emphasised Xavier Troussard. He believes the permanent debate about the European project – being a unique experiment of a political model of solidarity – is something we can be proud of. The European external relations shall not be about exporting values. They should offer possibilities for connections between EU and the other countries and for enabling cultural and creative actions and products to circulate across the Union and beyond. Stimulating the internationalisation of our “domestic” EU production and activity is per se added value.

Independent contemporary arts and creative industries represent innovation, new voices and new forms that effectively reach out to artistic and younger audiences. Creative economy can be a comforting solution that does not export stereotypes, nor “teaches” models. It certainly worked to improve the entire concept of cultural diplomacy for the British Council and helped many countries in Europe, Latin America, Asia, and Africa to rethink their cultural policies and built a process of mutual learning (A. Senior). It also involved international actors (UNESCO, UNCTAD, and other).

4 A striking example of a hard-soft diplomacy battlefield was the negotiation for the UNESCO Diversity Convention (2004-2005). 5 Quoted by Elisabeth Sjaastad during the first panel.

HOW DOES EUROPE LOOK FROM THE OUTSIDE? GETTING OUT OF THE BOX

Europe is a small spot in the left corner on a Japanese world map (M. Reiterer). We need to take into account that our continent, and our union as a part of it, can be seen from different angles and experienced in manifold ways. These images of Europe may not always please us.

Europe is also seen (by people in the United States, for instance) as a whole and as a geographic notion, where similarities outweigh the differences. Barcelona is Europe (M. Giovinazzo) and so is Germany (M. Appenzeller).

Europe has exercised its power differently in different parts of the world. The shadow of colonialism still exists in certain areas, namely in Latin America and the Caribbean. People there often expect Europe to have more of a mentoring role than one that involves mutual dialogue. A dichotomy exists between Spain and Latin American Spanish-speaking countries; it is felt that we “owe” something, or are expected to contribute, which in turn creates frictions in international project practices, according to Mercedes Giovinazzo. That tells us that we, the Europeans, need to engage differently, to start real dialogue, from teaching to mutual learning (A. Senior). This will contribute to the building of trust and the reaching out to a wider public. Creative economy and contemporary culture (which anyhow has increasingly less borders thanks to global social media) have a role to play in that process.

Europe can also be seen as a role model for other countries and regions, according to Markus Appenzeller. Our good practices and know-how in various spheres are in demand. Katelijn Verstraete and Michael Reiterer, having both worked extensively in Asia, became “interpreters” between Asia and Europe in this conversation. There is a lot of curiosity about Europe in Asia. We have to use that push of curiosity and expectations to see how Europe is being experienced by peoples from other regions and cultures.

On the one hand, the European Union should remain alert to what is going in regards to economic, political as well as cultural processes in Asia and take into account the strong centres of power there (e.g. China and India). It should also mobilise its diplomacy tools for mediating issues between countries in South-East Asia. On the other hand, being up-to-date is crucial for developing relevant policy tools and frameworks for collaboration and mobilising the existing resources for exchange. EU should map its own resources already operating there in areas of education, language and science, and use them as platforms for cultural cooperation as well, Verstraete suggested.

Where are the non-European agents in the debate? Even in the old continent we tend to speak about Europe and only refer to Western European values. “We are stuck in Europe of 1956” (C. Esche). So, how do we get out of our Eurocentric box?

“We cannot debate how the others see us, if we don’t invite them to tell us.” (K. Verstraete)

DIPLOMATS CREATE THE FRAMEWORK. ARTISTS PROVIDE THE CONTENT

Every country has positive and negative experiences of its cultural diplomacy tools. Not using culture in external relations is clearly a disadvantage, but using it can also incite controversial discussions. Cultural diplomacy is a complex field that requires using tailor-made tools in real time (“be as relevant to the local

as possible,” said the Dutch diplomat Renilde Steeghs quoting Parag Khanna6) and taking advantage of universalities (such as gathering around food, as Michael Reiterer mentioned).

The diplomats on the panels seemed to agree here: “Governments should provide the enabling environment by creating the framework. We are not to be the programmers,” stated Renilde Steeghs. Diplomats are supposed to ensure that people, including artists, can move freely and that copyrights are respected, but their responsibility goes beyond this. They must be aware of the cultural, media and social movements in the different regions of the world. They need to be alert, and not to miss important messages that can act as alarms for forthcoming cataclysms (such as 9/11 or the Arab Spring).

The independent arts sector is not always involved in cultural diplomacy actions, and this can provoke antagonism towards national cultural diplomacies and the quality of cultural productions they do promote transnationally. States shape their own cultural scenes and take decisions while creating “icons” (such as Van Gogh, as Esche pointed out). Independent artists shall continue provoking and offering values such as the freedom of artistic expression and new artistic viewpoints. Charles Esche struggled with the persisting opinion of the diplomats that while they can determine the frameworks for international cooperation, they will not deal with artistic content nor take a stance about what culture should be promoted abroad. Partly, because this is in fact happening (although via commissioning independent curators and public calls), and partly, because of the need to define key criteria of what culture Europe would like to promote.

As a supranational framework (unlike its Member States alone), the EU level shall be neutral to the content, as much as it can, answered Troussard. This controversy, which also re-emerged in other segments of the debate, shows that direct transmission of national cultural diplomacy elements to EU external relations level cannot be made directly.

Charles Esche imagined an external relations framework based on three pillars – economic, political and cultural – and that there should be a balance between these pillars. During crisis situations, the economic reason may lead. But during a generally improved situation, a relative balance between the three should be maintained.

SO THEN, WHAT FRAMEWORK SHOULD EU DEVELOP FOR ITS EXTERNAL RELATIONS? “We don’t promote ‘European culture’. We create enabling framework for cultural cooperation to happen” (X. Troussard)

States can decide how to shape their cultural or foreign policies, prioritise their geographic areas of foreign relations and attribute selection criteria to content they offer. However these decisions have to be made differently at the EU level. Agreement must be reached by all EU Member States. Therefore, before trying to define what culture EU should offer internationally, we should think in what areas or types of actions EU can do better or be more efficient in, than its Member States alone proposed Renilde Steeghs.

By creating possibilities for international cooperation we create spaces where through creative processes we can promote freedom, cooperation and solidarity, emphasised Xavier Troussard. Thereby we can directly contribute to the values of the European project. Creative content shall be

6 Parag Khanna, US geo-strategist, Director of the Hybrid Reality Institute http://www.paragkhanna.com/

brought in by the actors themselves, within the flexible framework that the EU will create. This framework will not interfere in the artistic values and messages. The framework will enable partnerships and grassroots action to develop and sustain themselves. It will also promote transnational collaboration and distribution. An editorial role in formulating the actual cultural content is not envisaged.

The EU-China Year of Intercultural Dialogue is an example of a bilateral EU action that will be further analysed. The policymaking process for these types of actions involves both Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Ministries of Culture. Member States shall discuss those areas of action where common approaches can be established, such as facilitating transnational networking, training and capacity building, heritage protection, etcetera. The EU itself can achieve more in improving the legal framework, which is essential for the future cultural cooperation with China. According to Troussard there are also a number of tools that can be elaborated at the EU level for building up an image of Europe in China beyond the import- export model.

Language is a key element for understanding the culture of others and for establishing long-term relations, and the EU has already put quite a lot of effort in multilingualism. Existing resources should be mapped out and culture and creative industries should be worked into the relations already established in the education sector. Katelijn Verstraete suggested using the existing EU-created spaces for deepening Europe-Asia connections. She gave the example of the Asia-Europe Foundation (ASEF) as “a common space of ‘us’”, where European and Asian operators can develop projects together.

The EUNIC network does indeed add European value, because stronger foreign agencies, such as Goethe Institute, can facilitate dissemination and access to European content and develop new connections through their huge network of institutes. This can benefit smaller EU countries, but most importantly, will multiply the possibilities for dissemination and access to European content across the world, according to Verstraete and Sjaastad. EU-China Cultural Compass7 is another good example, even though it still has a much broader potential than what has been achieved up until now.

CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS It was relatively easy to break down these complex issues into two simple questions: “What can culture do for Europe?” and “What can Europe do for culture and creative industries?”. However reaching some concrete conclusions during a three-hour discussion was much more challenging for the panellists and moderators.

The questions we began with melted during the often agitated discussions. There is a lot to do in this European arena and there is a lot we have to learn from working in other parts of the world. First, by collecting the existing knowledge and building on it (including knowledge about ourselves); second, to discover the world beyond EU and Europe and see ourselves through the eyes of the other; third, to build on the new awareness about the role culture can play if embedded fully in foreign policies – at both the national and EU level; and fourth, to build up long-term relationships based on mutual learning.

Since much has already been said and written on the topic, such as the research projects carried out by various institutes, the report by Marietje Schaake on behalf of the European Parliament, and much intellectual input by policymakers and practitioners, there is a fertile ground for elaborating on how to add

7 EU-China Cultural Compass is a partnership initiative by EUNIC partners in China.

a cultural dimension to EU’s foreign policy. The EP report already took into consideration the legal basis and set some key strategic areas of action of the competences of the EEAS and the European Commission in general terms. The added value that the More Europe initiative, through this debate, could contribute is valid in several aspects: to provide new arguments and good examples to nurture a future strategy; to extend the wish list of what we want the EEAS’ external policy to contribute to, and to transform this wish list into a “to do” list of concrete steps to follow.

IDEAS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS:

• EU shall create an effective political framework and high-level leadership at the EEAS for bringing about a cultural dimension to its external relations which can add important value to setting up a legal basis, as well as enabling transnational cooperation. Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) must be the target, backed up by good practice examples from other EU policy areas that have cultural components (e.g. DG Devco, DG Enlargement, etcetera)

• Embedding the strategy into programming of EU external cooperation shall include people-to-people actions, in respect to their capacity for challenging the status quo and for fostering freedoms and rights. A good example for transversal work of EU agencies is the EU (Devco)-UNESCO Pilot project on Technical Assistance to Strengthen the Governance of Culture in Developing Countries8, which can be used more in the future as a tool for mutual learning.

• EEAS shall dispose of a smart diplomacy portfolio involving both culture and creative industries thus multiplying the opportunities for building long-term relations with third countries.

• Creative economy concept should be brought to the fore of the EU external relations agenda – as a mind-opening and door-opening solution for connecting to the popular cultures of today, but also as an enabling framework that would bring new cultural and trade relations.

• EU shall map its underexplored resources for operating in other parts of the world. For example the existing EU centres (such as the EU Centre in Singapore9, the EU-India study centres10 and others are unexplored possibilities for introducing CCIs and deepening the relations with other communities.

• The EUNIC network has an important role to play in informing this process and in multiplying its impact.

The More Europe Amsterdam debate extended our wish list even further than the one Marietje Schaake outlined in her keynote. We want long-term involvement of the EU with third countries through measures that will bring long-term impact for building long-term relationships, far beyond the impact of the EU thematic years. To be able to achieve this we need goodwill from the EU Member States to set up flexible and enabling frameworks for transnational cooperation, where artists can also offer their “contemporary, awkward, resistant, oppositional, critical and self-critical culture”, as C. Esche described it. The EU should furthermore provide the legal basis for this adventure to happen, thus reinforcing its role as a global actor for peace and respect of fundamental freedoms and rights. Not least, EU should not stop reinventing and questioning itself vis-à-vis the rest of the world.

8 Information about the project is available on the UNESCO website. 9 www.eucentre.sg 10 www.iescp.org

Additional information

On the following pages we added: • the programme of the More Europe Amsterdam debate on 19 September 2012 • the short biographies of the speakers and moderators of the debate

We also would like to share some links providing extra information: • an overview of the speakers, topics and pictures can be found here. • both panels are available as audio files. Listen to Panel 1 and Panel 2. • a 14-minute video compilation of the debate can be watched online here. • an 8-minute clip featuring quotations from the debate and from individual interviews with the speakers can be watched here.

The official More Europe site offers all the information about this initiative, including aim, partners, past and future events, background information, etcetera. www.moreeurope.org

Contact For direct contact with More Europe please get in touch with the Project Director Sana Ouchtati Mail [email protected] Phone +32 2 230 39 70 (premises of the Goethe Institute, Brussels) or mobile +32 (0)473 64 85 19

Engage on More Europe’s social media channels

@MoreEuropeEU or #MoreEuropeEU facebook.com/moreeurope

12 Programme - More Europe Amsterdam debate

Programme

14.15 -15.00 Registration and coffee

15.00-15.05 Welcome by Katherine Watson, Director, European Cultural Foundation (ECF)

15.05-16.30 How can culture and creative industry models foster international diplomacy? • How to strike the right balance between the intrinsic social values and economic interests of culture and creative industries? • What are the opportunities for foreign relations that culture and creative industries models can offer? • What is the impact of culture and creative industries in foreign policy?

Keynote: Alexander Rinnooy Kan, University Professor Economics and Business, University of Amsterdam - former President of the Social and Economic Council of the Netherlands

Panelists: • Andrew Senior, expert in creative economy, Director, Andrew Senior Associates Ltd • Elisabeth O. Sjaastad, film director and CEO, Federation of European Film Directors (FERA) • Markus Appenzeller, Director and Partner, MLA+, architect, works in Europe, China and Russia • Frédéric Martel, journalist, writer and author of Mainstream • Gerhard Sabathil, Director for North-East Asia, European External Action Service (EEAS)

Moderator: Tracy Metz, journalist and author on urban and spatial issues

16.30-16.50 Break

16.50-18.10 What added value culture and creative industries bring to the European Union’s external relations? • How can the EU act as a global player through culture and creative industries? • How competitive is the EU in culture and creative industries vis-à-vis emerging countries such as China, US, and Japan? • How to promote culture and creative industries beyond EU borders in a time of crisis? • How can the EU develop an external cultural dimension and what would be the added value of it?

Keynote: Marietje Schaake, Member of the European Parliament, Committee on Foreign Affairs and Committee on Culture and Education

Panelists: • Katelijn Verstraete, former Deputy Director, Cultural Exchange Department, Asia-Europe Foundation (ASEF) - Regional Director, East-Asia, Arts and Creative Industries, British Council (starting mid-October 2012) • Renilde Steeghs, Ambassador for Cultural Cooperation, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands • Charles Esche, Director, Van Abbemuseum, Eindhoven • Xavier Troussard, Acting Director, Directorate General Education and Culture, European Commission

Moderator: Mercedes Giovinazzo, Director, Interarts, Barcelona

18.15-19.30 Reception at BIMHUIS

More Europe is a cultural civic initiative. The initiators are:

LES ÉLÉMENTS CONSTITUTIFS 01.1. LE LOGOTYPE

PRÉSENTATION

Un logotype qui fait autorité pour poser une nouvelle marque et installer l’Institut français dans le monde.

La modernité minimaliste du logotype est là pour affirmer que l’Institut français existe depuis toujours, à travers un réseau présent partout dans le monde.

Le logotype ne s’écrit pas et ne s’imite pas. Il s’agit d’une image originale et non modifiable, qu’il convient d’utiliser en respectant la charte graphique qui l’accompagne.

IMPORTANT Le logotype Institut français est destiné à remplacer 13 les précédentes marques employées (Centre culturel français, Maison, etc.), et sera utilisé en marque unique et de manière identique dans le monde entier pour ce qui concerne la signa- létique. En revanche, tous les Instituts français ont la possibilité de faire figurer leur pays ou leur ville de rattachement au-dessous du logotype pour des opéra tions de communication (affiches, programmes, événements, publications).

Les supports qui permettent également une décli- naison locale, au niveau des villes, des régions ou des pays, sont les éléments de papeterie.

> 5 More Europe Amsterdam debate Beyond markets: culture and creative industries in the EU’s external relations 19 September 2012, Bimhuis, Amsterdam

Markus Appenzeller (D) Director and founding partner of MLA+

Born in Tubingen, Germany, 1972, Markus holds a professional degree in banking business. He studied law, architecture and urban planning in Konstanz, Stuttgart and Chicago. He graduated in 2003 from Stuttgart University. In his early career Markus worked for UnitA Architects (Stuttgart), Fink & Jocher Architects (Munich) and in the Office for Metropolitan Architecture (Rotterdam).

Overall, Markus has been in charge of large scale architecture and urban planning projects in China and across Europe. Before founding MLA+ Markus was Director at KCAP Architects&Planners in Rotterdam (2006 – 2011), where he was design leader for the Olympic Legacy Masterplan for London and the masterplan for the Central Business District of Beijing. For Photo: © Scheltema Fotografie the central area of Shenzhen, Markus headed a team to develop a regeneration strategy that sets an example for a new form of urban transformation in China. Also, he has been the project architect of OMA’s masterplan for White City in London. In 2011 he set up MLA+ with Gerard Maccreanor and Richard Lavington.

Markus is a regular guest critic at the AA School of Architecture in London, has lectured at several schools across Europe and has been teaching at the Berlage Institute in Rotterdam. He also writes on various topics of contemporary urbanism and advises companies in how to operate in other countries and cultural environments.

Charles Esche (UK) Director Van Abbemuseum, Eindhoven

Charles Esche is a curator and writer. Since 2004 he is Director of the Van Abbemuseum, Eindhoven and Editorial Director of Afterall Journal and Books at Central St. Martins College of Art and Design, London. He is an advisor at the Rijksakademie, Amsterdam and Board Member of the Emanuel Hoffmann Foundation, Basel and MUSEON, Bolzano. He lectures extensively at art colleges and institutions around the world. His writings on institutional possibility and policy are useful aids to rethinking the relation between art and social change. Together with Will Bradley Esche co-edited the reader Art and Social Change published by Afterall and Tate Publishing.

Esche played an important role in projects such as Picasso in Palestine (2011), Heartland (2008- 2009), Be(com)ing Dutch (2008) and Forms of Resistance (2007). Under his directorship, the Van Abbemuseum has created a European network - L’Internationale. He curated and co-curated Photo: © Bram Saeys the Slovenian Triennale, Ljubljana in 2010, the 2nd and 3rd Riwaq Biennial, Palestine 2009; the 9th Istanbul Biennial 2005 and November Paynter and the Gwangju Biennale in Korea 2002. 2000-2004 he was Director of the Rooseum Center for Contemporary Art, Malmö.

In 2012 Charles Esche won the European Cultural Foundation’s Princess Margriet Award for cultural change-makers who enhance the unique role of the arts in Europe, in recognition for his extraordinary curatorial oeuvre in which he has opened up the museum as a public space of active engagement reaching out to both local and international communities.

14 Mercedes Giovinazzo Marín (IT) Director Interarts Barcelona

Mercedes holds a degree (Laurea) in Archaeology from the Università degli Studi “La Sapienza”, Rome, Italy and a Master’s Degree in Arts Management from the École Supérieure de Commerce de Dijon, France. Since January 2005 she is Director of the Interarts Foundation in Barcelona, a non-governmental organisation specialised in international cultural co-operation.

From 2008 to 2010 she chaired the ‘Access to Culture’ Platform set up by the Education and Culture Directorate General of the European Commission in the framework of the structured dialogue process with the non-governmental sector foreseen by the ‘European Agenda for Culture’ and, since October 2008, she is the Chair of the Executive Committee of Culture Action Europe, the European network of cultural organizations. www.cultureactioneurope.org

She teaches regularly in different postgraduate arts management courses and has published several articles on issues related with international cultural cooperation.

Previously, she has been Director of Services and Deputy Director of Customer Services at the Universal Forum of Cultures – Barcelona 2004, S.A., Administrator at the Division of Culture and Cultural and Natural Heritage at the Council of Europe and Director of the ‘Mastère Européen Management des Entreprises Culturelles’ at the École Supérieure de Commerce de Dijon, France. Frédéric Martel (F) writer, journalist and researcher

Frédéric C. Martel is a researcher, journalist and writer. He holds a PhD in Sociology.

As a researcher, he worked for the French Ministry of Foreign Affair’s analysis and forecast center, CAP and for INA, the French National Institute of Radio and Television. He taught also classes on “culture and the entertainment industry around the world” at Sciences-Po Paris, and at the preeminent business school in France, HEC.

As a journalist, he works as the anchor of one of the main French radio shows, a weekly programme on media and creative industries. He is also a founding editor of www.nonfiction.fr, a website devoted to book reviews and intellectual debate. He has written articles for newspapers and journals such as Le Monde, L’Express, Politique Internationale, Dissent, The Nation, Haaretz, Esprit, and has given lectures at dozens of American universities, including Harvard, MIT, University of Chicago, NYU, Stanford, UCLA, Berkeley, Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Yale, Brown, Wellesley, Princeton, Boston College and Middlebury College.

As a writer, he is the author of seven books, including Mainstream, On the Global Cultural War (Flammarion, 2010) translated in a dozen of languages and which made international debates and discussions. And in 2012 J’aime pas le sarkozysme culturel (Flammarion) on Nicolas Sarkozy’s culture and cultural policy. Earlier works comprise the best seller The Pink and the Black, Homosexuals in France since 1968 (Le Seuil, 1996) and De la Culture en Amérique, a large study on culture and the arts in the US (Gallimard, 2006; already published in Poland & Japan).

15 More Europe Amsterdam debate Beyond markets: culture and creative industries in the EU’s external relations 19 September 2012, Bimhuis, Amsterdam Tracy Metz (USA) journalist and author on urban and spatial issues

Tracy Metz, American by origin, lives and works in the Netherlands. She is a journalist and the author of a number of books, often in cooperation with photographers. She also writes for the quality Dutch daily NRC Handelsblad and is an international correspondent for Architectural Record. In 2006-2007 Tracy Metz was awarded the prestigious mid-career Loeb Fellowship at the Harvard Graduate School of Design (GSD), where she is now a visiting fellow. She subsequently published a selection of her columns and essays about American planning and land use under the title On the Ground: Observations from Harvard. She also initiated a two-year collaboration between Harvard and the Dutch government on water management and climate change. Her newest book is Sweet&Salt: Water and the Dutch, on the extreme makeover of the Dutch landscape to accommodate a new relationship to water. Photo: © Martine Sprangers Alexander Rinnooy Kan (NL) University Professor Economics and Business, University of Amsterdam, former President of the Social and Economic Council of the Netherlands

Dr. Alexander Rinnooy Kan has degrees in Mathematics from Leiden University and Econometrics from Amsterdam University. He was employed as mathematics editor at the Spectrum Encyclopaedia for the period of a year, and at the University of Delft for three years. In 1977 he moved to Erasmus University in Rotterdam, where he became a professor in operational research in 1980, Director of the Econometric Institute in 1983 and Rector Magnificus in 1986. In the meantime he also was visiting professor at Berkeley, California and MIT, Boston among others.

In 1991 he became Chairman of the Confederation of Dutch Industry VNO, which became VNO-NCW in 1995, Mr. Rinnooy Kan joined the Executive Board of ING and became Chairman of the Board of both ING Insurance Central Europe and ING Insurance & Asset Management Asia/ Photo: © Christiaan Krouwels Pacific. He held these positions until June 2006. From August 2006 till September 2012 he was President of the Social-Economic Council (SER). Since September 1, 2012 he is University Professor Economics and Business at the University of Amsterdam. Alexander Rinnooy Kan has published 10 books and 150 articles. He was born in the Netherlands. He is married and has three children.

16 Marietje Schaake (NL) Member of the European Parliament, Committee on Foreign Affairs and Committee on Education and Culture

Marietje Schaake (Twitter: @MarietjeD66) is a Member of the European Parliament for the Dutch Democratic Party (D66) with the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) political group. She serves on the Committee on Foreign Affairs, where she focuses on neighbourhood policy, Turkey in particular; human rights, with a specific focus on freedom of expression, internet freedom, press freedom; and Iran. In the Committee on Culture, Media, Education, Youth and Sports she works on Europe’s Digital Agenda and the role of culture and new media in the EU’s external actions. In the Committee on International Trade she focuses on intellectual property rights, the free flow of information and the relation between trade and foreign affairs.

Marietje is a member of the delegation for relations with the United States and a substitute member on the delegations with Iran and the Western Balkan countries. She is also a founder of the European Parliament Intergroup on New Media and Technology. Marietje is a Member of the European Council on Foreign Relations and vice-president of the supervisory board of Free Press Unlimited.

Before joining the European Parliament, she worked as an independent advisor to governments, diplomats, businesses and NGO’s, on issues of transatlantic relations, diversity and pluralism, civil and human rights.

Andrew Senior (UK) expert in creative economy, Director Andrew Senior Associated Ltd.

Andrew Senior established the Creative Industries Unit (CIU) at the British Council in 1999. Working with a small team, he began to build the Unit’s profile within the British Council (as part of Arts Group) and within the context of the Department for Culture, Media & Sports Creative Industries Export Promotion Advisory Group (CIEPAG). Over the next decade, working closely with colleagues in the art form departments and internationally, Andrew drove the strategic development of the creative economy agenda within the British Council. In 2008 it became one of the three principal platforms of British Council activity. Andrew left the British Council in 2010 to set up Andrew Senior Associates Ltd (ASA).

Elisabeth O. Sjaastad (born in Oslo, Norway 1977) studied directing at the Beijing Film Academy and the Central Academy of Drama (1998-2000). In 2002 she directed and produced the Amanda-nominated (Norway’s national film award) feature documentary Shiny Stars, Rusty Red (China) which was invited to film festivals worldwide. Through her production companies Screen Stories and Directors at Work AS she has also produced films from South Africa (also as director), Peru and the United Arab Emirates. Elisabeth was Vice President of the Norwegian Film Makers’ Association and a FERA delegate from 2005. In 2006 she was appointed by the Norwegian Ministry of Culture as member of the Einarsson-committee, which produced a report on Norway’s audiovisual policy and made recommendations to restructure the Norwegian Film Institute and redefining the goals and ambitions of Norwegian film. Elisabeth was appointed Chief Executive of FERA, the Federation of European Film Directors, in December 2009. www.filmdirectors.eu

17 More Europe Amsterdam debate Beyond markets: culture and creative industries in the EU’s external relations 19 September 2012, Bimhuis, Amsterdam Renilde Steeghs (NL) Ambassador for Cultural Cooperation, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands

The position of Ambassador for International Cultural Cooperation was created in 1980 when the Ministry of Foreign Affairs began to take a greater interest in international cultural policy. Today, culture is fully integrated in Dutch foreign policy. It can open doors and initiate social debate and change at home and abroad. Used in this way within foreign policy, culture is a tool of diplomacy. The Ambassador for International Cultural Cooperation (ACS) operates on the basis of the policy priorities presented by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Secretary of State for Education, Culture and Science in a joint letter to Parliament ‘Vision of international cultural policies’, dated April 24th 2012, where priority goals for international cultural co-operation are set out:

1) promoting the Dutch cultural centers of excellence abroad, 2) promoting market access for Dutch artists, cultural organisations and the creative sector in a number of priority countries around the world, 3) promoting linkages between culture, trade and economic diplomacy 4) promoting artistic and cultural ties as a tool in international relations (cultural diplomacy).

In July 2012, Renilde Steeghs was appointed Ambassador for International Cultural Cooperation, a position that she combines with her work as head of the International Cultural Policy Division at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Ms Steeghs joined the Foreign Service in 1988. During her diplomatic career, her postings abroad included Zagreb, Moscow and Brussels (2007-2010). At the Ministry headquarters in The Hague, she served as head of the UN funds and programmes division (2003-2007) and advisor for economic diplomacy (2010-2012). Xavier Troussard (F) Acting Director, Directorate General Education and Culture, European Commission

Xavier Troussard graduated from the University of Rennes, France, with a Master’s degree in Law and General Administration and from the College of Europe in European Studies (Bruges, Belgium). He is currently Acting Director at the Directorate General Education and Culture (EAC), Direction ‘Culture, Multilingualism and Communication’. Since 2007 he is Head of Unit (D1) ’Culture policy, diversity and Intercultural dialogue’ at the same directorate of the European Commission. He began his career as administrator of the Audiovisual Policy Unit in 1989 at the DG for Information, Communication, Culture and Audiovisual, and became Head of Unit there in 2002.

18 Biography speakers and moderators

Katelijn Verstraete (B) Regional Director East Asia Arts and Creative Industries at the British Council (as from mid-October 2012), former Deputy Director, Cultural Exchange Department at the Asia-Europe Foundation (ASEF)

Katelijn Verstraete worked at ASEF since 2006 developing multi-stakeholder programmes between Asia and Europe in the areas of cultural policy, artistic exchange, capacity-building and information exchange. Her work also included working on the intersections between arts and education, sustainable development and health. Katelijn co-founded in 1999 BizArt, the first autonomous art space in Shanghai and developed between 2003-2006 the communication, training and Asia activities for the International Network for Contemporary Performing Arts (IETM) in Brussels as well as managing the On The Move portal for artist mobility. Prior to her work in the cultural sector, Katelijn worked for seven years in the business sector in Germany and China. She is the main advisor to and co-author of the “Europe-China Cultural Compass, an orientation for cultural cooperation between Europe and China” published by the EUNIC network in China.

Michael Reiterer (A) Senior Advisor, Asia and Pacific Department - European External Action Service (EEAS) Born 1954 in Innsbruck, Austria, Michael Reiterer became Senior Advisor, Asia and Pacific Department, European External Action Service (EEAS), Brussels in 2012.

Before that he was EU-Ambassador to Switzerland and the Principality of Liechtenstein, Bern, between 2007-2011. 2002-2006: Minister, Deputy Head of the Delegation of the European Commission to Japan. 1998-2002 - ASEM Counselor, Department for External Relations, European Commission. 1997-1998: Minister Counselor, Permanent Representation of Austria to the European Union, Brussels. 1992-1997: Deputy Director General, Department for European Integration and Trade Policy, Austrian Federal Economic Chamber, Vienna. 1996-1997: Co- chair/trade of the Joint Session of the trade and environment experts, OECD, Paris. 1990-1992: Counselor, Austrian Permanent Representation to the GATT, Geneva.

He has also been negotiator at GATT Uruguay Round, on behalf of Austrian Federal Economic Chamber, in Vienna, Deputy Austrian Trade Commissioner for Japan, Tokyo (1985-1988) as well as for Western Africa, Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire (1982-1985).

M. Reiterer has been an Adjunct professor for international politics, University of Innsbruck (venia docendi) since 2005. He holds a Diploma in international relations, Graduate Institute for International Studies, Geneva and a Diploma in international relations, Johns Hopkins University – School for Advanced International Studies, Bologna Center. He defended his Doctorate in law in 1978 at the University of Innsbruck, Austria.

More Europe is a cultural civic initiative. The initiators are:

LES ÉLÉMENTS CONSTITUTIFS 01.1. LE LOGOTYPE

PRÉSENTATION

Un logotype qui fait autorité pour poser une nouvelle marque et installer l’Institut français dans le monde.

La modernité minimaliste du logotype est là pour affirmer que l’Institut français existe depuis toujours, à travers un réseau présent partout dans le monde.

Le logotype ne s’écrit pas et ne s’imite pas. Il s’agit d’une image originale et non modifiable, qu’il convient d’utiliser en respectant la charte graphique qui l’accompagne.

IMPORTANT Le logotype Institut français est destiné à remplacer 19 les précédentes marques employées (Centre culturel français, Maison, etc.), et sera utilisé en marque unique et de manière identique dans le monde entier pour ce qui concerne la signa- létique. En revanche, tous les Instituts français ont la possibilité de faire figurer leur pays ou leur ville de rattachement au-dessous du logotype pour des opéra tions de communication (affiches, programmes, événements, publications).

Les supports qui permettent également une décli- naison locale, au niveau des villes, des régions ou 6 des pays, sont les éléments de papeterie.

> 5 More Europe is a cultural civic initiative. The initiators are:

LES ÉLÉMENTS CONSTITUTIFS 01.1. LE LOGOTYPE

PRÉSENTATION

Un logotype qui fait autorité pour poser une nouvelle marque et installer l’Institut français dans le monde.

La modernité minimaliste du logotype est là pour affirmer que l’Institut français existe depuis toujours, à travers un réseau présent partout dans le monde.

Le logotype ne s’écrit pas et ne s’imite pas. Il s’agit d’une image originale et non modifiable, qu’il convient d’utiliser en respectant la charte graphique qui l’accompagne.

IMPORTANT

Les supports qui permettent également une décli- naison locale, au niveau des villes, des régions ou des pays, sont les éléments de papeterie.

> 5