Composing trust #5: Community of Practice talks – the EU as a Global Cultural Power

Biography:

Andrew Murray is an experienced practitioner of cultural relations and cultural diplomacy who served as Director of EUNIC Global (European Union National Institutes for Culture) in Brussels from 2015 to 2018 after working for more than 25 years with the British Council. 

Link to LinkedIn profile

Biography:

Avril Joffe is UNESCO Chair in Cultural Entrepreneurship and Policy and Research Associate, University of the Witwatersrand. She has over thirty years of experience as a development economist specialising in arts and culture and the cultural and creative economies of Africa.

Link to LinkedIn profile

Biography:

Matina Magkou is a researcher at the SIC.Lab of the University of Côte d’Azur and a consultant specialised in cultural cooperation, cultural policy and the cultural and creative industries. As part of her consulting projects, she has worked on the development of a toolkit for fair cultural relations for EUNIC (2022), the evaluation of cultural networks (In Situ, European Theater Convention, ENCATC, Eurozine) and cultural cooperation projects (Culture@WorkAfrica, STARTS-Cultural Exchange), the OiRA platform for risk assessment for the live performance sector for Pearle* and European social partners (2013-2016).

Link to LinkedIn profile

Biography:

Alessandro Lamonica is the Head of Public Policies Unit at the Anna Lindh Euro-Mediterranean Foundation in Brussels, with a focus on enhancing intercultural dialogue across the Euro-Mediterranean region. He is also Adjunct Professor of Public Diplomacy at the Brussels School of Governance. He was long a member of the Consortium Board of the Cultural Relations Platform of the European Commission and was the co-founder and deputy director of the Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence in cultural relations and diplomacy (CREDO) at the University of Siena in Italy.

Link to LinkedIn profile

Damien Helly: You are listening to the Composing trust podcast, by culture Solutions – a series on European cultural action with the world. Is Europe still attractive? How is it perceived by outside the EU? How do Europeans promote culture together in the world, with which partners? What have they learned, what is their experience? Our Composing Trust podcast series will address these issues.

Elise Cuny (00:41): On the 22nd of September, culture Solutions hosted the webinar EU’s International Cultural Relations: Reality Check, welcoming Mafalda Dâmaso, coordinator of the recently published and important handbook, The EU as a Global Cultural Power. She was there along with four contributors, Avril Joffe, Matina Magkou, Alessandro Lamonica and Andrew Murray. The webinar offered a timely opportunity to assess where the EU currently stands in international cultural relations, also the gaps that persist between ambition and implementation, and how culture can act as a strategic tool in today’s rapidly evolving global landscape. It also provided a moment of necessary reflection on the nine years since the 2016 joint communication on EUICR. The handbook discussed during the event is a must read for anyone curious about and committed to international cultural relations. Its foreword provides a valuable historical context for European cultural policy, shaped by the rise of global cultural exchanges. It also highlights the EU’s internal and external ambivalences in its cultural approach, shifting from a focus on promoting cultural values to seeking economic justification, from soft power to enabling power and dealing with the challenge of making its own cultural sector more competitive. In this podcast, we selected key moments from the webinar where panelists and the audience explored several critical themes. EU-Africa cultural relations, cultural relations in the Mediterranean region, the absence of a theory in international cultural relations, the rise of digital cultural movements, and the call for a strong community of practice. So enjoy the podcast. We’d love to hear your thoughts and feedback. And let’s continue to engage and grow this community of practice together.

Elise Cuny (02:38): Mafalda, can you tell us about the origins of the handbook, the idea behind it and the goals you aim to achieve in advancing the field of ICR with this handbook?

Mafalda Dâmaso (02:55): Hello, good afternoon. Thank you so much for having me and for having us and for the invitation as well to present the book, culture Solutions. I think that’s really wonderful. And I really look forward as well to the conversation with everyone who has joined us. So the European Union as a Global Cultural Power is a handbook that really emerges out of the contributions of its authors. The issues around cultural exception, cultural globalisation, and diversity of cultural expressions are, of course, keyed, across these different chapters. These are ideas that are revisited, but they’re also brought forward in another direction. And so if you could just put the next slide.

I would like to simply have the names there. So if you could just, yes, that’s absolutely fine. I want to really highlight the names of the contributors and the importance of their work. I had the idea of putting together this book, but then of course, that I contacted people, there was an open call, and the result is a book that looks at culture, foreign policy and development.

looking namely at EU Africa cultural cooperation, at international cultural relations as we’ll hear now, but also looking at capitals of culture, at cultural sustainability, and then looking at media and trade as well, at issues from the importance of Europeanism in Mexican culture, Latin American supranational media policy, also at ACP cultures or ACP culture plus, and the circulation of European film and the digitization of external cultural policy. And we also have a foreword by Professor JP Singh, for which I’m very thankful. And so this book, if you could go on out to the next slide, I’m trying to be as quick as possible so we can save time for our conversation. The book really emerged out of a certain tension, something that I found quite interesting with ongoing discussions at the time, but that also was in tension with my knowledge of international cultural relations. And in particular, discussions of the Brussels effect in Skype calls with Andrew Murray many years ago led me to think that the EU’s global cultural action was different. But this was only a hypothesis, of course, that later on the chapters could demonstrate. So, this first idea that was really relevant when I put together the proposal was that the EU has an effect around the world. And Anu Bradford in the Brussels effect suggests, however, that the EU is a regulatory superpower without having to cooperate with non-EU actors. So that lack of cooperation was intentional with what I knew of international cultural relations.

And the other interesting idea that I, well, an idea that I found interesting, but that also was not fully, did not fully match somehow some conversations around international cultural relations and the role of culture in the world was that of the EU as a normative power. And here I’m referring to the idea of the work of Ian Manners, by which, as he describes, the EU is or was a promoter of norms which displace the state as the centre of concern. So the idea that shared values, then human rights, for example, that sustainable development, all these ideas have displaced the state and that the EU promotes those norms. But we all know that this idea has been criticised and seen as no longer relevant, to say the least, and I mentioned several reasons why in the introduction. And I understood that, I understand that, but again, at the same time, I still saw in my own work in international cultural relations, a certain continuity between the idea of or the proposal or the understanding of the EU as a global actor that emerges out of this work. And then what I saw in international cultural relations. And so these two key ideas, whether the EU cooperates or not, and then the presence or the importance of norms, these were the two ideas that I wanted to test. And so if you could then pass to the next slide, thank you. And in fact, when all the chapters came up or came back, these ideas were confirmed. So, the idea of the centrality of collaboration was confirmed across chapters. Of course, that’s always with some limitations, as we’ll hear and there’s work there that can be improved, but this is transversal. And the second thing as well was the importance of norms or values. And I have to say, this is an academic book.

So when I wrote to those who then became authors and when I exchanged emails with people who responded to the calls online, I was writing as an academic, and so I was agnostic, right? I was not writing as a citizen. I was saying, let us know what you find out. So if what you’re finding out goes against these ideas, that’s what we have to read and to know. But that was not confirmed. Yes, there are many challenges, limitations, there’s work to be done, but the EU is really supporting the value of cultural diversity and other values around the world? However, in a way that is quite different from the idea of normative power in the sense that the implementation or the way how the EU strengthens the idea of cultural diversity, the way how it strengthens it,, boosts it, how it, the governance that accompanies this kind of work is one that has, that is, it results in something that is not static. So it’s really about sharing power. It’s really about enabling something else outside or beyond a view. So there’s something quite active there that is different from saying strengthening values such as human rights. So those values are central, of course, but there’s something really active and future-oriented. And I’m hoping to write a more academic paper that thinks about these issues in terms of international relations.

And so the summary really is that the EU, out of these chapters, emerges as an enabling power. And I have to open up a small, short parenthesis here to say that as I was working on the introduction, I was also editing, co-editing a special issue. And one of the articles was written by Patrycja Kaszynska, who talks about the enabling role of culture. So culture is an enabling asset. So anyone who’s interested in creative economics and those discussions.

I’d also recommend reading that article. And so the idea is that the EU is, through its global cultural action, beginning to emerge as an enabling power.

Elise Cuny (09:05): So the question is this one: what makes it relevant in the current context to talk about the EU as a global cultural power? I also asked this question, I realised that I didn’t give a chance to the co-panellists to introduce themselves. So please, as you answered this question, introduce yourself; that would be really wonderful. So, Andrew, if you want to start by addressing this challenging but necessary question. 

Andrew Murray (09:30): Sure, yes. So I worked in the field of ICR for a long time, first at British Council in Africa and certainly in Europe and then for EUNIC from 2015 to 2018. And I was involved in the joint communication and subsequent development of the strategy.

I agree with Mafalda that to see the work of the EU in the world as an enabling power. It fills a gap, actually, because I think Tamás Szucs did mention that in a recent article that he thought there was a lack of a coherent global vision in terms of the objectives of the EU ICR approach. And I am thinking of it as an enabling approach, an enabler, really, for cultural diversity around the world. That’s a great way of looking at it.

However, it’s still a matter of potential rather than practice. And I think what we do, Alessandro and I, and he will comment on this, and he’s much more involved in practice now than I am, is that although there’s potential, there’s very much little evidence on the ground, apart from perhaps European Spaces of Culture, that there is anything happening to fulfill that vision of the EU as a global enabler. 

And that’s partly to do with the geopolitical situation and particularly what’s happened in the last six months. But it’s also, I think, a matter of a lack of leadership within the EU and internal divisions and the contrast between how culture is treated internally and externally. Mafalda and I have spoken about that. Okay, I’ll hand over to others. 

Avril Joffe (11:11): Thank you, Elise. So my name is Avril Joffe, I’m from Johannesburg in South Africa, and that really shapes how I think about this, and in the chapter that Matina and I wrote, we spend more time, I think, speaking about the tensions and challenges and contradictions of the idea of Europe as a global cultural power.

And I agree with Andrew that there’s more potential in the words than there is in reality. And in fact, there’s a lot of criticism about even the concept of Europe as a cultural power, because it seems to suggest that no one else is a cultural power. And Africa wants to assert itself as a cultural power too. And you know, its agenda, the AU Agenda 2063, is very clear about its pan-African vision as a rich and exciting continent that is very cultural at its heart and the evidence and the practice of Europe in Africa and it’s difficult to separate Europe from the member states to be honest, you know, as much as there is very clear direction given to Europe to act in by itself, the experience, the practice on the ground is through the members, through the member states really and the experience of the member states. So I think the tensions that emerge in this vision are more apparent than the reality of Europe as a global power, as a global cultural power and I think on the continent of Africa there are very big competitors for that, such as China and so on, and Europe often is now seen as as reinforcing post-colonial reflexes and you know the experience of Europe because it’s got such a long history on the continent with the colonial powers. It means that sometimes I think the contradictions that emerge are more apparent because people expect better, people expect more, people expect Europe to actually really hold on to its power to enable culture to do the work that culture does, and Europe doesn’t have the monopoly of cultural diversity at all. The diversity on the continent is always seen as much stronger, much more robust, much more alive than the cultural diversity that Europe claims to be supporting. Now I’ll leave it at that for the moment. 

Alessandro Lamonica (14:08): I’m Alessandro Lamonica. I’m in the middle, in between the academy and practice.

I manage the public policies unit at the Anna Lindh Foundation, which is an intergovernmental organisation that works for intercultural dialogue in the Euro-Mediterranean region. But I also teach cultural and public diplomacy here in Brussels. And so when looking at your question, let’s say I found in it a certain ambiguity, which I think maybe was not done on purpose, but it’s reflective of the ambiguity of the role of the European Union in matters that refers to culture and international relations, because you refer to global cultural power. And what is this relationship with the current context, the context of, say, the international environment? So I would say that we can interpret it into very different and diverging directions.

Of course, if we refer to global cultural power, then indeed we are in a power competition framework. And yes, the current environment is very much conducive and open to approaches that rely on soft power to win this competition. So, if the question is, is the current environment favourable to power competitions that relate to culture? Yes, indeed, it is because we are going back to power competition at the global stage with the crisis of multilateralism and cooperation. So if we think of the role of the European Union as an actor that is capable of using culture for soft power purposes, then indeed there are some entry points. But whether this is aligned with an intercultural relations approach or not, it’s debatable, and in my understanding, it is of course not. And we go in the other direction. If we think of the European Union and the global cultural power, but as a power that enables principles of international cultural relations, they go against power competition. International cultural relations in theory should be more related to elements of deliberation, of participation, of cooperation, and of co-ownership. And of course we are going in a very different direction.

So it depends on how we interpret the definition of global cultural power. If it’s soft power, indeed, the current environment is a friendly one. If it is non-transactional, cooperative and collective, then of course, the current environment is not a good one, and we are in troubled waters. Thank you.

Mafalda Damaso (17:00): So the question is, I think, or can be, what is power for? And yes, the EU has power. Yes, other regions have a lot of power too, absolutely. But the question that I think,is emerges as quite interesting looking at the book as a project that you know in which I worked and we worked for a few years, now in the past, is that while other regions are as Alessandro mentioned and and Andrew as well and Avril while other regions are increasingly aiming to concentrate their power right?And you fight in a really zero-sum logic, the work that the EU has been doing in beyond its borders in the cultural sphere follows another logic. And when one looks at international cultural relations projects, this logic is evident, but it’s also, and here I jump to your second question, Elise, it’s also present when one looks at the circulation of European film, when one looks at the digitisation of EU external cultural policy, when one looks at capitals of culture. So I think that while recognising absolutely the problems, the limitations, the lack of top-down direction, leadership that has been mentioned, I do think that when we do look at the ground, what’s happening, and when we look across sectors and not just at the way how international cultural relations is defined in a strict sense, we actually see movement emerging in another direction that suggests that different actors recognize, yes, the power of the EU, but see it as something that can be used to, from the bottom up, reconstruct a different way of working and opening up the way to focusing on the common good.

Yes, I recognise that other actors, even within the EU, EU policymakers may have a different understanding of cultural power, one that might be very different from what we’re discussing, but that does not mean that this different understanding of power as something that is shared, right, power as leverage, is not happening on the ground as well. And so while we do need to be very realistic about what’s happening, I appreciate Andrew’s comments. I also think that we should not lose sense of that work that is not as loud, but that has been happening. 

Elise Cuny (19:48): A question to you, Andrew and Alessandro. So your chapter is really on the tension between theory and practice and how you reconcile the two. And I would like to ask you, so now we are nine years after the 2016 joint communication for the EU ICR. Do you anticipate a continuation or a clear disruption of this framework? Do you anticipate a continuation of a disruption of the framework, notably in relation to other more strategic frameworks that we see today in the EU’s external action, such as the Global Gateway?

Andrew Murray (20:12): There isn’t really a theory, that’s the problem. And Alessandro and I have been working on this in a couple of articles. And what we are working towards is the suggestion that theory is basically largely based on practice, particularly the practice of two cultural institutes, the Goethe Institute and the British Council, over the last 50 – 60 years. At the heart of this emerging theory are the two principles of mutuality and reciprocity. And the why is all about the global public good, about the common good. And following on from Alessandro, this is really why the theory and the practice of ICR at the moment is in such dire trouble, because we are in a world of soft power. I’ve been working at the last few years, each year doing a comparative study of soft power around the world. And increasingly the soft power is largely devoted to, increasingly devoted to the achievement of national goals. That’s the heart of soft power, not climate change or inequality or tackling pandemics, the global public good. So following on from Alessandro, we’re in a very difficult period.

And the tension between theory and practice is that the practice, particularly of the EU in terms of how it delivers its ICR, there’s very little happening on the ground. Global gateway is largely a geopolitical instrument for achieving EU interests, not the global public good. There is very little understanding at the highest level in EU management of what ICR is all about. So there may be a couple of pages about ICR on the EEAS website, but in terms of practice, the delegations are not practising ICR; they’re practising STRATCOMs. And the work with EUNIC, which was potentially the way forward to create Europe houses through the European Spaces of Culture, that has virtually died, frankly, in terms of practice. 

So, I’ve already been a great pessimist about this. I think the only way forward is from the bottom up, is to work through organisations like culture Solutions, through civil society itself, rather than relying on a top-down approach at the moment. 

Elise Cuny (22:53): Moving a bit away from the strategy, let’s say the higher policy level, I would like to to go a bit more regional and ask the question to Avril. So, Avril, your chapter with Matina is on Africa-EU cultural cooperation. You already touched a bit upon that in the first question, but what are the perceptions in Africa about the EU as a cultural partner? And I understand that EU is not always perceived as the EU but also as the sum of member states. And in asking that question, I also want to go back to, and that’s very interestingly set in the handbook forwards, that the EU has built as well as international cultural relations around the notion of cultural expression diversity. And actually, has the EU ever had or retained this image of promoter of cultural diversity in Africa and, more specifically, in South Africa, where you are, Avril? Thank you.

Avril Joffe (23:06): I think this is such a fantastic conversation and we should have more of this because in my mind and also in the practice in the field and from the actors in the field who are recipients and beneficiaries of international cultural relations, there is no doubt that there is a willingness and a desire to have these relations, these cultural relations between African organizations, artists, communities of artists, organizations and Europe. And that not only that there’s a desire and a willingness to have them, there’s a need for them. Not only because there’s a sense that Europe has developed the ability to have funds because of the colonial project and therefore owes Africa something, but also because there’s a sense that this produces the desired effects of opening up space for dialogue, for a diversity of voices to be heard on the continent, public space to share ideas and to enlarge people’s understanding of themselves, right?

So, having said that, there’s no doubt that when money is the source of the relationship, which it typically is, that just highlights and in a way manifests into the real sense that there’s asymmetries of power, that the global world is deeply unequal and that Africa remains dependent, on the funds to have the kind of cultural diversity and public space for culture that it needs to have. Partly because our own governments are not putting in sufficient funding, and I’ve not taken seriously the project of culture, the idea that culture is something that needs to be invested in, that there needs to be cultural infrastructure, needs to be cultural funds, that there needs to be funds to host public debate and dialogue and so the European funds are seen as absolutely vital because they help stimulate that kind of intercultural dialogue, they stimulate spaces for culture to happen. So that’s why that quote is on the page. It’s a really important comment that Martina and I wanted to make because

in all the criticism that we were highlighting and the tensions and the contradictions, we were not wanting to suggest that there should not be a relationship and there should not be a partnership, but that there had to be fairness, Martina already said, fairness in that relationship. needs to be a sense of equals participating in that relationship. And I think the biggest example of the inequity in that relationship is the way in which the EU sees itself as a global cultural power, and in the way that it sees the AU, its partner on the continent, as a global cultural power. The AU’s position is very clear. It’s a pan-African organisation with a pan-African vision for culture and cultural diversity to be made manifest, and to ensure that all the regions of the continent can speak together with one another. But as we know, European funding is very circumscribed around Sub-Saharan Africa and the North African region is contained within the MENA region and therefore often those relationships and that ability to have a joint voice is just undermanned. And it’s almost that people are saying, well, does the EU not respect the AU? Does the EU not respect the vision that the AU has put forward of a pan-African continent?

So that’s just at the very largest level. I think at the more meso level or the organizational level, the issues become one of those partnerships that are being developed and inter-cultural relations being developed, is it between equals? Is it only between European funding bodies and the elites in the society who happen to speak one of the colonial languages, who are educated, who are urban-based, who’ve got access to the internet, who’ve got WiFi and therefore can relate on some level of equality. What happens to the diversity of voices in our own society of the people who are not those people, who are not the urban educated elite? It’s about who is in the room, who is allowed, enabled to participate. So I think some of these are the issues that have come out very clearly in all the conversations Matina and I have had, not only with one another but with the people that we work with on the ground in various African countries. And I think, having said that, I think there are examples of practice from Europe that are suggesting a different way forward, such as the European Spaces of Culture for Sub-Saharan Africa. 

Elise Cuny (28:14): Turning to another region of the world, you mentioned North Africa, and now returning indeed to the MENA region, I would like to ask a question to Alessandro. So Alessandro, as part of your work, obviously with the Anna Lindh Foundation, you’re very close to the field as well and to civil society and cultural actors.

It’s also a strategic moment for the MENA and the Euro-Mediterranean relations at the moment, with the pact for the Mediterranean under discussion, under consultation. But it’s also come obviously with challenges in the regions, obviously an ongoing war in Gaza, political divisions, EU member states not agreeing on positions to take and also perceived like of EU credibility, especially due to weak responses to Israel’s actions in Gaza and the occupied territories. So, I mean, I guess you must be really on the front line of seeing all that and all the contradictions that can emerge from this partnership. In light of these realities, how do you see the evolution in the understanding and practice of cultural relations between the EU and the Mediterranean partners?

Alessandro Lamonica (29:27): Thank you, Elise. I’ll try to be very concise, but this is, of course a complex matter that derives from this tension between our ideas and how these are translated into policy frameworks, then how a policy framework is actually reflecting the actual situation on the ground. These three levels, they interact in complex ways, especially in the Euro-Mediterranean area.

That is, think, the epicentre of complexity. Now, on October 16, the College of Commissioners should adopt the new pact for the Mediterranean. The foundation, as many other actors, civil society, intergovernmental and governments, participated and contributed humbly to this process. We know that there will be a pillar on people-to-people relations, that this pillar will have a dimension related to culture, that this dimension related to culture will tackle elements mostly revolving around the notion of cultural heritage, to this sport, education, research cooperation. So it is there. There is a commitment, not only on paper, but we will see after October 16th what is actually there, but there is a commitment on the side of the hierarchy of DG MENA to invest in cultural relations. They understand the relevance of it. The director general is Stefano Sannino, who was previously at the European External Action Service, and knows what international cultural relations are expected to be, and the difference with other concepts such as public diplomacy, cultural diplomacy, and how it relates with soft power. And this is very relevant. So to have interlocutors in policymaking that understand the notions behind a certain framework is key. Without that, we easily fall into a complete divergence between the relation, the facts that are happening on the ground and what happens behind doors in Brussels. So we have this understanding. We have this commitment. But the pact should then turn into tangible actions, even though the budget is still a question mark. So it is there to stay. There is a renewed commitment to it that was already there in the new agenda for the Mediterranean of 2021. But then, I would like to raise, let’s say, a red flag on that because then there’s always the reality check. So in end of October, the pact will be out, but the pact that is based on multilateralist that acknowledged the role of culture will have to tackle some old enemies, such as the lack of a new foreign policy. So the fact that we have several foreign policies that they’re moving from multilateralist to bilateral relations. So, in reality, they will probably contradict the multilateral spirit of the New Pact with the Mediterranean, starting from day one. Second, the domestic situation in national politics, as Avril was mentioning, the rise of right-wing nationalism and ethno-nationalism in many European countries, that is a trend that will not stop for some years now, their understanding of the role of culture in society, because member states play a very relevant role. The national elites are going to influence what is actually is international cultural relations among countries in the Euro-Mediterranean. So it is at that level, I think, that the most relevant impact will take place on the successful implementation of the pact for the Mediterranean because it’s the Pact among countries and then, of course, the communities. So this is also relevant to consider.

Their idea of culture, I think, is a culture that is further and further politicised, securitised, weaponised, very much against the democratic understanding we have of international cultural relations. And last but not least, and then I will close, the Pact with the Mediterranean, even though it acknowledges the role of culture as an element of unity and cohesion and the role of civil society and developments of education and research, but it’s very much focused on economic development, migration seen as a security threat and the need for increased safety and stability. So we live in a trend that is diverging from the understanding of culture that will be in the past. Thank you.

Felipe Basabe Llorens (34:23): When Avril said that the theory could be more or less dead, ineffective, forgotten, practice is shaping the theory now. And it is low-scale projects, projects mostly digital with local communities, what we see now, that have a really preponderant effect and are actually bringing up new ideas and new fora for real dialogue. The traditional instruments and strategies that we have, let’s say, were founded along traditional lines, are no longer effective at all. But something else is happening. And I could give you lots of examples from the Arab world, from the African world, from the Latin American world, where a new emergence of a need of fora and spaces for dialogue is coming up because the need to build trust is there. And there are new options, cheaper options to do it, which ends up being much more effective.

Andrew Murray (35:44): I totally agree. We’ve just done a survey of a comparative survey of 25 countries working on soft power, but mainly looking at cultural institutes. What’s very interesting is that digital strategies are achieving lower per capita costs. So there’s a move to digital strategies and away from traditional instruments. So for example, British Council is probably going to close around about 20-30 % of its offices overseas. And there are cuts in other national cultural institutes frameworks overseas as well. What they’re doing is focusing on particular regions. If they are having, they’re still using physical structures. For example, Australia looking Indo-Pacific, lot of other countries are looking just Indo-Pacific and closing down other operations. And it’s interesting when you look at new innovations in terms of traditional cultural diplomacy and public diplomacy. The Global South is not going down the road of cultural institutes at all. They’re going straight to digital. And that’s the way forward. I also think, try and end on a positive note, because I’m too negative. I realise I have. I think what culture Solutions is doing in terms of developing a community of practice is what Alessandro and I recommend is the way forward, at the end of our chapter. And that sort of change is going to be generational, actually. It’s not going to happen in the next three to five years. And it’s a matter of training and education and professionalising the practice of international cultural relations. That’s got to be the way forward. Thanks.

Damien Helly: Thank you for listening to today’s episode of our Composing trust podcast by culture Solutions! If you liked it, you can subscribe and follow us on your favourite podcast platforms, and contact us at culturesolutions.eu.