A series on the relationship between the arts and international affairs
by Alana Chloe Esposito
WHY ART MATTERS IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS: Cultural Diplomacy and the Role of Art in Crisis Management
by Alana Esposito Sciences Po, Paris Ethics and the Use of Force Professor Wilfried Bolewski December 2009
Culture, as a tool of foreign policy, has the capacity to play a signiﬁcant role in shaping political and societal outcomes in the context of diplomacy, negotiation, and conﬂict management. The practice of diplomacy entails exerting power in its various forms as conceived by Joseph S. Nye Jr.: ‘hard’ (coercion), ‘soft’ (attraction), and ‘smart’ (a combination of the two). Culture is especially important in exercising ‘soft power,’ deﬁned as, “the ability to persuade through culture, values and ideas. (1)” In a practice known as public diplomacy, governments, relay information regarding a nation’s values and way of life, aiming to foster sympathy or acceptance thereof. This tool of international relations is gaining ground as conﬁdence rises in the ability of soft or smart power to achieve objectives previously believed to be obtainable through hard power, such as nuclear nonproliferation. Within this context, diplomats are taking advantage of cultural expression, including both “popular” and “high” culture, to support the achievement of their state’s long-term foreign policy goals in a practice known as “cultural diplomacy”. Deﬁned as “the exchange of ideas, information, art, and other aspects of culture among nations and their peoples to foster mutual understanding,(2)” cultural diplomacy is a subset of public diplomacy. It emphasizes fostering friendly, long-term interstate relations through dialogue.
Former Secretary of State George P. Shultz once used the metaphor of gardening to describe the value of diplomacy: “You get the weeds out when they are small. You also build conﬁdence and understanding. Then, when a crisis arises, you have a solid base from which to work.” The scholar Juliet Antunes Sabolsky takes the metaphor further, stating that within this context, the role of cultural diplomacy is to plant the seeds: “ideas and ideals; aesthetic strategies and devices; philosophical and political arguments; spiritual perceptions; ways of looking at the world, which may ﬂourish in foreign soils.(3)” In other words it is the practice of leading by example and using the power of attraction to shape others’ preferences. In attempt to further explicate this concept, the ﬁrst section of this paper analyzes the concept of cultural diplomacy as a tool of conﬂict management. Speciﬁcally, it focuses on the use of high culture by official diplomats to support long-term foreign policy goals(4). The second section of this paper explores the related practice of using community-based arts to advance the post-conﬂict reconciliation process in an emerging ﬁeld known as peacebuilding. It focuses on the conﬂict resolution work of the nongovernmental organization Search For Common Ground, the 2008 recipient of the U.S. State Department’s Benjamin Franklin award for Public Diplomacy.
1-Nye, Joseph S. Jr. 2-Milton C. Cummings, Jr. Ph.D., Cultural Diplomacy and the United States Government: a survey. Center for Arts and Culture, 2003, p.1 3-Sablosky, Juliet Antunes. “Recent Trends in Department of State Support for Cultural Diplomacy: 19932002. Center for Arts and Culture, 2003. 4-Caveat: This paper explores cultural diplomacy from the American perspective because the United States has used it effectively in many examples and furthermore American scholars provide much literature on the subject. However, obviously cultural diplomacy is not unique to the United States; on the contrary it is widely used by countries as diverse as China and Saudi Arabia.
“A nation’s culture is the sum total of its achievement, its own expression of its own personality; its way of thinking and acting. Its program of cultural relations abroad is its method of making these things known to foreigners.”
Ruth Emily McMurry and Muna Lee The Cultural Approach: Another Way in International Relations (1947)
While the concept of cultural diplomacy stems from longstanding traditions of using culture to serve state interests, it emerged as a concrete tool of statecraft in the mid-Twentieth century. Cultural diplomacy generally falls under the aegis of a country’s ministry of foreign affairs or cultural affairs and/or within semi-independent organizations such as the British Council, La Maison Française, and the Göethe Institut. Practiced by a wide variety of states across the world, cultural diplomacy takes various forms according to a country’s unique goals and varied budgets. The United States has been one of the leaders of cultural diplomacy, but its skillful use of the tool arguably peaked during the height of the Cold War and then began to recede from policy-makers’ priorities. However, it has lately enjoyed a newfound appreciation sparked by the explosion of anti-Americanism that erupted in the wake of the 2003 U.S. -led invasion of Iraq. The staggering results of a 2004 Pew Research Center survey led the United States government to ask where it had gone wrong in the eyes of the rest of the world and how it might be able to redeem its image. The answer, at least according to the new Obama administration, is to renew American efforts at engaging in dialogue with the rest of the world. As President Obama stated in his 2009 inaugural address, “Our power comes not simply from our military might, but also from our values.” One way to express those values and make them known to others is through cultural diplomacy.
Cultural exchange in virtually any ﬁeld including art, sport, literature, music, science, and the economy forms the basis of cultural diplomacy. It implies communication in a spirit of mutual respect between states based on a sounder understanding of respective values and a reduced susceptibility to cultural stereotypes. Accordingly, cultural diplomats, in the form of government officials or informal agents comprising civil society, facilitate cultural exchanges with an aim to promote national interests, build relationships, and enhance sociocultural understanding(5). For example, when the U.S. State Department authorized the New York Philharmonic to accept North Korea’s invitation to give a concert in Pyongyang at the height of tensions over North Korea’s nuclear program in 2008, it was heralded by the BBC as “a remarkable display of cultural diplomacy(6)” and widely applauded by the live audience as well as North Koreans and international audiences who watched the televised broadcast. Comprising over 300 musicians, staff, and journalists, the delegation constituted the largest U.S. presence in the country since the Korean War. The event did not impact the conﬂict over North Korea’s nuclear program, nor did it intend to, but it was a symbolic gesture that stirred hope for improved relations in the long run. Cultural diplomacy alone is inadequate to address the contentious issues between North Korea and the United States and offers little protection from the nuclear threat. However, a sustained cultural exchange between the United States and North Korea could potentially ease tensions between the two adversaries and facilitate North Korea’s eventual integration into the international system.
The power of attraction is the ability to inﬂuence a target audience by getting their desired policies to align with one’s own interests, backed by popular support on all sides. Two State Department initiatives exemplify this idea. The Art-in-Embassies program established in 1964, places American art in the public areas of diplomatic residences worldwide. Without any speciﬁc agenda, it offers an opportunity to acquaint local populations around the world with the some of the most creative and artistically talented Americans. If a visitor critical of the United States, notices an appealing painting on his or her visit to the American Ambassador’s residence, it helps the visitor develop a nuanced understanding of the United States and might render he or she more likely to distinguish the offending policy from the national culture. Similarly, a Cold War initiative focused on the power of music to undermine authoritarian rule in Communist countries, where freedom of expression was restricted. Between 1954 and 1968, the United States government funded Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington, and Dizzy Gillespie, and other iconic American jazz musicians to tour the Soviet bloc and emerging nations in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Jazz, the improvisational, uniquely American musical form characterized by a spirit of freedom resonated with audiences living under authoritarian rule.
However, the music, powerful as it may have been, was only a product of the musicians, who by their very presence, also communicated a symbolic message. At the height of American unrest over civil rights, these musicians freely criticized their country, despite receiving federal funding. Louis Armstrong even canceled a trip to Moscow after President Dwight D. Eisenhower refused to send federal troops to Little Rock, Arkansas, to enforce school-integration laws in 1957. “The way they are treating my people in the South, the government can go to hell,” he said. “It’s getting so bad, a colored man hasn’t got any country.(7)” Soon after, Eisenhower sent the National Guard to Arkansas and Armstrong praised the move and agreed to go on a concert tour of South America. By speaking freely and taking a stand against racial discrimination, the “jazz ambassadors” personiﬁed the notion of free speech enshrined in the American Constitution. They attracted many to the American dream and the American capitalist brand of democracy(8). Thus, the success of jazz diplomacy, as it came to be known, prompted a 1955 New York Times article to claim, “A blue note in a minor key is America’s secret sonic weapon...and Louis Armstrong is America’s best ambassador(9).” Yet, it doesn’t end there. Although Rhythm Road, the current State Department jazz diplomacy project, is scaled down in comparison to the Cold War era programs, it prompted the following reﬂection from a jazz player who recently gave a concert in Turkmenistan and learned a few local songs for the occasion: “They saw Americans paying homage to their cultural traditions...and said in effect, ‘Wow, you’re not all imperialists out to remake the world in your image.(10)’” It is with these small gestures that the United States, or any other state, might begin to truly “win the hearts and minds” as it seeks to exercise inﬂuence
Still, cultural diplomacy can only produce desirable effects under the right set of conditions, including consistent ﬁnancial and structural support, and enough patience to give one’s efforts the opportunity to bear fruit. American cultural diplomacy, ﬁnancial and popular support of the concept has declined considerably. Since 1993, budgets have fallen by nearly thirty percent, prompting staff cuts by about thirty percent overseas and twenty percent in the U.S., and dozens of cultural centers, libraries and branch posts have been closed(11). In 2006 U.S. funding for cultural programs was equivalent to one-seventh of one percent of the Defense budget(12). In the words of former Federal Communications Commission Chairman Newton Minnow, this amounts to “less than $1 to launch ideas for every $100 to launch bombs.” One explanation for such a lack of support stems from deep-rooted national ambivalence toward the promotion of “high culture,” especially since “Culture Wars” of the early 1990s during which U.S. Senator Jesse Helms controversially attempted to dissolve the National Endowment for the Arts, citing outrage over its funding of “indecent” art. In addition, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright abolished the United States Information Agency, the department responsible for cultural diplomacy, and its operations were split in two with nearly half (Voice of America and the Television Service) moving to the Broadcasting Board of Governors and the rest into the Department of State in 1999.
Moreover, a nation’s policies must be perceived as legitimate for its diplomatic efforts -cultural or otherwise -to succeed. Fundamentally, cultural diplomacy must communicate a palatable message to attract others‘ toward the state that practices it. However, under the George W. Bush administration, certain controversial US foreign policies (the invasion of Iraq, the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, prisoner abuse at the Abu Ghraib detention center in Iraq, and government spying on American civilians in the US, among others) undermined positive American values disseminated through its culture. In this context, skeptical audiences perceived any promotion of American values as hypocritical and cynically asserted that American promotion of culture exchange must be a disguise for American imperialism. Another obstacle lies in reaching the target population appropriately. Highbrow initiatives such as sending the New York Philharmonic to North Korea tends to reach elites, excluding the majority of the population. On the other hand, popular culture may attract large numbers of people, but often fails to produce results such as with the case of Coca-Cola, which enjoys wide consumption in countries whose population strongly voices anti-American sentiment. Yet, if sipping the soda does not impart positive ideas about democracy, individual rights and freedoms, and other American values, it cannot be considered an instrument of cultural diplomacy.
However, one should be careful, to avoid mistaking cultural diplomacy for a quick ﬁx to a crisis or simply a way to market or “window dress(13)” an unpopular policy. Even when diplomats exercise the best practices of cultural diplomacy, its power is limited vis-à-vis international security threats and violent conﬂict and it does not always manage to persuade target audiences in the intended manner. For instance, a joint US-Iranian ﬁlm festively will likely have no bearing on the current impasse over Iran’s nuclear program, but those who criticize cultural diplomacy for failing to render a convergence of ideas on controversial issues miss the point. Cultural diplomacy does not assume that the target population shares one’s values and aspirations nor does it seek to impose these on anyone. Rather, it uses cultural exchange as a ﬂexible, universally acceptable vehicle for rapprochement with countries where diplomatic relations are strained or absent.
5-Institute for Cultural Diplomacy: www.icd.org 6-Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/asia-paciﬁc/7262409.stm Published: 2008/ 02/25 09:14:50 GMT 7-Quoted in Kaplan, Fred “When Ambassadors had Rythm” New York Times. June 29, 2008. 8-Davenport, Lisa. Jazz Diplomacy: Promoting America in the Cold War Era. University Press of Mississippi. 2009. 9-Belair Felix, “United States has Secret Sonic Weapon - Jazz” New York Times. Nov 5, 1955 10-Quoted in Kaplan, Fred “When Ambassadors had Rythm” New York Times. June 29, 2008. 11-Sablosky, Juliet Antunes. “Recent Trends in Department of State Support for Cultural Diplomacy: 1993 12-Ambassador Cyntthia P. Schneider, “Diplomacy and Culture” class lecture. Georgetown University, spring semester 2006.
The Role of Art in Conflict Management
“Begin with art, because art tries to take us outside ourselves. It is a matter of trying to create an atmosphere and context so conversation can ﬂow back and forth and we can be inﬂuenced by each other.”
-W.E.B. DuBois, American Civil Rights Activist
This section examines a slightly different use of culture in managing inter-or intra-governmental conﬂicts, namely the practice known as arts for peacebuilding. Also known as post-conﬂict reconstruction, peacebuilding is a process that facilitates the establishment of durable peace by addressing root causes and effects of conﬂict through reconciliation, institution building and political as well as economic transformation14. Encompassing traditional conﬂict management, peacebuilding is an emerging ﬁeld that draws on a variety of tools and practices from mediation, to civic dialogue initiatives, to the arts with a focus on reconciling opponents. In addressing the underlying causes of protracted conﬂict, it takes into account the psychological and emotional components and the relationships between antagonist groups. Thus, it recognizes that the most reprehensible conﬂicts stem not only from insuffciently fulﬁlled material needs, but also from needs related to identity. Indeed, with the decline of interstate wars, violent conﬂict increasingly stems from a government or a societal majority denying a particular identity group’s need to feel accepted and legitimized. Current examples include ongoing conﬂicts in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Kurds in Turkey and Iraq, and the Israeli/Palestinian conﬂict. In these situations, it is necessary to establish enough trust and empathy between the conﬂicting parties to begin a dialogue that seeks to address the political issues. Art, with its inherent ability to reach people on emotional, psychological, and spiritual levels, can be instrumental in this process.
Able to express emotion without words, art transcends divisions of race, ethnicity, religion, or any other potentially divisive markers of identity. As such, nongovernmental organizations and other societal stakeholders often facilitate grassroots arts projects to reduce tensions between groups with competing ideas, values, and practices. This practice, known as community-based arts, relies on painting, music, ﬁlm, dance, and theater as a tool of communication central to understanding others’ viewpoints. A variety of types of interactive theater (also known as social theater) constitutes an especially effective forum in which conﬂicting parties can walk in one another’s shoes. Sometimes these projects involve professional artists or actors, but the focus remains on active participation by the local community to jump-start the reconciliation process. Ideally, community-based arts projects act as a catalyst to trigger events or changes at the community, national, or international levels. “While it is unlikely that community-arts processes can halt violence or directly address the structural and economic components of conﬂict, it is clear that they can play an important role in building relationships between groups in conﬂict, fostering reconciliation and healing.” Peacebuilding thus represents another area where the arts can play a pivotal role in international affairs.
Three approaches to peacebuilding incorporate community-based arts. The common thread linking all these approaches lies in their reliance on art to bridge misunderstandings and lead to an exchange of ideas. According to the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy, “the connections that art creates between people means that it is able to humanize where politics polarizes(15).” In one approach, individuals seek to resist and protest against violence through artistic processes. During the heightened phase of the conﬂict, they use the arts as an open platform for free speech and expression, which can be an especially effective means for exposing social issues in societies where such freedoms are restricted. A second approach focuses on using creative therapies to promote healing of individuals who have suffered because of conﬂict and/or trauma.(16) A third approach, known as arts for peacebuilding, presents the most direct link to conﬂict resolution. It involves an NGO or another facilitator gathering groups from different sides of a conﬂict to participate in community arts projects. Sometimes the artistic product focuses explicitly on the conﬂict, while other times it is simply an exercise to foster empathy, serving as a precursor to more traditional methods of diplomatic conﬂict management. Examples of using art to transform individuals by developing understanding on an emotional level include: producing a bilingual Hebrew/Arabic play starring Jewish and Arab Israeli actors (Peace Child Israel), painting a mural with children from Iraq and the United States (Iraqi Childrens’ Art Exchange), and practicing art therapy with victims of apartheid (Center for Art Therapy, South Africa), to name a few.
One such organization, Search for Common Ground works with locals groups to determine innovative ways to ﬁnd common ground between opposing sides. Its mission to transform the international community’s approach to conﬂict toward cooperative solutions is often served by incorporating community-based arts projects. A recent project took place in Angola, where Search for Common Ground recorded, produced, and distributed a CD entitled "Angola Solta a Tua Voz" (Angola Lift Up Your Voice). The project aimed to motivate and inspire Angolan citizens to support their country’s emerging democracy by participating in the parliamentary elections of September 2008. These elections represented a pivotal test to Angola’s stability, only recently and fragilely established by a ceaseﬁre in 2002, ending the civil war that plagued the country since its independence from Portugal in 1975(17). Decades of ﬁghting resulted in deep societal divisions that continued to threaten the peace after the ceaseﬁre agreement.
Search for Common Ground has been working in Angola since 1996. The organization leads a variety of projects aiming to empower civil society, to support peaceful elections education, and to work with military, police, ex-combatants, and local militia to promote social justice and security. The arts serve a complementary role to, or in some cases the very basis of, these projects. For example, "Angola Solta a Tua Voz," builds on the success of a previous Search For Common Ground music initiative in Angola, carried out while the conﬂict was still ongoing in 1998. That initial song, “A Paz a Que Povo Chama” (The People Are Calling for Peace), became Angola’s anthem for peace and was played at the signing of the peace accords. In this follow-up project, two of Angola’s most popular singers hailing from different societal factions co-produced a series of duets advocating reconciliation. Fusing different styles from different parts of the country and transcending generational gaps, the CD symbolically marks the beginning of a new era in Angola characterized by inclusion, participation, and unity. Using high proﬁle public events to launch the CD and ensuring its widespread distribution across Angola, media attention, and radio airtime, Search for Common Ground helped foster enough national unity to prevent the anticipated violent outbreaks surrounding Angola’s 2008 legislative elections. While obstacles remain to Angola’s transition to a stable democracy, the success of “Angola Solta a Tua Voz” brings sense of hope.
Following the elections, the National Assembly established a constitutional commission tasked with drafting a national constitution. The country’s next big test will be to undergo presidential elections (originally scheduled for 1997, but repeatedly postponed and now tentatively scheduled for 2010). Consequently, Search for Common Ground initiated School Parliament, a project designed to instill understanding of the inner workings of democracy and to nurture the analytical and public speaking skills in Angola’s youth, comprising sixty percent of the population. Funded by the British government’s Conﬂict Prevention Pool, School Parliament invites students between the ages of ﬁfteen and twenty to model the Angolan legislature, debating issues and drafting legislature with the aim to prepare them to participate in public governance(18). Other projects underway includes a radio program reinforcing the notion that Angolans share a common history and vibrant cultural heritage, and that they can learn and celebrate together. A second radio program capitalizes on soccer, a favorite Angolan past-time, to promote the concept of a national identity by demonstrating how common interests can bring people together from across ethnic, regional, and political divides(19). Thus seeking to lay the groundwork for a vibrant Angola able to become an integral member of the international community, Search for Common Ground has developed a variety of peacebuilding projects, some of which successfully incorporate the arts.
13-Nye, Joseph S. Jr.,The Paradox of American Power: Why the Worldʼs Only Superpower Can’t Go It Alone, New York: Oxford University Press, 2002. 14-John’s Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies Conﬂict Management Toolkit: http://www.sais-jhu.edu/cmtoolkit 15 “Art as Cultural Diplomacy. ”The Institute for Cultural Diplomacy: http://www.culturaldiplomacy.org/index.php?en_programs_art 16-Zelizer, Craig. “Integrating Community Arts and Conﬂict Resolution: Lessons and Challenges from the Field”. Community Arts Network, 2005 http://www.communityarts.net/readingroom/archiveﬁles/2007/06/integrating_com.php 17-The previous round of parliamentary elections in 1992 had plunged the country into a renewed round of violence when the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA) rejected the narrow victory of the Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA). Having once fought side by side against Portugal, since Angola’s independence these two groups turned against each other in one of the Cold War’s most prominent proxy wars, with UNITA receiving military aid from the United States and the MPLA receiving Soviet Union support. 18-Search for Common Ground http://www.sfcg.org/programmes/angola/angola_update.html 19-Ibid
Stimulating cross-cultural appreciation and dialogue among adversarial states or within a divided country is an appropriate, cost-effective, and increasingly accepted means of mitigating conﬂict. When practiced by foreign ministries it generally takes the form of cultural diplomacy, focusing primarily on ameliorating intergovernmental relations and shaping international public opinion in order to prevent conﬂict. However, the process of using culture to attract foreign governments and international public opinion to one’s national ideology and values, is a long-term endeavor requiring patience and persistence. Cultural diplomacy’s intrinsic value lies in its ability to connect people on a human level, which can go a long way in creating an atmosphere of trust, essential in international politics. In a related endeavor, NGOs and other actors use community-based arts to resolve conﬂicts from a bottom-up approach, working with local populations directly affected by conﬂict. In this role too, the utility of culture is signiﬁcant when combined with other methods of conﬂict resolution. Actors engaged in peacebuilding focus on reconciliation, community building, and empowering today’s youth in hopes that they will be better equipped to resolve the conﬂicts they inherit from the present generation.
Reﬂecting on these and other examples of cultural diplomacy and arts for peacebuilding begs fundamental questions about the international community’s approach to conﬂict resolution. In a 1994 Foreign Affairs article, Walter Laqueur argued controversially that cultural diplomacy would continue to be relevant beyond the context of the threat of Communist ideology and even gain signiﬁcance as the use of traditional diplomacy and military power diminished(20). Today, the Obama administration is joining the chorus of European nations calling for increased multilateralism and emphasis on diplomacy over the use force in dealing with security threats and violent conﬂicts. Still, in light of continued reliance on American hard power to achieve foreign policy goals as evidenced by a military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan and frequent use of economic sanctions and other coercive measures, is it realistic to expect a fundamental shift from hard to soft power in the near future? As the ﬁrst decade of the twenty-ﬁrst century draws to a close, it appears that the international community is shifting its thinking about the role of military intervention, traditional and non-traditional forms of diplomacy, and humanitarian missions carried out by members of civil society. In the transition from a unipolar to multipolar world order, it becomes increasingly clear that reliance on hard power alone is insuffcient to address twenty-ﬁrst century security threats, including threats to human security.
Consequently, states and international organizations are likely to depend increasingly on civil-military operations to resolve conﬂict, with the military establishing security and providing logistical support for NGOs to focus on peacebuilding. This concept is not new, but is worth re-examining in light of the current normative shift away from measuring power capabilities by military might toward measuring them by their level of effectiveness in preventing and resolving conﬂict. In Afghanistan the provincial reconstruction teams building infrastructure, supplying schools, and performing other tasks that traditionally fall outside the military mandate exempliﬁes this trend. However, unless military and civilian objectives are aligned and pursued in a complementary manner, there is a risk that short term gains attainable through hard power might undermine long-term foreign policy objectives advanced by soft power strategies. In other words, cultural diplomacy and peacebuilding efforts will remain ineffective in Afghanistan as long as NATO air strikes continue to hit civilians. Thus, increased pursuit of soft power strategies and the continued use of hard power capabilities are not mutually exclusive, but their ideal relationship remains to be determined. The current trend toward greater coordination among military and civilian conﬂict resolution missions is promising. It gives a greater role to organizations such as Search For Common Ground, whose experience working with local populations increases their ability to recognize and address the human needs that fuel conﬂict when left unfulﬁlled. Within this context, the primordial appeal and universality of art make it a very effective tool for facilitating negotiations at the government level, attracting the hearts and minds of target populations, and fostering a sense of community in divided societies. In conclusion, if one interprets power as a state’s ability to solve problems, then the exercise of soft-power, in which art plays a vital role, becomes crucial in securing international peace and stability.
20-Laqueur, Walter. “Save Public Diplomacy: Broadcasting America’s Message Matters.” Foreign Affairs. Sept/Oct 1994.
Arndt, Richard T., The First Resort of Kings: American Cultural Diplomacy in the Twentieth Century. Washington, D.C.: Potomac Books, 2005.
Barrett, Barbara M., Chair. 2004 Report of the United States Advisory Committee on Public Diplomacy. Submitted to the President, Congress, the Department of State, and the American people on September 28, 2004.
Clevland, W. “Making Exact Change: How U.S. Arts-Based Programs Have Made A Signiﬁcant and Sustained Impact on Their Communities Art in the Public Interest.” Community Arts Network, 2005. http://www.communityarts.net/readingroom/archive/mec/index.php
Cultural Diplomacy The Linchpin of Public Diplomacy Report of the Advisory Committee on Cultural Diplomacy U.S. Department of State. September 2005
Cummings, Milton C. Jr. “Cultural Diplomacy and the United States Government: A Survey”, Washington, D.C: Center for Arts and Culture, 2003
Kalmanowitz, D & Lloyd, B. Art Therapy and Political Violence. Routledge, 2005.
Laqueur, Walter. “Save Public Diplomacy: Broadcasting Americaʼs Message Matters.” Foreign Affairs. Sept/Oct 1994.
Lederach, J.P. The Moral Imagination: The Art and Soul of Building Peace. Oxford UniversityPress, 2005.
Mitchell, Mark C.R. The Structure of International Conﬂict . New York: St. Martinʼs Press, 1981
Nye, Joseph S. Jr., The Paradox of American Power: Why the World’s Only Superpower Can’t Go It Alone, New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.
Peterson, Peter G. Finding Americaʼs Voice: A Strategy for Reinvigorating U.S. Public Diplomacy. New York: Council on Foreign Relations, 2003.
Philipps, G.L. “Can there be "music for peace"?” International Journal of World Peace, 21( 2), 63-74, 2005 http://0- proquest.umi.com.library.lausys.georgetown.edu:80/pqdweb?did=766211671&sid=1&Fmt=3&clientId=5604&RQT=309&VName=PQD
Sablosky, Juliet Antunes. “Recent Trends in Department of State Support for Cultural Diplomacy: 1993-2002 Cultural Diplomacy Research Series. Center for Arts and Culture 2003.
Schneider, Cynthia P. “Culture and Diplomacy” class presentation at Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service, 2006.
About the author
Alana Chloe Esposito is a civil society leader with more than 12 years of combined experience in journalism, human rights advocacy, foreign policy, and the arts. She currently directs international policy and engagement for Common Ground, a Greek initiative to accelerate progress on social issues from greening the economy to reducing inequalities to safeguarding refugee rights -- through strategic cooperation.
In her previous capacity as a journalist, she wrote about art and cultural diplomacy for publications including The New York Times and served as UN correspondent for several media outlets, reporting through the lens of gender equality on topics including refugee experiences, sexual violence in conflict, and the UN's global development agenda.
She holds a B.S. in Foreign Service from Georgetown University and a M.A. in International Affairs from Sciences Po Paris and is a Senior Fellow of the Dietrich Bonhoeffer Institute. alanaesposito.com
Articles selected from the news media by Alana Chloe Esposito: