As a discussion document, the primary aim is to deepen the debate on the question of a South African cultural diplomacy capability.
The mission of the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO) is to shape and sustain South African foreign policy and promote the growth and development of Africa. On the whole, the department’s record in advancing South Africa’s strategic interests during the post-apartheid era has been commendable. But, as one study recently concluded, DIRCO can do far better, suggesting inter alia that the diplomatic corps is not doing enough to promote South Africa’s most powerful and persuasive “global brand” – namely, its democratic credentials and values.
This document contends that DIRCO is missing an essential building block in the construction of the South African brand, namely culture. Currently, the department does not recognise ‘culture diplomacy’ as a core diplomatic tool, instead relying on traditional tools of foreign policy – politics, economics and defence – to conduct its business. This poses a potential problem. Culture is important to diplomacy, first of all, because cultural differences often escalate into conflict, as Samuel Huntington famously noted in his 1993 article in Foreign Affairs.
Thus, without an understanding of another society’s culture, it is difficult to settle differences with that society – or, if necessary, to influence it. Culture, conversely, provides an easily accessible base to promote a country’s image. This point is succinctly underlined by Janis van der Westhuizen in a detailed study of national branding, entitled “Beyond Mandela mania”, when he states, “Culture attracts because it sets apart”.
Yet, despite the seemingly obvious connection between culture and the national interest, a casual perusal of DIRCO’s key policy documents, such as 2011 White Paper on South Africa’s Foreign Policy and the Revised Strategic Plan 2015-2020, suggests a clear lack of reference to the concept of cultural diplomacy. This is unsurprising, given that its requirements sit rather uneasily with traditional diplomatic practices. That is, diplomats have tended to insist that culture “is not the real work of foreign ministries,” and therefore have not cared to include culture, for example, in the academic training of future diplomats. In South Africa case, culture is also said to be neglected by DIRCO, because the department (and government in general) is “burdened by other pressing priorities of state, bread and butter issues”.
But this kind of thinking, according to former South African diplomat Costa Georghiou, has restricted the effectiveness of South African foreign policy. In his view, South African diplomats should diversify their tools and include cultural diplomacy as a strategy to create “favourable conditions” for achieving the country's foreign policy goals.
While Georghiou’s point is certainly valid, it may fall on deaf ears. This is because the international relations department “has remained non-committal” on the matter, at least according to Graham who goes on to explain that, “despite several pronouncements [of inter-departmental cooperation], the DAC and DIRCO [have] not come together at executive level to coordinate and cooperate on South Africa’s cultural diplomacy”. This effectively implies that DAC, at this stage, is the leading implementing and coordinating department for cultural diplomacy in South Africa. Again, this is problematic, seeing as the culture department is not mandated to carry out foreign policy. This duty rests primarily with DIRCO (and, in practical terms, also the South African Presidency).
But what is the fuss over cultural diplomacy? And does it deserve serious attention by South African policymakers? As a point of departure, DAC defines the term as “the use of culture to further international policy objectives”. Likewise, foreign relations expert Simon Mark proposes that cultural diplomacy is the “deployment of a state’s culture in support of its foreign policy goals or diplomacy”. The German-based Institute for Cultural Diplomacy (ICD) adopts a broader definition of the term, identifying cultural diplomacy as the “exchange of ideas, values, traditions and other aspects of culture or identity, whether to strengthen relationships, enhance sociocultural co-operation or promote national interest”.
While these definitions are closely related, the truth is that the field of study around cultural diplomacy is not easy to understand. For a start, there is no standard definition of the term or what it precisely constitutes. No doubt, this is because culture means different things to different people (and also because the term’s significance has been diluted by the popular usage of phrases such ‘business culture’, ‘drug culture’, ‘internet culture’ and so forth). Furthermore, a variety of local and international studies on cultural diplomacy propose different characteristics, use interchanging terms, and often attempt to distinguish it from overlapping concepts, including public diplomacy, foreign cultural policy and international cultural relations (the extent of this confusion is discussed further in section 2 in the context of setting out cultural diplomacy’s key characteristics).
Fortunately, history provides us with plenty examples of cultural diplomacy, and why the practice of culture penetration is important for states and international relations. For example, from the mid-1800s, Japan is attributed for employing “semi-forceful” measures to integrate itself into the modern international system, particularly through the use of international exhibitions in Europe; these exhibitions “not only provided Japan with modern technology and stimulate its economy, but also improved its international status and served as an important tool in shaping Western images of Japan”. During the Cold War, American cultural-diplomatic initiatives “almost replaced normal diplomatic relations” with the Soviet bloc, to the point that the fall of the Berlin wall is often attributed to the undermining power of American jeans, rather than jets. Nowadays, European states and their ascendant counterparts in Asia and South America are extremely active in marketing their culture and language worldwide through formal cultural institutions and networks, such as the Institute Français and the Japan Foundation. While the direct impact of this infrastructure is rather difficult to measure, its purpose is to build relationships based on common values, not only for the creative sector,16 but also for the “steady flow of global commerce and politics”.
While some countries take cultural diplomacy seriously, others less so. South Africa has a government public relations office housed in DIRCO, which informs the public on South African foreign policy. This unit, while doing important work, is not designed to engage and build vital relationships with government and societies abroad, which is crucial for supporting the South African national interest.
