Iconográfico

3.2.1 A post-war spirit of reconciliation led to the establishment of interna- tional organisations, which have issued a series of cultural declarations to which national governments have signed up. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which member states of the United Nations recognised in 1948, asserts the right to participate in cultural life as being among those con-

1. The Arts Council and education, Arts Council of Ireland. Dublin, 1989.

2. We define cultural policy as the overall framework of public measures in the cultural field. They may be taken by national governments and regional and local authorities, or their agencies. A policy requires explicitly defined goals. In order to realise these goals, there need to be mecha- nisms to enable planning, implementation and evaluation.

ditions that are “necessary for human survival, integrity and human dignity”. This was confirmed by the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which guarantees participation in cultural life and protects the rights of all to benefit from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which they are the authors. States are bound by the covenant to avoid dis- crimination of any kind as to race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. 3.2.2 Of special importance is the Convention on Children’s Rights (Unit- ed Nations, 1985), which asserts in Article 31.2 that states “shall respect and promote the right of the child to participate fully in cultural and artistic life and shall encourage provision for cultural, artistic, recreational and leisure activity.”1_{The convention goes on to outline practical machinery for imple-}

mentation and follow-up.

3.2.3 Europe is one of the five “regions” that make up Unesco’s map of the world: of 185 member states only forty-seven are European and it was inevitable that Unesco’s interests should extend well beyond our continent. Nevertheless, during the cold war it maintained contact not only with governments and ministries in central and eastern Europe, but also with unof- ficial or dissident artists and intellectuals as part of its mission to promote peace, understanding, human rights and fundamental freedoms. Its initial involvement in cultural policies and cultural development in the 1960s was very much driven by Europeans. This culminated in the epoch-making International Conference on Institutional, Administrative and Financial Aspects of Cultural Policy, held in Venice in 1970. Referring to “cultural policies” in his conference address, René Maheu, Unesco Director General at the time, observed: “Who would have thought ten, even five years ago, that this provocative term – interpreted and applied in different ways cer- tainly, and not everywhere carrying the same degree of support – would one day come to stand for a set of ideas and practices sufficiently world-wide to provide the topic for so large a meeting as this? In this respect, there has undoubtedly been a very remarkable change of mind [...] moving away from the incompatibility traditionally postulated in regard to culture between gov- ernment intervention and intellectual freedom, towards a recognition, in the- ory and practice, of the state’s responsibilities to the cultural life of the nation.”2

3.2.4 The gathering in Venice signalled attitudinal changes on the part of governments, as well as drawing attention to the cultural dimension of devel- opment. Among the recommendations that followed was one on the status of the artist (1980), albeit notable more for its symbolic nature than its prac- tical effects.3_{The task of Unesco’s World Conference on Cultural Policies, held}

in Mexico City in 1982, was to assess the experience gained in cultural poli-

In from the margins

1. United Nations Convention on Children’s Rights, 1985.

2. Unesco Intergovernmental Conference on Institutional, Administrative and Financial Aspects

of Cultural Policies.Unesco. Venice, 1970.

3. Unesco, Recommendation concerning the status of the artist, General Conference of Unesco. Unesco. Belgrade, 1980.

cy studies and to elaborate new guidelines for cultural development. The 136- point Mexico City Declaration affirmed that cultural development was both the starting point and the ultimate goal of socio-economic development.1

More recently Unesco established the World Decade for Cultural Develop- ment (1988-97), from which the idea of the World Report on Culture and Development was derived. The aims of the World Decade are essentially the same as those that have guided Unesco’s work: encouraging governments to acknowledge the cultural dimension of development; affirming and enriching cultural identities; broadening participation in cultural life; and promoting international co-operation.

3.2.5 The other major aspect of Unesco’s contribution to international intellectual co-operation has been its work in the moveable and immoveable heritage. Three important conventions can be cited by way of example: first, the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (the Hague Convention, 1954); that of 1970 on the means of pro- hibiting and preventing the illicit import, export and transfer of ownership of cultural property; and the 1972 Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, which established a list of world heritage sites, many of them in Europe.

3.2.6 Another UN agency, the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), is responsible for the promotion of the protection of intellectual property, in relation both to industrial property and designs and to copy- right and neighbouring rights (for example in literary, artistic and musical works, in films, in performance and in recordings). WIPO administers various international treaties, including the Bern Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. By their action or inaction in honouring rights or preventing piracy, European countries can be both sinned against and sin- ners.

3.2.7 The Council of Europe was founded in 1949 on the basis of the prin- ciples of democracy, human rights and the pre-eminence of the rule of law. In 1954 a European Cultural Convention was signed by fourteen European countries and remains the key instrument for cultural co-operation in the larger Europe. It offers a practical and philosophical framework for the new democracies of the former Soviet bloc and provides a legal basis for common human rights in Europe. In 1958 a cultural fund was established and a Coun- cil for Cultural Co-operation came into being in 1962.

3.2.8 From the Cultural Convention until today, as Etienne Grosjean points out in his survey of the Council of Europe’s work in the field of cultural co- operation,2_{there have been five phases: first came a period of reconciliation}

where the aims were to make Europeans aware of belonging to a common civilisation and to avert a resurgence of fanatical nationalism. Special atten-

Culture as a policy domain

1. Unesco, World Conference on Cultural Policies (Mexico City, 1982), Final report. op. cit. 2. Grosjean, Etienne, European Cultural Convention 1954-94, Reference document providing

an overview of forty years of cultural co-operation, Council for Cultural Co-operation. Council of Europe. Strasbourg, 1994.

tion was paid to the teaching of history and geography and to agree on the Europe-wide equivalence of higher education qualifications. The second phase concerned mutual knowledge and recognition. With the transfer in 1960 of the Western European Union’s cultural and educational activities, the Council of Europe’s remit covered all aspects of culture and education as well as youth and the audiovisual media. The third phase centred on the creation of a common philosophy based on the concepts of cultural development, per- manent education, cultural democracy and “threshold levels” in language learning. No longer were questions confined to technical or structural improvement, but extended to the purposes of cultural action.

3.2.9 The fourth phase coincided with growing doubts about European cultural identity and the Council of Europe’s future role in the light of the growing importance of the European Community; key themes were the eco- nomics of culture and sponsorship, the education and cultural development of migrants, and education as a preparation for life and as a means of pro- moting human rights and the regional dynamics of cultural development. This was the period when programmes such as the review of national cultural poli- cies and cultural routes were introduced. An important step was the Declara- tion agreed at the Council of Europe’s Vienna Summit of Heads of State and Government in 1993. This spoke of “equality before the law, non-discrimi- nation, equality of opportunities, rights of association and meeting as well as participation in public life.” The Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (1994) was drafted subsequently. The fifth and current phase is likely to emphasise joint action in the fields of information and train- ing and the promotion of networks.

3.2.10 Some of the key issues that have pre-occupied the Council for Cul- tural Co-operation are reflected in the themes of the Conferences of Euro- pean Ministers responsible for Cultural Affairs. The debate about cultural democracy and socio-cultural animation, and the experience of local cultural policies dominated the agenda of the first conference in Oslo in 1976. These themes were picked up again in Athens two years later, when, interestingly, ministers initiated discussions on the cultural dimension of development. The role of cultural aims in social and economic development was also on the agenda of Luxembourg in 1981, when it was agreed to draft a European char- ter of cultural objectives. This charter – by now a declaration – was formally agreed three years later when the ministers met in Berlin. By 1987 and the conference in Sintra, the issue of financing culture and sponsorship was increasingly interesting ministers. Key issues at Palermo in 1990 were cultur- al diversity and the multicultural dimension, while at Paris in 1992, the min- isters addressed the issues of books and publishing and the cultural rights of minorities.

3.2.11 The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe concerned itself with cultural co-operation from 1975 and the Final Act of the Helsinki Conference made reference to information exchange and the “distribution of cultural goods”; “contacts and co-operation by people engaging in cultural activity” and, finally, to “new domains and forms” which this co-operation could take. In 1990 the Charter of Paris reinforced these accords. The estab-

lishment of the Helsinki Watch groups in eastern and central Europe boosted the process of democratisation in the countries concerned.

3.2.12 The European Union only included culture within its competence and as a field in its own right at the Treaty of Maastricht in 1992. Until then, it was seen primarily from an economic point of view and was subject to the general rules which discouraged restrictions of the free movement of people and goods and forbade all kinds of protectionism. Its specific interventions were limited – among them, the preservation of architectural heritage, sup- port for schemes such as the European Cities of Culture and European Months of Culture, and, above all, projects to support the audiovisual industries (for example, the 1989 directive, on television without frontiers, and the Media programmes). Although culture was a “grey” area, it did not prevent cultur- al issues (for example harmonisation of copyright or discrimination against other European Community nationals in the award of state subsidies) from appearing on the agendas of European Commission directorates with non- cultural responsibilities.

3.2.13 Article 128 of the Maastricht Treaty asserts that “the Community shall contribute to the flowering of the cultures of member states, while respecting their national and regional diversity and at the same time bring the common heritage to the fore”. In other words, the treaty enabled the Euro- pean Union to engage in cultural actions. However, the principle of sub- sidiarity is applied to culture and the European Union is only empowered to intervene “if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the member states and can therefore, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved by the Community.” Moreover, because it requires decisions to be taken unani- mously, Article 128 is widely regarded as much a device to control commis- sion activity in this sector as to encourage it, some countries believing that cultural action at a European level could threaten the independence of nation- al cultural policies. The potentially important Clause 4 of the treaty, which requires the commission to take into account the cultural dimension of its actions, has yet to be tested for its practical effects. The treaty is to be reviewed at the intergovernmental conference in 1996 and 1997 and there is pressure, not least from the European Parliament, to make changes or improvements; however, the signals suggest that the commission and the Council of Ministers would prefer to leave it until such time as its impact can be properly assessed.

3.2.14 The advent of Article 128 may not have resulted in the marked increase in cultural activity that had been expected in some quarters – as the task force was nearing completion of this report, the Council of Ministers were still struggling to reach consensus on the content and funding of three cultural programmes (Kaleidoscope for cultural co-operation, Raphael for the heritage and Ariane for books and translation). Nevertheless, it is significant that a number of European Commission directorates in other sectors have begun to recognise the cultural sector as important in meeting their non-cultural objectives and, in some cases, have discrete budgets in this regard.