Phil Taylor's papers
|
BACK TO : THE END OF THE WAR ON TERROR?
Talking Cultural Relations by A Kneale 
Talking Cultural Relations with foreign policy thinkers in Washington 2009 December 3 The US and UK have famously been said to be 'divided by a common language'. For instance, the term 'Cultural Relations' isn't well recognized in Washington; it might conjure up images strictly of high art and champagne receptions, rather than programming that actively builds trust among young people. The foreign policy elites who deconstruct the ebb and flow of geopolitics on 'the hill', within the halls of power-house think-tanks, and amongst the prolific blogs which shape public opinion, talk more often of 'Smart Power' and the merits of strategic communications, and do not necessarily recognize the critical role of Cultural Relations. Increasingly however, I think this is more a function of language, rather than disagreement about the nature or importance of intercultural engagement. Yesterday, Chief Executive Martin Davidson and Raoul Shah - one of the British Council's trustees - were invited to participate on a roundtable at the New America Foundation, a public policy institute in Washington, DC. Steve Clemons - foreign policy analyst, political commentator and influential author of The Washington Note, hosted and facilitated a conversation about 'British Smart Power' via Skype from a hotel room in Berlin. Director of New America's Middle East Task Force, Amjad Atallah, assisted in Washington. With the backdrop of President Obama's Afghanistan strategy speech the previous night, bloggers, think-tankers and journalists at the roundtable asked questions of Martin and Raoul. They discussed the merits of public diplomacy, cultural relations and other forms of engagement with those countries in which the UK and US have a deficit of trust, with the view to identifying what sorts of practices yield more positive, credible and closer relationships with these countries for the future. Cultural Relations as a function of national security, and as a contributing factor to more stable societies the world over, is not a construct that many are used to. However, during the roundtable, Martin was quick to point out that in 1936, then British Council Chairman William Tyrrell successfully appealed to the Chancellor for more funds, making the argument that the organization should be seen as 'assisting practically in our national defence. Modern defence consists not only in arms but in removing misunderstanding and promoting understanding'. This belief, Martin said, still rings true today. Where we ended up, I think, in this fantastic conversation, was an agreement that dialogue which celebrates difference and does not seek to push false consensus, is a key element of a credible, positive global engagement. And while language is one of many barriers to our conversations (even between the US and UK) continual investment in exchange between civil societies around the world is essential for our collective futures. Andrew Kneale is Cultural Relations Project Manager at the British Council in Washington |