Say No to the EU´s Damaging Cultural Policy!

Franz Kafka and Joseph Heller have both described the absurdities of existence. With Kafka, Gregor Samza wakes one morning to find himself metamorphosed into a beetle. As to ourselves, we have been changed, in the twinkling of an eye, into "EU Citizens"- Yossarian, in Joseph Heller's novel, Catch 22, can't grasp why the enemy is shooting at him in particular. In Sweden, we seem to find it difficult to grasp that we must now accept EU rules and regulations. We have already been forced to sacrifice some of our transparency laws - our civic right of access to the decision making processes of authority - and now it is the turn of our cultural policy to be "Europeanized". Of what help is it, in this respect, that the Swedish Parliament has declared that culture is to remain a free and independent arm in Sweden while at the same time it is to be shaped and sized by new lords in Brussels?

Culture is no longer free in new Europe: it must run errands. EU culture is seen chiefly as a way of advancing "European values"; in other words a purely instrumental view of the role of culture. Culture has no value in itself but is merely a tool for achieving something else. It is considered important in all cultural projects that the Commission is invoked. Cultural collaboration is regarded. exclusively as an internal European affair - as a means to bond Europe together - and must strictly follow EU rules and regulations to the letter. Only countries approved by the EU are acceptable as partners for collaboration

From having been a free and independent force, culture has been hobbled and reduced to a building block in the European fortress. Culture is no longer a window on the world but must, rather, serve as a blackout curtain. While all experience tells us that creative and innovative work arises from the meeting of different cultures, the new power lords recommend cultural incest. Project applications which, in the spirit of UNESCO, try to bridge gaps between various cultures and regions are rejected. Moreover, culture has been timetabled. All applications must reach the Commission by 4 April - otherwise no money.

Nor does the fact that the application forms which must be filled in run to more than 50 pages, and are wholly incomprehensible to many creative workers, seem to worry those in power, for a new cadre of project managers are now offering their services - at juicy prices, naturally. They also find appropriate collaboration partners to meet the special requirements demanded by the EU programmes. And all of a sudden we have a new cultural infrastructure that is literally made to fit the EU forms. The applications are then considered by a "covert" panel consisting of cultural representatives from the various member countries. The decision to withhold the names of the members of this panel was based on the fear that they might be exposed to threats and bribes from their respective countrymen. This reasoning tells us more, of course, about the EU bureaucracy's own customs and craving than about the cultural welfare of Europe it professes to serve. On the other hand, it is most distasteful to see how creative people throughout Europe seem to resign themselves to this new order of things. At least they do not protest loudly, for if they did they might be blackballed by Brussels. Joseph Heller, where are you?

From the very start, the EU was agreed that the principle of subsidiarity - the right of each individual nation to arrive at its own decisions - should to a large extent apply specifically to cultural policy. European diversity is often displayed in EU rhetoric as in UNESCO- as exemplary. And yet Brussels pretentions of cultural clout have grown with the years. More than anything, the bureaucrats have interfered in cultural collaboration projects and introduced a whole series of conditions, frequently with devastating results. It is doubtful whether even Kafka or Heller could compete with the Commission's officers when they argue for allowing themselves freedom from responsibility and when they turn black into white. Let me cite a recent example:

In 1966, an international centre for writers and translators was established in Rhodes, "The Centre of Three Seas". The centre was the outcome of a historic cruise, for writers and literary translators, in the Black Sea and the Aegean in the Greek ship, World Renaissance. Aboard her were some 400 writers and translators from 30 countries. Two years before, a similar cruise had taken place in the Baltic, with 300 writers and translators on the Russian ship, Konstantin Simonov, with the creation of the Baltic centre for writers and translators as a result. Debates and seminars relating to trans-border cultural. collaboration were also held in the Black Sea. Readings and public discussions were arranged at various ports of call. When the cruise was over, a follow-up meeting was held in Thessaloniki, where representatives of Rhodes Municipality stated their interest in offering to host an international centre for writers and translators. Both these initiatives may be seen as the contribution of culture and above all of writers to the historic changes that have taken place in Europe after 1989.

That literary Europe, in this manner, has established two unique meeting-places for literary creation and exchange of ideas should, you would think, win appreciation among all who affirm they stand on the side of international cultural collaboration. This was why the writers' initiative in Rhodes brought an application, which was approved, for money from the EU to be used as travel grants to writers and translators in need of such funding. The Commission's Martine Van Dreische signed a contract dated 13 December 1999, which was forwarded to me in my capacity as deputy chairman in the Three Seas Writers' Council. I signed this promising contract, in which the sum of 50,000 Euros was placed at our disposal. I received my copy of the signed contract a month or so later. The contract was stamped as registered on 11 January 2000.

It was, naturally, with great pleasure I was able to inform our committee in Rhodes that we were now able to distribute some 25 bona fide grants. But the pleasure was brief and came to an abrupt end. For when, as asked, I submitted my requisition for the approved monies, I was informed that they should have been requisitioned and used up in 1999, since they came under the "Ariane Programme", which terminated at the end of 1999. When I replied to the effect that we surely could not pay out money we had not received, I was informed that no further grants would be forthcoming, as the contribution related to fiscal year 1999. But what about the contract? The one that was registered early in January 2000? That had no bearing on the matter. The money should have been disbursed in 1999. In other words, Catch 22!

It now became apparent, however, that 18 of the 25 prospective beneficiaries had actually visited the centre in 1999, so I wrote yet again to the wise ones in Brussels. The reply ran: If we could show that we had actually disbursed the travel grants to those 18 people who had stayed at the centre in 1999, they would consider making a payment. But the condition was that we could produce a written statement signed by a reputable accountant. What advice would Kafka have given me?

As neither Kafka nor Heller are to be reached in Brussels today, I have had to turn to Sweden's representation there and ask for help. Byzantine consultations are said to be under way in this business between Sweden's Cultural Attaché, Hans Sand, and representatives of DG X, who are responsible for handling the EU´s cultural programmes. The tasting of this EU hotchpotch is yet to come, but if you've read your Kafka you'd be wise to assume that everything the Commission touches turns to dust. As to the grants, they collapse into nothingness, without producing a single recipient for them.

So we must conclude that the EU´s "cultural policy" has not only shown itself to be a flasco but, as time goes by, appears to be directly harmful to culture in general. Europe is acquiring a compliant and customized culture, under the direction of cultural functionaries in BrusseIs. This is ominous. What does Sweden's Cultural Minister have to say?

Peter Curman
Chairperson
KLYS