In the spring of 1998 there was a large international UNESCO meeting in Stockholm with many cultural ministers participating. The meeting discussed the report “Our  Creative Diversity” and adopted a plan of action, “Cultural Policy for Development”, often called “The Stockholm model”. According to the plan of action both the central UNESCO organization and the member states should perform a series of actions.

After five years a number of national UNESCO commissions were unsatisfied with what UNESCO has done. They decided to arrange a meeting for national commissions five years after the first meeting.

The meeting took place in a hotel in a suburb of Stockholm. Most participants were official delegates from national commissions for UNESCO or from ministries. NGOs had also been invited and of the about 150 participants around 20 were representing NGOs. Some officials from the UNESCO office in Paris were also there. From KLYS we were two persons who followed most sessions.

The meeting was organized in four main themes:

·        Cultural policies and eradication of poverty

·        Cultural policies and cultural diversity

·        Cultural policy and education for all

·        Cultural policies in the information society.

This report is mostly made with photographs and short texts to go with them. The last part contains some reflections to sum up the meeting.

Cultural policies and sustainable development

About 150 persons took part in the Stockholm+5 meeting.

Ingegerd Wärnersson, chair of the Swedish Commission for UNESCO, welcomed the participants. On the first conference in 1998 there was enthusiasm, she said. But what happened after that?

Lourdes Arizpe was a driving force within UNESCO before the conference in Stockholm 1998. She remarked that a rapid economic development demands sacrifice in the field of social institutions. Few countries are willing to pay the full prize for a fast economic development. And she quoted Ghandi: “No economy has a value in itself, only as a contribution to the social system”. Without cultural diversity the globalisation cannot continue. Diversity is a prerequisite for development. The people must decide if it is willing to sacrifice materially to be able to preserve it’s culture – that is not a question for experts or politicians.

-We need a new language to be able to have an inter-cultural dialogue where we talk about traditional culture and new culture, Arizpe said. The specialization of artists and the cultural field is part of a commercialism that gives divided cultural civilizations. Instead we need a new cultural understanding in the world. Culture is not a thing outside human actions. And it is not that certain people are cultural. The concept of culture must reflect the feelings of human beings. When people discover their own surroundings they are tools for their own development. The process to involve people in the local community must be a goal for cultural policy.

At a round table discussion participants and audience tried to answer the question about why there is a need for cultural policies for development. Angeline Kamba, to the right in red shirt, said that people must decide over their lives, over matters that give them better housing, roads, water and possibilities to a better dialogue with the power. We must find a link between culture and all other areas of politics, all development. And in this development people should decide over their own faith, locally. The politicians must trust the civil society and allow a free cultural expression. Policies should not come from the government, instead from the wishes of the people. The government must consult the people.

-But we have lacked a good language to describe this, Kamba said. The government has a very weak analytical capacity in this field and the scientists have not come very far either.

-Men det har inte funnits något bra språk att beskriva det här på, menade Kamba. Myndigheterna har en mycket liten analytisk kapacitet på området och forskarna har inte heller kommit långt.

The English scientist Colin Mercer, far right on the picture, said that the most severe obstacle is the lack of a definition of culture. He also talked about good and bad exploitation of copyright. The copyright must be able to be exploited by the artists themselves, even the resources of the local culture.

Several in the audience had comments. Shouldn’t we exchange experience about the Stockholm action plan here? Formulate something less academic!

A representative from Sudan questioned the capabilities of governments to enforce the Stockholm action plan. The local community must do it on their own! But how? How can UNESCO support that?

A representative from Togo said that on his continent they had copied a model that does not correspond to their own needs. The Western world has imposed a model on us and the politicians manipulate culture.

Another speaker from the audience said that the CNN, the BBC and other large media make it difficult for local communities to define a culture of their own.

And Lourdes Arizpe said that she had been taking part in the World Economic Forum in Davos. There the economists realize that much has gone wrong and that they must enclose ethics in their plans of action.

Amareswar Galla said that his parents and a large part of the family died by poisoned food together with 40 000 other Indians. During his many-coloured youth, with among others contact with hippies from the West, he met Mother Theresa who said: “Do never use the word poverty”. Galla stressed that this is a matter of self respect and self conscience, even among white people. We must find methods to increase people’s self-esteem. In Vietnam, where he works with a UNESCO project, the project had collected good models from many countries. Then the participants could choose among these models.

The Stockholm action plan is important, Galla said. We must operationalize it. Most available tools are extern, well-intentioned, from above. The people concerned must have the tools in their hands. It is a problem to go around the gate keepers to give the tools to the people concerned.

And he remarked that Stockholm+5 and Rio+10 are two streams that have to be forced into the same context.

Penina Mlama from Kenya said that it is very complicated nationally to link culture to development. How do we do it? Have we really tried? Here the local community must have an important role.

–I had expected that UNESCO should have done more against poverty in the world, said Jean-Pierre Boyer from the French national commission for UNESCO. Instead poverty has increased, even in the rich countries. This is an ethical and democratic question, to make people manage things themselves. Are there any suggestions to UNESCO how they should continue the task?

Aida de Fishman, specialist in human rights, culture and development from Costa Rica, said that many economists have refused to recognize culture as something of value. Experts have proposed democracy of a Western type without considering that the societies are radically different.

-It has been common with that type of solutions, a given set of solutions.

And she asked herself if culture can contribute to eradicate poverty. Yes! The IMF and World Bank are not yet strong enough on this field but a common action from several international bodies can have success.

Speakers from the audience questioned the IMF and the World Bank. Of course they must give lip service when people are demonstrating in the streets. But that does not change much. The gap between rich and poor is widening, even in rich countries like Austria. The welfare state is cut down, including pension systems. And culture is becoming a product among other products.

But Katérina Stenou from UNESCO expressed the view that if we should be practical and find solutions for cultural development we must be positive to the IMF and the World Bank. A man from Togo said that the IMF and the World Bank do not have time to look at the cultural projects in his country and the sustainable aspect is forgotten.

-We need an UNESCO intervention.

Alberta Arthurs work for the American Foundation and other foundations in the USA. She remarked that diversity is a complex concept in the USA. Americans have two strategies to handle diversity, to hide it, alternatively to stress it. A somewhat peculiar thing is the multicultural background among film makers I Hollywood. There arts have overcome the differences. And she said that the world is much more sensitive for cultural matters today than 1998. Today there is an interest for culture on the global agenda.

–All cultures must have the possibility to express their identity, said Angeline Kamba from Zimbabwe, one of the authors behind “Our Creative Diversity”. The UNESCO declaration on cultural diversity is an immense progress. We must have more understanding for one another, not look at culture as something that divides us. Much of the violence lately is blamed on cultural diversity. But often cultural diversity is manipulated in the interest of certain groups. It is not diversity in itself that causes the violence. We must interact to be able to exist together, cultural diversity does not exist in a vacuum.

-Even arts is used by politicians as a propaganda weapon. That is some of the worst things that can happen. We must continue to defeat that.

Kamba stressed the role of mass media. In Africa local newspapers and radio stations are important. They can use local languages. And she quoted Nelson Mandela – the media should be seen as a window towards the world through which the people can see the rest of the world. According to Kamba media policies must be sensitive to the culture of the people. And the media must give full exposure to the culture of the people.

Cathrine Tasca from Agence de la Frankophonie in Paris had the view that the subject of cultural diversity has advanced since 1998. It is not any longer a thing for few countries or groups. But we must find ways to implement the ideas. We must decide for the future. That will be a battle between market forces and other forces. Each culture must have a space of their own and possibilities to express themselves.

Tasca discussed globalisation through information technology. It is of both good and bad. Ideas and goods can be circulated. But IT is at the same time a strong force towards uniform thinking. Therefore we are in a hurry to do something. The tools we need for that are a strong budget and media policies. One of the large deficiencies today is the lack of rules for media concentration, according to Catherine Tasca.

-We cannot allow a continued liberalization of culture. We must make cultural diversity concrete in an international law within the frames of UNESCO. That will have to be done fast before the WTO decides about Gats. Then there can be a harmonic coexistence with the trade agreements.

A representative from Croatia agreed. If liberalization has gone too far governments can no longer support their own cultural industry. And then they cannot support their own diversity.

Here Sveinn Einarsson from Island, also in the board of UNESCO, gave examples from his home country. Eighty percent of the TV programmes and films in Icelandic television is from the USA or England – without text in Icelandic. Restaurants and shops have English names. The data language is a mixture of Icelandic and English.

I hate these tendencies! It is about our dignity.

Arief Rachman from Indonesia released urgently needed laughs when he told a story about how his country had been divided into two parties by an ultra modern sexy dancer. The religious groups had a strong negative reaction to her dance but the dancer won a case at court in the name of freedom of expression. And Rachman asked for advice about what he should say to the dancer. The meeting gave him lots of friendly advice.

The South African journalist and Pulitzer prize winner Allister Sparks meant that cultural imperialism is dividing the world into internationalists and fundamentalists. The USA asks why we hate them. They get no answer. The hate is described as envy. We must show them how economy and democracy works. The only weapon against cultural imperialism so far is terrorism. No other weapons have emerged. If one wants to defeat the USA hatred one must understand it. But the melting pot understands so little, it does not want to, it is mono cultural.

Sparks could see that much has happened since 1998. We have had two wars and one Bush doctrine. Value systems are imposed on countries with a totally different background. He saw the UNESCO convention as defensive. There is also a need for cultural education, not only for governments but also for companies, for the “electronic herd” that is chasing around the world. They have a radar to find places to invest in. If your country does not fit it is gone from the radar screens. Rich are becoming richer, poor poorer.

And the media must be on good terms with the elite. If they want to be rebels they will soon be gone.

Sparks cited Göran Löfdahl, one of the Swedes behind the Stockholm conference 1998: “We give UNESCO a chance. Now it is up to them to prove it”. He should have been disappointed, Sparks thought. The question now is how the convention should be used in the member countries.

Carl-Johan Kleberg was engaged in research matters during the Stockholm conference. He now brought up the difficulties with cultural research. The universities are divided in sectors that make a cultural research over the borders difficult. That is bad because research could give a better knowledge as a basis for discussion about cultural diversity. Yet he saw a possibility when UNESCO now plans to increase their department of statistics. There are also plans, this time outside the UNESCO, to publish a World Cultures Yearbook.

Alberta Arthurs asked for research that connects the arts with society and Amerswar Galla said that in Australian universities there are 262 scientists interested in partnerships with European scientists. With a better network several projects could be enforced.

Colin Mercer talked about a new architecture of knowledge. Research about and with the local community gives new prerequisites. One example: Aborigines in Australia learned to see which place they had in a value chain when they sold their pieces of art. The important thing is to make them see their place in a larger perspective. The quality control of action research, in partnership with local society and the like also will have another character.

Milagros Del Corral, UNESCO:

-Conclusions? Mission impossible. Five years is too short for an evaluation. The real challenge is a true dialogue. UNESCO is you!

Marita Ulvskog, Swedish cultural minister, was the last speaker. She remarked that some things have happened in five years, but not as much as she had hoped. Now each country must take responsibility for an own discussion about cultural diversity, both about global and internal matters. Diversity must be about protecting one’s own culture but also about openness towards other cultures. Then there can be a richness of cultures.

Economic globalisation and media concentration has created a dominant media industry. This imposes a need to protect cultural diversity. Policies are needed so that all cultures can be heard – hard but necessary.

-I want an international framework for cultural diversity to be on the UNESCO general assembly agenda for the meeting this autumn.

-The media sector is in the centre of globalisation, and it is a fast and radical change. Concentration of media ownership nationally and globally can be dangerous. There public service can be a strong counterforce.

For the future Ulvskog wanted to see support for public service, a media discussion – about who is owning the media and about power over the media sector. In this discussion UNESCO is an important meeting place for exchange of experience and for common action.

And she promised that Sweden will bring forth what has been said on the Stockholm+5 meeting.

The point of departure for the Stockholm+5 meeting was that there is a wide spread dissatisfaction with UNESCO for not having done much of the Stockholm action plan from 1998. The meeting Stockholm+5 should have as it’s task to adopt a resolution to send to UNESCO with a summing up of what had happened since 1998 and views about the actions of UNESCO.

Of that was not much. A couple of Swedish scientists made an inquiry to the national UNESCO commissions. The commissions should answer how they thought that they had achieved the national goals from the Stockholm action plan since 1998. The inquiry was large and detailed and hard to answer, few countries answered, fewer in time. It was impossible for the scientists to process the material statistically. What could be concluded was that very little had been done to achieve the goals for the states from the action plan. One positive thing in the answers was that several respondents said that the discussions around the Stockholm conference 1998 had had a good influence on the national discussions about cultural politics.

Then what happened at the Stockholm+5 meeting? The part of the action plan about what central UNESCO should do was vaguely treated. The four themes for the meeting were about the content of the plan and as such interesting. But here was no systematic overview of how questions had been treated by UNESCO or how changes in the world since 1998 had influenced the result. Several speakers were critical, for UNESCO representatives to eventually adopt.

The character of an official UNESCO meeting contributed to the vague outcome of it. The NGOs were invited very late and they were supposed to finance their own travel costs. Around 20 NGO-representatives where on the meeting. That could have been used to create a less internal, more common, meeting. The UNESCO tradition was unlucky. The official delegations from national UNESCO commissions apparently look at themselves as official delegations of their country, wanting an official treatment. UNESCO has earlier spent large resources on delegations and there founded some kind of tradition. To the meeting in Stockholm now some came with thanks from their governments for being invited. Some of them – luckily a minority – seemed to have little knowledge about the Stockholm action plan.

The character of official UNESCO meeting was negative in several ways. The theme discussions were often interrupted by official declarations (that the moderator could not interrupt without being impolite). The moderators therefore had a passive role and when they should sum up their respective theme it was only possible to sum up the different speeches, not any common conclusions. If the organizers instead had arranged a more common meeting, considering the mixed audience, with more common debate rules, more tough moderators (who then could have shortened some speeches with up to half an hour), then we could have had a debate worth the name. The meeting was intense, from 9.30 in the morning to 10 in the evening. The curtains of words were massive, with a glimpse of light here and there.

Katérina Stenou is the head of cultural affairs in UNESCO and she took part in the whole meeting. Also her predecessor and other UNESCO representatives were there. At some instances they got criticism from speakers for having not done anything to reach the goals of the action plan. In large the criticism was not answered. What will happen now in UNESCO? You can just guess.

A slight suspicion is that this vagueness is part of the UNESCO culture. That can be a good lesson to be aware of in the actions of KLYS and INCD in the future. It will certainly be a culture with tendencies to protect status quo. If we should take part some more time we must demand open meetings, with a more clear structure leading towards open and clear goals.

Bernt Lindberg