Thomas Sutcliffe: Cultural diplomacy is simply an oxymoron

Published: 06 March 2007

Last week the British Council announced a major change to its work - the bullet point headline being a 30 per cent reduction in funding in Europe which would free resources for a £20m programme in the Middle East. And, however this was spun as a response to change in Europe, it was difficult not to see it as the redeployment of resources to a more critical front - the chafing interface between Islam and the West.

It chimed intriguingly with an epigraph quoted in a recent Demos paper on cultural diplomacy, J William Fulbright's contention that "in the long course of history, having people understand your thought is much greater security than another submarine". The armoured divisions of the British Council were to be stood down along the Eastern Front - where they had served so valiantly during the Cold War. A major part of the programme would focus on "reducing alienation among younger populations in these regions and building trust between the UK and the Islamic world".

That British culture is a suitable mechanism to achieve such an end was also the gist of Demos's Cultural Diplomacy. "Cultural exchange gives us the chance to appreciate points of commonality", it said, "and, where there are differences, to understand the motivations and humanity that underlie them". The projection of Britain through its cultural resources, the paper argued, is not just good for tourism and for post-colonial esteem maintenance - it is part of the armoury with which we can defend our national interest ... a "soft power." . "Cultural chasms", it sums up later, "are best dealt with by building cultural bridges".

Presumably, the British Council shares this view - and, in the right circumstances, who could doubt its truth? I couldn't help wondering, though, what happens when the "alienated" young on the other side don't think a bridge is a good idea in the first place. The metaphor - in which connection and reciprocal understanding are taken as the ultimate good - makes a rather large cultural assumption (that neither of the cultures, for example, is underwritten by God as superior). And it's interesting that the two successful examples of bridge-building Demos cites in the case of Iran (The British Museum's exhibition Forgotten Empire: The World of Ancient Persia and a Radio Four season of programmes about the country) both involved Britain taking an interest in Iranian culture - not the other way round. What price a Contemporary British Culture tour which includes Gilbert and George and Shameless and Matthew Bourne's homoerotic Swan Lake, I wonder?

Reading the Demos report, you get the impression they think of culture as a kind of sugar coating to help the medicine go down. It mustn't offend or ruffle feathers - otherwise it wouldn't really be doing its diplomatic job. Which ignores the fact that, often, "cultural diplomacy" is a straightforward oxymoron.

The best culture in Britain isn't always diplomatic. It's sometimes confrontational and uncomfortable. And sometimes, a clash of cultures isn't something regrettable to be smoothed away. It just marks the place at which your own values have come up against something they can neither adopt or adapt. Indeed, I'm tempted to say that if a British Council office doesn't get burned down from time to time, it is not doing its job, however awkward it might be diplomatically.

Victory for London's killjoys

Congratulations to Warren Mitchell on the success of the campaign to get the Kenwood Concerts banned. In one pan of the scales we have one of London's most benign amusements, occasions that give pleasure to thousands. The profits help English Heritage maintain one of our loveliest landscapes. In the other pan, we have a handful of ratepayers who find it inconvenient to have people park outside their houses for 10 nights of the year, and who find the sound of Mozart so nerve-shreddingit induces "misery". Only a fantasist could believe the petty selfishness of the latter would outweigh the obvious benefits of the former, but somehow Warren and his fellow killjoys tipped the balance. Quite an achievement.

* The speed with which the Foreign Office dispatched a team to Eritrea after the kidnap of 10 "tourists" was most impressive - given that it hasn't always been famous for the energy of its efforts for British nationals in trouble abroad - particularly in cases when they have ignored Foreign Office travel advisories and the warnings of the local government. Yesterday we learnt that a sizeable SAS force was also in place - ready to spring to action should diplomacy fail. And all this, presumably, because they aren't just run-of-the-mill tourists or travellers but have connections with our embassy in Addis Ababa.

Admirable, of course, that HMG should show proper concern for its employees - but it does suggest that Britons proposing to travel to the wilder regions of the world shouldn't rely on the protection of their passport alone. They should take the extra precaution of getting a job with the Foreign Office before they go.

t.sutcliffe@ independent.co.uk