Ποιειν Και Πραττειν - create and do

First Plenary Session: Value Premises and the Question of Culture - Introduction and Evaluation

Introduction

Speech by Luc van den Brande, Minister President of the Government of Flanders

In Search for a New Synthesis - Between the Newly Emerging Societal Paradigm and Concrete Action Programmes to Safeguard Cultural Diversity by Lιonce Bekemans, Professor at the College of Europe

Guideline for the Fifth Seminar: From a theoretical framework for the evaluation of European integration in terms of impact upon 'cultural diversity' towards concrete proposals for 'cultural action' programmes

Appendix:

Culture and Diversity within the European Community Text by Commissioner Joan de Deus Pinheiro
Written November 1993

Introduction:

Some initial thoughts may help set the context for understanding these series of seminars taking place in the respective country holding the presidency of the European Union over a period of six months. The Fifth Seminar responds thus to the need to grasp this initiative of the government of the Flemish Community in Belgium and tries to follow-up the organisational concept of the Fourth Semina held in Brugge. There is a need to understand this concept as implemented by Prof. Bekemans as much as the Brugge declaration of Minister President Luc van den Brande. An extensive evaluation of both has been undertaken since here political options become visible, as much as the possibility of intellectuals to become practically involved. There was a consensus underlying all efforts to respond, namely that until now 'culture' has been neglected by the European integration process. If there is to be any long-term support solicited in future, then the cultural dimension must be reflected upon and considered to a much greater extend then what has been the case in the past.

As Prof. Bekemans puts it these series of seminars are "a huge intellectual investment in efforts in trying to comprehend questions of European integration". In view of the previous seminars which took place in Brussels, Copenhagen and Edinburgh, the Fourth Seminar with the support of the 'College of Europe' was set to raise the level of discussion, qualitatively speaking. This was done especially to facilitate a more coherent theoretical framework within which it would be possible to approach questions of European integration in terms of its impact upon culture, or more precisely as the Flemish initiative underlines, 'the Europe of Cultures'.

There was a direct structural linkage between the Fourth and Fifth Seminar. Many key people attended already the former one knowing that they would be involved directly in the Fifth Seminar, i.e. as chair persons or as key contributors to specific workshops. Furthermore, the thematic line for the Fifth Seminar was made explicit by the request of the Flemish government to follow-up the theoretical discussions with concrete proposals for 'cultural actions'. In other words, the series of the seminars has the intention of becoming as a whole a solid basis for policy recommendations to the European Commission. In that sense, the Fifth Seminar has a serious 'political' note which comes from the need to respond to pressing needs while only long-term perspectives can open up paths into the future.

Minister President Luc van den Brande could not come personally to the Fifth Seminar; there was no way of finding a suitable flight from Athens to Warszawa for the signing of the treaty and still be able to attend the Fifth Seminar. Instead his cabinet advisor Kris Rogiers read the speech at the official reception of the Fifth Seminar at the History Museum of Athens University, itself a co-host aside from the College of Europe of this seminar. For purposes of introduction, the speech has been included in the First Plenary Session which consisted of a major introduction to these series of seminars by Prof. L. Bekemans. It was followed by a discussion around the interpretation of the Maastricht Treaty in terms of 'culture' given by Mr. Balodimos from the European Commission.

Speech by Luc van den Brande, Minister-President of the Government of Flanders

Europe of Cultures
Athene 4 June 1994

I am very pleased that the first lustrous-edition of the Seminar of the "Europe of Cultures" takes place in Athens, the birthplace of the Greek - European Civilisation, during the Greek presidency. This seminar is an important building stone for our Europe in 2002, since this special mission is moving forwards to develop concrete projects.

In the first four seminars the focus was centred on a conceptual framework for the Europe of Cultures. Today, the concepts started to be implemented in ten different fields, from culture and regional planning, culture and employment, culture and economy, culture and education. It shows how important and vital culture is for the society. Culture is not the result but the base, the engine, the origin of our society.

Cultural diversity explains the diversity in economic growth and in democracy. It is my commitment to the organisers to make a balance based on the cultural barometer launched in Brugge. The cultural barometer itself is a spin-off, from the Charter of the Europe of Cultures presented in Edinburgh.

The cultural barometer is focused on five areas: economic, language, media, promotion, institutional. For each item, I will evaluate the current situation and make an overview of the action taken till now.

1) Culture and Economy

Since our last seminar I attended the Davos World Economic Forum and I was very surprised to learn that the cultural factor as comparative advantage for economic growth is getting more attention of academic, government and business-experts. Gradually, the idea of a cultural driven market economy is making progress. In company-strategies as well as in government-policies, "culture" is a vital factor in three fields:

  1. A set of values which creates the corporate culture or the country-culture. The set of values makes one organisation or country more long-term thinking, more entrepreneurial, more risk taking.

  2. The "identity" as a cultural asset. Reputation, image, fame and name, recognition are all cultural signals of strength. In the world of communication, a strong identity for companies and countries is a must. Here Flanders is promoting not only itself but also its partners in Europe, which have the same needs for putting themselves on the map.

  3. The cultural anchorage of the industry: the unification of Europe into a single market and the globalisation of the economy is not destroying the decision centre of the Top 500 multinationals. 95% of the 500 biggest multinationals have one nationality as main shareholder. Cultural networking is indeed a crucial factor in strategic decisions. Joint-ventures between nationalities are operational in markets, sectors and segments, very seldom in the headquarters. A common set of cultural values is too important. As a result, less populated cultures in Europe have to find a nice balance between foreign investments and the anchorage of their decision centres.

Together with a Flemish business school and Scotland, Flanders is introducing these concepts at the European level as a way of growth, and for a more balanced regional policy. At the same time the private sector in Flanders is developing an investment fund for Flanders and his partners in Europe. The investment fund is an anchorage fund, only taking shares in companies controlled by these European partners, the European Cultural Alliance.

2) Language

The debates around the use of languages have even increased since our last seminar in Brugge.

The decision concerning the Trade Mark office with the five official working languages is confirmed. Although it was stated that the decision is not a precedent for the future. As a result I was quite surprised by the proposal of the French Foreign Minister, who declared at the "Top of the Francofonie" that during the French Presidency in 1996, he will consolidate the system of five working languages. During my official visit to Paris, I formally declared to President Mitterand and Premier Balladur that we will not accept this two-level system of official and working languages. Democracy has its price.

3) Media

The European cultural barometer for the media is a bit improved. Thanks to the GATT-negotiation and the cultural specification for the film industry, the awareness is growing that the media are not just a commercial product. Commissioner Pinheiro did a very good job in working out new principles for the "Television without Frontiers". But between a new European, more culture driven guideline for the media and the economic reality, a gap is increasing every day. Around the table of the Information Highways, only the European giants are discussing. We will not accept that the media is following the path of the "languages" and that the protection of European media turns out as to be a media cartel of the big five. Therefore the Minister of Culture from Flanders is taking the lead in defending the interest of the media of all other European cultures.

4) Promotion

The fourth factor of the cultural barometer is the official promotion of the European Union. There, nothing has changed. The European institutions still behave if there are as many cultures as member states. Flemish initiatives become in the European Union Belgian, and Catalan projects are Spanish. Unless the investments and efforts of the regional government. Therefore the Government of Flanders is supporting several initiatives of the European Cultural Alliance. We presented to you the Catalogue of the Festival of the European Cultures. Other projects around consumer products, tourism, crafts, sport, heritage are in preparation. Each time we are focusing on the Cultures of Europe and not on the member-states.

5) Institutional

Finally our cultural barometer is checking the progress in the institutional framework. The Committee of the Regions is installed since our last seminar in Brugge. It has positive aspects, with the fact itself of the installation. But in the light of 1996, the duties and the membership has to be renegotiated. Flanders has also created an international innovation, since it is the first region with the constitutional right to sign international treaties. Tomorrow I have to go to Poland to sign the first treaty. Therefore, I feel very sorry not to have been personally present in Athens. But we will see us back in Muenchen (Baveria) during the German Presidency within 6 months.

College d' Europe Institut D'Etudes Europeennes Studies Postuniversitaires Bruges, Belgique/ College of Europe Institute of Postgraduate European Brugges Belgium

In Search for a New Synthesis Between the Newly Emerging Societal Paradigm And Concrete Action Programmes to Safeguard Cultural Diversity

Leonce Bekemans, Professor, College of Europe

Introduction

The Flemish Government launched in Brussels in 1992 the project "Europe of the Cultures". Its major underlying assumption is that the cultural dimension of the European integration process is a fundamental and necessary prerequisite for the further construction of Europe. Everyone agrees that the European model of market integration and societal differentiation should keep its specificity by combining further economic and political integration with the maintenance and respect of its cultural diversity. But how can we make that operational?

The Conference in Bruges on 26 and 27 November 1993 organised by the College of Europe was the fourth seminar in the framework of this project. Its main objective was to contribute to the societal cross-border debate by a critical and interdisciplinary presentation of reflections and perspectives concerning the importance of culture and the cultural dimension for Europe. A possible general framework was presented in which the necessary dialogue and constructive communication between scientific disciplines and democratic societies at national and regional decision-making could eventually develop towards a European civil society.

The link with the Athens seminar is a first confrontation of the newly emerging societal paradigm for Europe, i.e. a European model for the relations between culture, economy and society, with a discussion on concrete action programmes to safeguard cultural diversity in a number of specific fields. The proposals and recommendations for future action we shall try to develop during this seminar will have to find out a workable equilibrium between long term perspectives and short term realism. It implies that institutional, political and budgetary constraints have to be taken into account.

As an academic being interested in issues and themes from an interdisciplinary approach and a longer term perspective, I would like to present briefly the major reflections and perspectives on the evolving European model of society which came out from the Bruges conference.

We have been discussing the future cultural paradigm of Europe which presents itself as much as a paradox as a necessity. We discover that we are obliged to assume together, more diversity, in order to understand the intellectual, economic and political environment which will characterise our way of living in a unified multicultural European society. We have to learn to manage the complex European reality.

Europeans are invited to pursue in the coming debate the building of their unity in diversity through their own culture, or cultures aiming at a European society whose main building stone will be its cultural dimension. This huge intellectual and political challenge calls upon our capacity to invent new ways of thinking about Europe as well as to imagine new processes for implementing its progress.

I. The global frame of reference for the culture embedded European societies, which is discussed in the multi-disciplinary and multi-dimensional way, is determined by major contextual characteristics.

1. Macro-Societal setting

A number of complementary macro-societal developments can be distinguished:

- A first macro-societal trend is related to the changing value patterns in Europe. This is related to the shifting of definitions of culture. With the reintegration of culture in economic thinking and the redefinition of work as a cultural process geared to creating value, we experience a change from culture defines as a set of artefacts, cultural products and services to culture defined as a process of shaping values and patterns underlying human endeavours to shape structure, reality and behaviour.

In other words, the value systems are increasingly confronted in specific ways with the artefacts and the cultural expressions of society. We have to make our values explicit and culture is a shaping actor and an important voice in this societal process of creativity.

- A second macro-societal trend refers to the combined trend of universalism and particularism, i.e. the interaction between the use of universal laws in our thinking and action and cultural assertivity. In other words, it confronts the universality of European cultures with the specificity of their articulation in a multi-faced and multicultural Europe. We are looking for a positive, not a regressive, synthesis between the roots and the vision for the future. While used to oppose universalism to particularism in order to evaluate cultural conflicts, we are invited to engage today in a reflection through which past differences can be maintained without affecting the overall unity.

- A third macro-societal trend refers to the level of communication at the micro-macro level. We experience an individualisation of society with specific expressions of the multi-dimensional identity at different levels of societal interaction. We experience a shift from "objectivity" to a practice of subjectivity through a process of socialisation.

- A last trend relates the global interdependence and internationalisation to the different expressions of national and regional identities. The socio-cultural realities are now more and more seen as explanatory factors in the functioning of national and regional economic systems which are responding to culturally, geographically and linguistically specific demands.

2. Conceptual context

We live in an age of epochal change. Fundamental changes are taken place in our European societies at the level of paradigms, and those changes are most striking within the economic system which is at the heat of Western civilisation. Few have undertaken a critique of the neo-classical paradigm at the level of economic theory. Only now the basic rationality principles of economic theory are being questioned.

Fundamental values are the base of paradigms. The Atlantic tradition of economic thought which decoupled economy from society is in serious crisis. The cultural roots of economic thought needs to be re-established by re-introducing ethical and social criteria, historical awareness and interdisciplinary networking.

The conceptual context is characterised by a shifting of paradigms: from a mechanistic societal paradigm based on the logic of "objective" quantity to a constructivist and communicate paradigm based on the logic of "subjective" quality. The future cultural paradigm of Europe will require that we learn to abandon the Cartesian "either / or" logic, through which our scientific minds have been used to overcoming contradiction, in favour of an "and / and" reasoning which should lead us to reconcile differences and diversity without rejecting any of the diverging individual parts.

The construction of a culturally driven European Union and the introduction of a new societal paradigm represent the two faces of the emerging conceptual framework. "Thinking Europe" in this sense implies the recognition of a radical increase in the level of complexity of societies and in the quality of inter cultural dialogue between the many societal actors.

3. Socio-economic setting

a. Economic globalization and cultural assertivity

In the present socio-economic debate two major developments can be observed. On the one hand, today's world is characterised by the globalization of international economic and political structures. The resulting structural changes in the international political economy are drastically altering the nature and working of the economies and the relationships between the different socio-economic actors.

At the same time, though, we are witnessing an increasing importance of culturally (regionally, linguistically) specific issues. The focus on the regional dimension within the global economy framework asks for culturally driven responses by economic and political actors.

The concept "glocal" has been introduced to describe this phenomenon as a mixture of global thinking and local acting, in order to be better equipped to understand and capitalise on specific consumer needs. Diversification and differentiation of production may better respond to meeting consumer demands.

b. Culturally specific economic systems

As the process of economic globalization intensifies all over the world, economic systems and actors will have to deal with diverting and conflicting cultural values. Cultural diversity can be an (economic) advantage if it is exploited properly. Cultural aspects can have an added value on the economic performance of regions and economic actors. In "riding the waves of inter cultural differences" economic actors may exploit cultural diversity as a means to improve their economic performance. This has important consequences on regional cultures and economic developments.

How can we make this operational in concrete action programmes? We need to manage the complex realities and differentiation's within a global approach on a human scale. We may learn by working together. The dynamics of inter cultural interaction between the many different actors is therefore crucial. Concrete action programmes to transmit these shifts should have to be elaborated in well integrated partnerships between culture, economy and society of the different shaping actors. The actual realisation of such partnerships requires an imaginative and visionary approach to Europe's destiny. I hope some practical results can be reached from the discussions in the different working groups.

4. The European Model of market integration and cultural diversity

At the time of its foundation, the European Community was not competent in the field of culture. Economic (and eventually political) integration was to be achieved without standardisation / homogenisation of cultures. The uniqueness of the European between model implied economic and political integration with a maintenance of cultural diversity.

However, the creeping influence of economic reasoning into culture has put strains on the European model. The dynamic development of Community law clearly indicates the tense relationship between economy and culture. There are a number of conflict areas in which the tensions between the European market integration, which aims at non-discrimination and elimination of barriers to trade, and the various cultural policies that Member States were developing, are tangible (i.e. government support to specific cultures and cultural activities in the Member States, the media policy, the language issue).

The Treaty on the European Union seems to be a first step to find a new synthesis between economic and political integration (coherence or convergence) on the one hand, and preservation and encouragement of cultural diversity on the other hand. The Treaty of Maastricht attempts to preserve the specificity of the European model with general and specific legal bases and with new structures and institutions (i.e. the principle of subsidiarity, the extended powers of the European Parliament, the different structural funds, the Committee of the Regions, the formal and juridical anchorage of Community action in the cultural field with article 128: "The Community shall contribute to the flowering of the cultures of the Member States, while respecting their national and regional diversity and at the same time bringing the common cultural heritage to the fore."

II. The new setting and a new cultural paradigm for Europe: multi-dimensional identities in a multi-cultural Europe

In the current European debate we observe that, with growing European and international interdependence, Europe is perceived simultaneously as a danger and as a hope. All over Europe we see signs of regressive nationalistic policies and inward-looking regionalism, but also of positive projections of regional and national aspirations within the greater European Union. The many social and cultural mutations of the increasing complexity of European societies at the very end of this century implies a change in the cultural paradigm on which European societies will develop.

To use Edgar Morin's terms, it is not only necessary to "Think Europe" in all its historical and intellectual contradictions, but also to have an empirical look at the "homo Europaeus" in his contemporary condition. We are confronted with new challenges in a rapidly changing world in which each individual shares many different identities. A multi-dimensional definition of European identity is needed which is capable of showing the interaction of its multiple dimensions.

Therefore, it would be a grave mistake to save the originality of particular cultures by isolating them and protecting them in a too radical way from the confrontation with other cultures. Cultures and their artistic expressions only develop in a continuous transformation and interaction. Europe as a culturally driven civil society should therefore only create a space of positive intercommunication between its different cultures, large and small culture entities, in order to achieve internally and externally a cultural co-existence between its many societal expressions.

The peaceful co-existence and mutual respect of economic, social, cultural and religious entities within the European context become vital. The only reasonable answer to the convergence / diversity debate in Europe and the driving force of any modern European society should, therefore, be pluralism. It is a principle which should guide our thinking and acting in setting new partnerships and establish concrete action programmes. This process implies that culture responds to the dynamism of a dialectic relation between the social context and the specific expression by its citizens.

As the cultural diversity of the European Union is one of its main characteristics, the Union should be very careful not to homogenise too much or to turn Europe into a global cultural area, which resembles closely a European Melting-Pot, in which all diversity is lost. It can be tempting, in the implementation of cultural programmes, to follow procedures that aim more at an administrative workability, than at the preservation of cultural specificity (e.g. the EC funding of cultural programmes should take into account the particularities of specific cultures).

The main conclusion of the Bruges seminar was that culture can be considered as an intrinsic value (and not as a liability) in the scientific, intellectual, political and cultural debate. Cultural diversity in Europe can be a trump which must be played out in an integrated way within the macro-societal, conceptual and European framework. It is clearly stressed that diversity can be a surplus value if it is well integrated. Protection of smaller cultures therefore is crucial.

Europe cannot be defined in terms of economic space, without being finalised in terms of cultural space as well. The success of further European integration will be based on the awareness of commonly shared values rooted in historically and culturally specific realities. It is, however, very difficult but extremely challenging to elaborate a European cultural project which embraces both the differences in European cultures and its common European roots. Cultural and economic values have, therefore, to be carefully balanced within the dynamic process of European integration.

It is my opinion that the present societal deficit can only be overcome by giving new answers, at different levels of the societal discourse, to the social and cultural problems of our time (i.e. beyond the level of technocratic management, conventional thinking or existing partnerships).

In sum, the new partnerships should create the conditions in which culture in its diversity of expressions and variety of capacities can help to develop and transform a Citizen's Europe into a European Society. Culture presupposes that peoples meet in a dynamic interaction. To neglect this fact is to deprive European integration of its chief legitimation.

The question how the general conclusion on the changing cultural paradigm can be made effective in concrete action programmes remained open in Bruges. Answers may be found in the way various human resources can be mobilised in a dynamic interaction and in the way the complex reality of cultural diversity within a European civilisation model can be managed in a personalised manner.

Within this general perspective the importance of inter cultural interaction and concrete co-operation at various levels must be stressed. Action should mainly go to the development of concrete action programmes in specific fields that are a positive expression of the influence of the dynamics of the ongoing structural process of change on European ideas and which give expression to the cultural roots of the various building stones of the new Europe.

Such a project requires vision, new concepts and concrete action beyond established approaches or traditional paths. A task with a realistic vision and a challenge for all of us. Legs and wings are needed to compete in imagination. This cultural project implies an imaginative management process of a global approach on a human scale.

Le Corbusier has said: "The vertical gives meaning to the horizontal lines". The outcome of the debate in the different workshops should give a first concrete meaning to the new cultural paradigm in Europe.

Appendix:

Culture and Diversity within the European Community
Text by: Commissioner Joao de Deus Pinheiro, Written November 1993

At the present time, we face a situation of great uncertainty in which enormous historical changes have completely altered our view of the world. Faced with this, our citizens and societies sometimes have a tendency to withdraw and shut themselves up in sterile isolation in their quest for certainty. In the long run, this may well be suicidal. As the French writer Andrι Malraux said: "Cultures only perish from their own weaknesses".

In this context, the cultural dimension of European development, notably absent from the Treaty of Rome and the Single European Act, emerges not only as a necessity but as a unique opportunity for each of the diverse identities which together give Europe its soul.

The entry into foce of the Treaty of the European Union will shortly give culture its rightful place in the Community. The text of the culture Article is not only ambitious, it is also highly political, since it acknowledges for the first time the important contribution that culture can make to encouraging a stronger union between European citizens and stimulating an awareness of our common roots within the Community.

However, Community competency in the field of culture is not - and never will be - about giving up our own identities to form an abstract and anonymous entity. On the contrary, it is above all a question of opening up to other cultures and traditions, of nurturing and enriching our own identities through a fruitful contact with the approaches of others.

This is what Article 128 on culture is referring to when it states that the role of the Community is to "contribute to the flowering of the cultures of the Member States while respecting their national and regional diversity and at the same time bringing the common cultural heritage to the fore".

To achieve this objective, cultural action at Community level should aim at encouraging co-operation between Member States and where necessary, supplementing their action in the following areas:

These ambitious objectives are based on two fundamental principles: respect for diversity and the principle known as "subsidiarity". Respecting diversity points to the promotion of the various cultures of the Community at national, regional and local level. In order to ensure that the distinctive cultural character of our regions is taken into account, Article 128 has provided for the setting up of a new Committee of the Regions. This Committee will be invited to give an opinion on all the initiatives proposed by the Community in the fields of culture. This constant dialogue between the Committee and the Community institutions is intended to give the regions increased opportunities to make a useful contribution to the Community's work in the field of culture.

However, this new provision of the Treaty does not in any way affect the existing organisation of cultural policy at national level, which is decided by Member States according to their own national procedures.

Nevertheless, this Committee gives the regions the potential to be influential in the development of Community policy in the field of culture. From now on, the challenge of the regions will be to ensure, through the consistency ad efficiency of the Committee's work, that this potential influence aquires the status and respect which can only truly be achieved on merit.

The second principle which lies at the heart of Article 128 is the principle of subsidiarity. Put simply, this means that the Community only takes action when this appears to be more efficient than leaving Member States to act individually. In the field of culture we can claim to be somewhat ahead of the game in terms of applying the principle of subsidiarity. As Member States are indisputably in charge of devising and executing their own cultural policies cultural initiatives at Community level can only be taken on a solid foundation of consensus.

In addition while Community actions seeks to complement that of Member States, it can also act as a facilitator, assisting those who wish to co-operate with people in other countries and providing a channel of information for the circulation of ideas. Our job is, quite simply, to help, within the modest means at our disposal. The budget allocated to culture in the Community amounts to only 12.3 Mecus, which is clearly insufficient. Bearing in mind the challenge set before us by the Treaty Article and the means currently available the Community has, in its policy paper "New Prospects for Community action in the field of Culture", set out a framework for the future development of its activities in the cultural field. This framework fits within the context of existing Community action and provides a starting point for further expansion and development in a coherent and pragmatic way.

Amongst the different initiatives currently taking place at Community level, three aspects must be particularly stressed.

One of the most innovative elements of the Maastricht Treaty's approach to culture is the particular emphasis given to the commitment to take the cultural dimension into account in Community policies and programmes. It is important to note that this does not mean that it is within the competence of the Community to use legislation or regulation to harmonise the cultural policies of Member States. This power is explicitly excluded from Community competence in Article 128.

However, measures taken within the framework of other Community policies can have a direct or indirect impact on culture, in the areas of research, new technology and free circulation of cultural goods, for example. Our task is therefore to explain and to be an advocate for concerns which are specific to the cultural field within the Commission and the Community, thus ensuring that the cultural dimension is taken into account when new policies and programmes are devised. Work on this task, which still has a low profile, is of great importance and requires further development. Here again, one should stress that Article 128 does not permit the use of culture as an argument for not complying fully and completely with the other provisions of the Treaty. The Commission's primary duty is to ensure the correct application of Community law as a whole. It is therefore necessary to achieve a delicate balance between the importance of culture in Community terms and the many other factors which also have to be taken into account.

At present, the new references to culture might appear to be rather cautious. Whilst it would be wrong to allow blatant misinterpretations of the Article, it would be foolish to underestimate it. The example of environmental policy provides us with an enlightening precedent. Thirty years ago the idea of taking environmental considerations into account in Member States policy would have been regarded as an endearing notion for dreamers. Yet today no-one would argue with putting environmental considerations at the very heart of policy making concerns. Given time, the Community approach to culture could, and should, evolve in much the same way.

For the time being, our objective is therefore quite simple: we must constantly endeavour to open new doors for culture. This should be linked with the aforementioned approach and should aim to build on certain concrete initiatives which have already been set up. All fields of culture are important to us, but, given our limited means, we have in accordance with the Council and the Parliament, given priority to some Community initiatives, which are not solely defined in sectoral terms.

Heritage is a field to which the European Parliament and Member States have always attached great importance and they are committed to working together for its conservation. Until now the bulk of our initiatives has been devoted to the safeguarding of architectural heritage, particularly via the pilot scheme on conservation which is organised around a common theme each year. The theme for 1994 will be performing arts venues.

In parallel, a number of Community initiatives are aimed at raising public awareness of the importance of conservation and demonstrating that investing in the past is a way of ensuring creativity in the future, a creativity which derives its strength from the lessons and skills handed down by past generations. The growing success of the European Heritage Day is one example that could be cited in this context.

The Community's commitment to heritage is not limited to these present initiatives and the Commission has therefore started to prepare a general policy paper on the cultural heritage which will cover both the movable and non-movable heritage. This communication will probably be the first to be submitted to the Community institutions according to the new procedures laid out for us in Article 128.

Special priority is also granted to books and reading, particularly translation. Our efforts are geared to facilitating access to books and reading and to the language and literature of other European cultures. Although a translation cannot replace knowledge of a language itself, it nevertheless enables us to drive pleasure from the masterpieces of other cultures and to become better informed about different ways of thinking. It is therefore of crucial importance in developing mutual respect and understanding amongst Europeans.

Particular priority is given to encouraging translation into the less widely used languages of the Community. The pilot scheme providing financial aid to the translation of contemporary European literature clearly demonstrates that importance which the Community attaches to the less widely used languages.

The limited financial means available for the scheme is a major factor hampering the Commission's ambitions in this area. It has regularly pleaded for an increase in funds and an expansion of the scheme. In 1993, the budget allocated to this initiative - 220,000 ECU's enable the translation of only 77 works. However, given that the Parliament and the Member States are particularly aware of the cultural importance of all languages of the Community countries whether or not they have official status, the Commission is confident that further progress will soon be made. It is hoped that the Committee of the Regions will have a positive influence in this area.

The Community has chosen to promote artistic creativity and cultural exchange in all areas of artistic endeavour - encompassing both the visual arts and the performing arts - through the KALEIDOSCOPE scheme. This encourages arts professionals from different countries to set up cultural projects with a European dimension in partnership with each other. Of course our limited funds do not enable us to support all such arts projects throughout the Community. Nevertheless such schemes can be seen as a great opportunity for arts professionals working at local and regional level to link up with each other and, by giving expression to their own distinctive cultures to promote their own culture and share its riches with others. The dynamism of arts projects from the regions has been a particularly noticeable feature of the KALEIDOSCOPE scheme during the first years of its existence.

Last but not least, the Community has a mandate to strengthen its dialogue with other countries and continents. Co-operation with other international organisations competent in the field of culture, such as the Council of Europe and UNESCO, can be extremely useful in this context. Culture has played an increasing role in international relations which demonstrates that the EC is no longer perceived purely as an economic power. A growing number of the agreements concluded by the Community and its Member States specifically refer to cultural co-operation and sometimes include quite detailed cultural clauses.

On the basis of these cultural clauses, the Commission has been in a position to give priority to those countries with which it has traditionally had strong links and has progressively opened up its existing schemes to them. The Commission has only 1 million ECU which to foster such co-operation, which therefore remains very much of a symbolic nature. When one considers the high expectations which these countries have of the EC such a sum can seem derisory. However, the few initiatives which the Community has been able to support, notibly in the field of conservation, have had a cultural and political impact far beyond our expectations because they have been seen as concrete proof of the Community's solidarity towards these countries.

With the entry into force of Maastricht, we can expect a new era in the development of cultural co-operation at Community level. The benefits will not all come at once, but the insertion of this Article in the Treaty indicates that culture has been given a new political significance in Community terms. The challenge for all of us is to assume responsbility for ensuring that these ambitions are fulfilled in the long run. This responsibility will require realism and that realism must go hand in hand with a sense of commitment. We must encourage the peoples of Europe to open up to each other and learn to live within their own cultural traditions whilst not being afraid to engage with those of others. As our citizens and societies become more closely involved in a mutual dialogue, we should encourage them to move from interest to respect, from respect to understanding and from understanding to a new sense of solidarity within our political union.

^ Top

« CULTURAL ACTIONS FOR EUROPE - The Fifth Seminar in Athens, Greece 1994 | Second Plenary Session: Introduction into the Fifth Seminar »