Chapter 1

Cultural Diplomacy in the Public Sector:

Country Ranking

Recognising the central role which cultural diplomacy has to play in international relations, this

chapter of the Cultural Diplomacy Outlook 2011 focuses on the degree to which cultural diplomacy is supported and utilised by state governments around the world. The public sector is

in a singularly prominent position and from this platform cultural diplomacy initiatives can be far-reaching and effective. Furthermore, the ICD strongly advocates the use of soft power in

facilitating closer bonds between countries through cultural exchange and mutual understanding. However, whilst there is a growing awareness that cultural diplomacy has an

important role to play in international relations, it is a subject area which remains largely under-researched. This chapter of the Outlook comprises a pilot study of 40 governments drawn from around the globe, investigating their engagement with and commitment to culturally diplomatic

projects. It examines the ways various states approach cultural diplomacy, providing a comprehensive group of regional perspectives and a statistical ranking of governments based

on their cultural diplomacy initiatives.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction 2. Research Objectives 3. Concepts

3.1 CULTURAL DIPLOMACY 3.2 HARD POWER AND SOFT POWER 3.3 POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE CULTURAL DIPLOMACY

4. Methodology 4.1 SELECTION OF COUNTRIES 4.2 COMPOSITION OF RANKING 4.3 PARAMETERS AND COMPONENTS

5. The Global Cultural Diplomacy Ranking 6. The European Union Cultural Diplomacy Ranking

6.1 EUROSTAT 7. Research Limitations 8. Conclusions 9. Research References 10. Appendices

10.1 TABLE 1- UN CONVENTIONS (GLOBAL) 10.2 TABLE 2- INTERNATIONAL TOURIST ARRIVALS IN 2010 (GLOBAL) 10.3 TABLE 3 – GOVERNMENT ACTIONS (GLOBAL) 10.4 TABLE 4 – FREEDOM AND MEDIA POLICY (GLOBAL) 10.5 TABLE 5 – CULTURAL INITIATIVES (GLOBAL) 10.6 TABLE 6 – UN CONVENTIONS (EUROPE) 10.7 TABLE 7 – INTERNATIONAL TOURISTS ARRIVALS IN 2010 (EUROPE) 10.8 TABLE 8 – OFFICIAL DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE 2010 (EUROPE) 10.9 TABLE 9 – INTERNATIONAL PERCEPTION AND MEDIA POLICY (EUROPE) 10.10 TABLE 10 – EUROSTATS (EUROPE)

1. Introduction

Cultural diplomacy is increasingly utilised to enhance national security in subtle, wide-ranging, and sustainable ways; this research project ascertains the degree to which cultural diplomacy is being used as a tool of international relations by the various governments included in the study. The principal objective of cultural diplomacy is to positively influence public and high level opinion in a foreign state. The desired outcome of the index is to detect and evaluate the emergence or continuation of preferential and advantageous policies by states in the field of cultural diplomacy. This is accomplished through the process of communication and interaction with foreign audiences. Governments which actively encourage cultural diplomacy initiatives provide a platform for cultural exchange as a valuable part of international relations.

The Institute for Cultural Diplomacy’s Index measures the effort and effectiveness of cultural diplomacy initiatives undertaken by countries around the world. It reflects the extent to which cultural diplomacy is used by states as a tool in international relations.

2. Research Objectives The cultural diplomacy index charts the increasing prevalence of soft power and public diplomacy as a means of international dialogue. The index evaluates various government activities to determine whether their respective cultural diplomacy programmes are substantial, constructive and effective. In order to create a ranking system on cultural diplomacy for selected countries, specific research questions were developed:

● What governmental actions are being taken to advance cultural diplomacy?

● What are the regional and international cultural diplomacy initiatives undertaken by the country?

● What is the international perception of the country’s culture and the nation’s media policy?

These questions guided our data research to compose the parameters of the ranking.

3. Concepts 3.1 Cultural Diplomacy A starting definition of cultural diplomacy is offered by the American political scientist and author, Milton C. Cummings, in which he describes it as “the exchange of ideas, information, values, systems, traditions, beliefs, and other aspects of culture, with the intention of fostering mutual understanding” (2003). This cultural exchange can take place in various fields including art, sport, literature, music, science and the economy. Such exchange implies communication and respect between the cultures involved, based on a sounder understanding of respective values and a reduced susceptibility to stereotypes. The potential of such an expanded knowledge is to enable improved interaction and cooperation. Cultural diplomacy is the initiation or facilitation of such exchanges with an aim to yielding long-term benefits, whether they promote national interests, build relationships or enhance socio-cultural understanding. 3.2 Hard Power and Soft Power The origins of the term soft power can be traced to the work of the American academic Joseph Nye, who developed the concept in the late 1980s. His work was a counter to those who predicted the decline of the US as a super power due to the evident diminishing utility of military force. In distinguishing between ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ power Nye recognised the importance of behavioural power — the ability to obtain outcomes you want. Hard power is one aspect of behavioural power, the ability to influence what others do through coercion; the other is soft power or the ability to shape what others want through attraction. The wielding of economic and military strength is linked to coercive hard power, while the attractiveness of one’s culture and the mastery of institutions and information technologies to disseminate persuasive information is linked to soft power. In this context, Nye argued that the prevalence of US culture was a potent force, equal to its military strength, and would sustain the American great power status. 3.3 Positive and Negative Cultural Diplomacy Though the goals of soft power are laudable, we must acknowledge that the level at which cultural diplomacy is practised can have a bearing on its quality and integrity. National governments through their actions carry the potential to marginalise some cultures when conducting cultural diplomacy on behalf of domestic citizens. Furthermore, decisions that follow from cultural diplomacy are often the responsibility of one individual or a limited elite whose values and beliefs come into play during the decision making process. Globalisation is another factor that has a bearing on the integrity of cultural diplomacy. The emergence of globalisation carries with it the genesis of what can be described as a prevalent global-culture which has the potential for eroding the cultures it comes into contact with.

4. Methodology

The research methodology for composing the ICD index consists of three basic phases: research design, data collection and ranking calculation. In the first stage, a sample of countries was selected, and the research questions were turned into operationalized questions. In the second stage, data was collected from several sources: the countries’ embassies and culture ministries, the United Nations and UNESCO database, the OECD database, and trusted selected rankings (RSF Ranking, Freedom House Ranking and Nation Brands Ranking). The data collected considers one point in time, usually 2010, or the latest data available. Finally, in the third stage, the three final parameters were grouped according to the relationship of components and the final ranking was calculated as the average of the three parameter rankings. A final score and position is assigned to each country in the ranking. Scores are composed of complementary indicators that result in the final measure of success in cultural diplomacy. Lower scores are ranked higher in the index, reflecting better national policy and performance. The index takes a number of parameters into account when assessing each country’s performance. Each of these parameters is comprised of a set of components as shown in the next sections.

4.1 Selection of Countries This pilot study considers forty countries with an equal number of countries drawn from the four main geographical regions: Europe, Africa, Asia and the Americas. By giving equal weight to these four regions the study portrays the diversity and regional differences of governments’ CD initiatives around the globe. As a result of equal regional representation a number of developing countries are included in the analysis, giving recognition to the emergence of cultural diplomacy activity as an aspirational tool for intercultural exchange and dialogue. Many of the established champions of cultural diplomacy are also considered in this study, which evaluates their longstanding commitment to fostering mutual understanding and promoting international tolerance.

To populate the four regional lists, a hybrid ranking of GDP (nominal) and GDP (per capita) was used (in a ratio of 7:3) to determine the top ten countries per region. This method acknowledges the strong correlation between GDP and public sector capacity which allows a government to facilitate cultural diplomacy. Due to the ambiguous and uncertain political situations in Sudan and Libya at the time when the study was conducted, these countries were intentionally omitted. A sample of countries was used in this pilot study, according to the selection criteria presented below. When analysing the sample, only the relationships of the countries relative to each other were considered. For example, when compiling the number of embassies in the research, only the embassies in the countries of this specific sample were counted.

4.2 Composition of the Ranking1 The ranking is composed of the following parameters and components.

4.3 Parameters and Components The components of the index take into account the different ways in which policy and action can further goals in cultural diplomacy. They are also based on research questions for which data is equally available for each of the countries in the index, regardless of geography, economic circumstance, and political status. As a result, three parameters are used, each composed of universally applicable questions. Parameter 1: Government Cultural Diplomacy Actions This category evaluates specific government policies and actions that are directly or indirectly related to countries’ performance in the field of cultural diplomacy. There are three sub-categories that comprise the final Government rankings: Conventions, Embassies, and Official Development Assistance. Conventions2 International conventions dealing with the protection and conservation of cultural heritage are a vital component of the global effort to preserve cultural sights and share cultural history. The states which ratify these UNESCO conventions accept legal obligations and responsibilities. Points were attributed according to each country’s commitment to the principles of the five UN conventions based on the following score system: 2 if the convention was ratified, 1 if the convention was accepted and 0 if the country did not adhere to the convention. Embassies National embassies serve as the basis for coordinating critical elements of international dialogue: diplomacy, economic cooperation, law enforcement, and foreign policy synchronization. They play a decisive role in fostering mutual understanding and cooperation with other states by serving as a platform for cultural events, dialogue and exchange. Points were assigned based on cross-sectional data from embassies; countries were assigned points for the existence of an embassy in each of the other sampled countries, not based on their total number of world embassies. Official Development Assistance (ODA)3

1 The weighting for the parameters were determined according to the importance of the component. The Cultural Initiatives parameter was considered the most important, being attributed 50% of the weight of the ranking, as those initiatives are the ones that promote a country’s culture more directly to the population than other government actions (25%) such as the embassies, the signing of conventions and the media policies of a country (25%). The weighting of cultural initiatives was divided in two components: 80% for the cultural actions which is composed of qualitative data converted into quantitative data in 0 (no) and 1 (yes) codes, and 20% for tourist data, which was set as a ranking according to the number of international tourists’ arrivals in 2010 for every country.

2 UNESCO conventions considered: 1954 - Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, 1970 - Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, 1972 - Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, 2003 - Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, 2005 - Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expression. 3 Nominal GDP figures are provided by the International Monetary Fund 2010 Global Financial Stability Report. Both ODA and

nominal GDP are presented in billions of US Dollars.

The data for this category is based on the amount of Official Development Assistance (ODA) given by each country as a percentage of nominal GDP. Countries claiming to provide alternative forms of development assistance do not appear in the data as they do not comply with the international standard. Scores for this category are assigned based on relative percentages of GDP given in ODA: countries providing > 0.1% receive a 10, countries providing 0.09% - 0.1% receive a 9, countries providing 0.08% - 0.09% receive an 8, valuation follows this pattern until the last category, where countries providing >0.00% - 0.02% receive a 1.4

4 Flows of official financing which are administered with the promotion of the economic development and welfare of developing

countries as the main objective, and are concessional in character with a grant element of at least 25 per cent (using a fixed 10 per cent rate of discount). By convention, Official Development Assistance flows comprise contributions of donor government agencies, at all levels, to developing countries (“bilateral ODA”) and to multilateral institutions. ODA receipts comprise disbursements by bilateral donors and multilateral institutions. Lending by export credit agencies—with the pure purpose of export promotion—is excluded. IMF, 2003, External Debt Statistics: Guide for Compilers and Users – Appendix III, Glossary, IMF, Washington DC.

Parameter 2: Cultural Diplomacy Initiatives The Cultural Diplomacy Initiatives parameter is made up of two components: one qualitative and one quantitative. The qualitative component contains data collected on government actions for cultural diplomacy in the following areas:

• Education

• Exchanges

• Performing Arts

• Film Industry

• Visual Arts

• Music

• Sports

and in reference to the following questions:

• Is funding available for educational exchanges?

• Is there a program specifically designed to facilitate educational exchanges?

• Does the government contribute to film/dance/theatre production?

• Are there international film/dance/theatre festivals hosted with public funding?

• Is funding available for proliferation of art work abroad?

• Are museums and their upkeep subsidized by the government?

• Does the country host any annual international music festivals?

• Is there a significant amount of musician in-flow from foreign countries subsidized by public funding?

• Is there a significant amount of musician out-flow to foreign countries subsidized by public funding?

• Has the country hosted any major international sporting events (football tournament, Olympics) in the past 10 years?

• Does the country send representatives or teams to major international sporting events (FIFA World Cup and Olympic Games)?

For each of these questions, one point was awarded to countries that successfully met the criteria for a potential total score of 11 points. Countries were then ranked based on their final scores; those that received a full 11 were assigned a 1st, and lower scores received a rank between 1 and 40 based on their position in the entire index.

The quantitative component refers to the number of international tourist arrivals in 2010. Countries were then ranked relative to one another based on the figures of tourist arrivals. The country with the highest tourist in-flow was assigned a 1, and so on.

The total point distribution for the Cultural Diplomacy Initiatives category is composed of 80% of qualitative measures and 20% of quantitative measures. The Cultural Diplomacy Initiatives category is thus a hybrid of the two statistical research methods, with higher weighting assigned to the qualitative data.

Parameter 3: International Perception and Media Policy5 Media policy is directly related to the ways in which cultural diplomacy is distributed in the world. For this category, data was taken based on reports provided by three external sources: Reporters Without Borders (RSF), Freedom House, and the Anholt Nation Branding Index. In each of these reports, countries are given a rank relative to the rest of the world. In the cultural diplomacy report, these world rankings are converted to a rank relative to the other countries in the study. For example, a nation could be 10th in the world according to RSF, but receive a 3rd on the CD list when compared to the 40 nations in the study. Nation Branding measures the effectiveness of the cultural diplomacy initiatives carried out by countries, based on international perceptions.

Reporters Sans Frontiers Reporters Sans Frontiers is an international non-governmental organization that advocates freedom of the press and provides an annual press freedom index. Their data is based on violations and harassment in the media, censorship, and the legal frameworks for the media. Data is compiled based on questionnaires, and countries are assigned an overall score and world rank. Freedom House Freedom House is an international non-governmental organization that monitors freedom, democracy, and human rights around the globe. Its annual report measures the perceived democratic freedom in each country based on civil liberties and political rights; countries are assigned scores from 1 to 7, with 1 representing the highest degree of freedom and 7 representing the lowest. Other questions are scaled from 1 to 4. Countries are subsequently ranked in the world report based on their relative scores. Nation Branding The Simon Anholt Nation Branding Index measures how nations are perceived by the citizens of other countries. The perceptions are based on surveys conducted in 50 countries. Countries are then ranked in accordance with how the culture of their country is perceived abroad, with 1 being the highest score and 50 being the lowest.

5 Prior to using other rankings to compose the Freedom and Media Policy parameter for the World Cultural Diplomacy Ranking and the Europe Cultural Diplomacy Ranking, the biases and potential subjectivity of those rankings were carefully considered, as well as the risks of adding these subjectivity to both rankings. Following considered analysis of the methodologies, availability of data and intentions of many different rankings, the RSF ranking, Freedom House ranking and Nation Brands ranking were chosen to compose this parameter.

5. The Global Cultural Diplomacy Ranking

The Cultural Diplomacy Global Ranking for the 40 countries selected is presented below;

Germany 1 Mexico 21 Netherlands 1 Trinidad & Tobago 22 Norway 3 Mauritius 23 Switzerland 4 Nigeria 24 UK 5 China 25 France 6 Russia 26 Spain 7 Indonesia 27 US 8 Botswana 28 Canada 9 UAE 29 India 10 Qatar 30 Italy 11 Singapore 31 Australia 12 Bahamas 32 Japan 13 Morocco 33 Luxembourg 14 Algeria 34 Korea 15 Colombia 35 Turkey 16 Barbados 36 Brazil 17 Gabon 37 South Africa 18 Tunisia 38 Egypt 19 Venezuela 39 Argentina 20 Angola 40

These final ranking positions were reached by calculating the average of three parameter rankings.6 The three parameter rankings in this study (“Government Cultural Diplomacy Actions”, “Cultural Diplomacy Initiatives” and “International Perception and Media Policy”) and the final rankings are listed below:

Government CD Actions

Cultural Diplomacy Initiatives

International Perception and

Media Policy

Final Ranking

Algeria 27 17.7 33 34 Angola 35 18.6 27 40 Argentina 16 15.3 18 20 Australia 20 3.5 9 12 Bahamas 40 13.7 24 32 Barbados 38 18.1 22 36 Botswana 37 11.5 21 27 Brazil 10 11 16 17 Canada 18 2.3 7 9 China 26 5.9 39 25 Colombia 33 13.2 36 34 Egypt 12 14 24 19 France 3 1.3 10 6 Gabon 28 18.7 32 37 Germany 6 2 1 1 India 8 2.8 20 10 Indonesia 33 12.5 23 27 Italy 10 6.1 13 11 Japan 17 7.3 6 13 Korea 22 2.8 15 15 Luxembourg 9 9 11 14 Mauritius 31 11.9 19 23 Mexico 22 9.3 26 21 Morocco 22 17 37 33 Netherlands 2 2.5 4 1 Nigeria 15 13.6 34 24 Norway 1 3.9 3 3 Qatar 28 13.4 31 29 Russia 18 13.8 34 26 Singapore 38 9.9 29 31 South Africa 20 7.5 17 18 Spain 3 1.6 12 7 Switzerland 7 2.2 1 4 Trinidad & Tobago

36 9.6 14 22

Tunisia 22 17.8 40 38 Turkey 14 1.9 28 16 UAE 31 12.4 30 29 UK 5 1.8 5 5 US 12 1.4 8 8

6 The parameters were composed according to the description in the methodology.

Venezuela 28 16.4 38 39

6. The European Union Cultural Diplomacy Ranking

The overall Cultural Diplomacy Ranking for the 27 states of the European Union is presented below:

Germany 1 Portugal 15

Netherlands 1 Ireland 16

Sweden 3 Poland 17

Austria 4 Hungary 18

Belgium 5 Greece 19

United Kingdom 6 Slovenia 20

Finland 7 Latvia 21

France 8 Lithuania 22

Denmark 9 Malta 23

Luxembourg 10 Cyprus 24

Spain 10 Slovakia 25

Estonia 12 Bulgaria 26

Italy 12 Romania 27

Czech Republic 14

As in the Global Ranking, the countries were ranked according to the three parameters outlines in the methodology, however, for the parameter “Cultural Initiatives” the ranking was based on Eurostat data which was relevant to this research.7 Again, the final ranking was calculated as the average of these three rankings, and can be observed below:

Government Actions

Cultural Initiatives

International Perception and

Media Policy

Final Ranking

Austria 8 2 7 4 Belgium 4 6 7 5 Bulgaria 17 27 27 26 Cyprus 17 23 21 24 Czech Republic 24 10 13 14 Denmark 2 11 4 9 Estonia 22 12 10 12 Finland 8 8 2 7 France 8 3 13 8 Germany 8 1 5 1 Greece 8 18 26 19 Hungary 15 19 16 18 Ireland 17 22 6 16 Italy 8 14 20 12 Latvia 26 15 23 21 Lithuania 22 23 12 22 Luxembourg 3 13 10 10 Malta 27 19 15 23 Netherlands 4 4 3 1 Poland 16 16 19 17 Portugal 7 19 18 15 Romania 24 26 25 27 Slovakia 17 25 21 25 Slovenia 17 16 24 20 Spain 4 9 17 10 Sweden 1 7 1 3 United Kingdom

8 4 9 6

7 For further information an the data included in the Cultural Initiatives parameter, see section 6.1

6.1 Eurostat Eurostat is the statistical office of the European Union. Its task is to provide the EU with statistics at European level that enable comparisons between countries and regions. Eurostat’s key role is to supply statistics and data to the Directorate Generals, Commission and other European Institutions so they can define, implement and analyse Community policies.8

Eurostat’s pocketbook ‘Cultural Statistics,’ published in April 2011, is the second in the series. This publication comprises a broad set of comparable data related to culture available in the EU-27, EFTA and candidate countries. The information collected from Eurostat for this study were:

• Number of non-nationals in the whole population

• Number of sites on the UNESCO World Heritage List

• Number of capitals of culture hosted in the country up until 2013

• Number of foreign languages learned

• Erasmus student mobility

• Employment in cultural sector

• Exports in cultural goods

• Internet access

• Share of cultural expenditures

• International tourist arrivals

8 For more information on the role of Eurostat see: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eurostat/home

7. Research Limitations

The main research limitations in assembling the Global Cultural Diplomacy Ranking included the difficulty in quantifying qualitative data, and the subjectivity of a large portion of the data. The heterogeneous nature of the information sources available for each country may also have affected the data gathering process, as well as the results gained therein. European countries, and particularly EU member states, generally generally publish more information and studies than African and South American countries, for example, so the potential for data gathering and analysis in these areas is likely to be inhibited. Eurocentricity is also a problem often found in studies of this kind, and many of the sources used may have a Eurocentric leaning. With this in mind however, the questions posed in the rankings were carefully formulated in order to try to avoid this problem.

8. Conclusions

Europe ranked ahead of the three other regions in the government actions category largely as a result of adherence to continent-wide initiatives and policies. The three other regions had mixed results in government actions based on respective national policies. European success in government action was nevertheless, like countries in the other regions, strongly determined by national policy.

The Cultural Initiatives category was led by Europe, followed by Asia, the Americas and lastly Africa. There was no pattern in which of the cultural initiatives was pursued most actively. Instead, each region had its own unique order. Europe scored most highly for its performing arts; Asia in visual arts; the Americas in music; and Africa in its sports initiatives. This can be explained in part by the objectives of cultural diplomacy in each area, and the relative strengths of the each region: in Europe, for example, performing arts initiatives might be more universally pursued as a cultural representative of the region. Both rankings have the same order of European countries, except for Luxembourg.9 The results for Media Policy and International Perception were largely based on a compilation of studies conducted over the past few years.10 The final order closely reflects the rankings found in these sources, with European nations again scoring quite highly. The inclusion of international perception the composition of this parameter resulted in the combining of two separate facets of cultural diplomacy: direct policy and its reception which therefore expands the overall scope of the category.

The findings in this study reflect the current state of cultural diplomacy in the world. The parameters used to determine the ranking are nevertheless constructed based on available data. It is also less feasible for economically disadvantaged countries to invest in cultural diplomacy in the same degree as parts of the developed world. These realities must be considered when drawing conclusions from the final ranking report.

9 The differences in the position of Luxembourg in the Global Cultural Diplomacy Ranking and the European Union Cultural

Diplomacy Ranking are related to the different data collected to compose the two rankings. Whilst in the Global Cultural Diplomacy Ranking, Luxembourg falls equally into the same criteria as of other countries, in the European Cultural Diplomacy Luxembourg has advantages in areas such as the “percentage of non-nationals in the whole population”, the “average number of foreign languages learned”, “Erasmus student mobility as percentage of total population” and “internet access”, giving this country a greater advantage over other European countries in this ranking, justifying the better position in the Europe Union Cultural Diplomacy ranking than in the Global Cultural Diplomacy Ranking, and its position above and below Spain and Italy in both rankings.

10 See bibliography for further details.

9. Research References

General: Anholt, S., http://www.simonanholt.com/ Cultural Contact Point http://www.ccp-deutschland.de/

CIA World Factbook https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/

Cummings, M. C., (2003): Cultural Diplomacy and the United States Government: A Survey, Washington, D.C: Center for Arts and Culture.

Economist Intellegence Unit http://www.eiu.com/public/

Europäische Kulturdokumentation http://www.kulturdokumentation.org/kontext/europa.html

European Cultural Foundation http://www.eurocult.org/ Eurostat http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eurostat/home

European Union (Eurostat), (2011): Eurostat Pocketbook: Cultural statistics, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union

Freedom House Media Ranking http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=560&year=2010 International Monetary Fund, (2010): Global Financial Stability Report, Washington D.C.: IMF Multimedia Services Division International Monetary Fund, (2003): External Debt Statistics: Guide for Compilers and Users, Washington D.C.: IMF Multimedia Services Division

Nation Branding Index http://nation-branding.info/2010/10/13/nation-brands-index-2010/

Nye, J. S. (1990): ‘Soft Power’, Foreign Policy 80 (3)

OECD http://www.oecd.org/home/0,3675,en_2649_201185_1_1_1_1_1,00.html

Reporters Without Borders http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2010,1034.html

Unesco: Conventions and Treaties http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/ev.php-URL_ID=39065&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

Algeria Algerian Ministry of Culture http://www.m-culture.gov.dz/ Algerian Foreign Ministry http://www.mae.dz/ma_fr/stories.php?acceuil=Y

Angola Angolan Ministry of Culture http://www.mincultura.gv.ao/nota_legal.htm Angolan Ministry of Foreign Affairs http://www.mirex.gv.ao/

Argentina Argentinean Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Culture: http://www.mrecic.gov.ar/

Australia Australian Department of Arts and Culture: http://www.arts.gov.au/ Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade http://www.dfat.gov.au/ Screen Australia http://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/

Bahamas Bahamas Ministry of Youth, Sports and Culture http://www.bahamas.gov.bs/bahamasweb2/home.nsf/0/76FF5123DCCD35BE8525748A006255E4 Bahamas Ministry of Foreign Affairs http://www.bahamas.gov.bs/bahamasweb2/home.nsf/vContentW/ED5BBA89FF25AC9106256F0000705847!OpenDocument&Highlight=0,foreign%20affairs

Barbados

Barbados Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade http://www.foreign.gov.bb/ Barbados Ministry of Family, Sports, Culture and Youth http://services.gov.bb/browse_categories.php?id=349

Botswana

Botswana Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation http://www.mofaic.gov.bw/ Botswana Ministry of Culture and Youth http://www.mysc.gov.bw/youth/

Brazil Brazilian Ministry of External Relations http://www.itamaraty.gov.br/ Brazilian Ministry of Culture http://www.cultura.gov.br/site/

Canada

Canadian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade http://www.international.gc.ca/international/index.aspx?view=d Canada Department of Heritage http://www.pch.gc.ca/eng/1266037002102/1265993639778

China

China: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/ China: Confucius Institutes online: http://www.chinese.cn/college/en/ China: Ministry of Culture of the People’s Republic of China http://www.ccnt.gov.cn/English/index.html

Colombia

Colombian Ministry of Foreign Affairs http://www.cancilleria.gov.co/wps/portal/ingles Colombian Ministry of Culture http://www.mincultura.gov.co/

Egypt Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs http://www.mfa.gov.eg/english/Pages/default.aspx

France

French Ministry of Foreign Affairs http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/ French Ministry of Culture http://www.culture.gouv.fr/ Alliance Francaise http://www.alliancefr.org/en

Gabon

Gabonese Cultural Department http://www.gabonart.com/

Germany

German Ministry of Foreign Affairs http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/EN/Startseite_node.html German Ministry of Culture http://www.bundesregierung.de/Webs/Breg/EN/Federal-Government/ChancelleryMinistersOfState/BerndNeumann/CulturalPolicy/cultural-and-media-policy.html

India

Indian Ministry of Foreign Affairs http://meaindia.nic.in/ Indian Ministry of Culture http://www.indiaculture.nic.in/

Indonesia

Indonesian Ministry of Foreign Affairs http://www.deplu.go.id/Pages/Default.aspx?l=en Indonesian Ministry of Culture and Tourism http://www.budpar.go.id/indexprofil.php

Italy

Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs http://www.budpar.go.id/indexprofil.php Italian Ministry of Culture and Environment http://www.beniculturali.it/mibac/export/MiBAC/index.html

Japan

Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs http://www.mofa.go.jp/ Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology http://www.mext.go.jp/english/

Korea

Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade http://www.mofat.go.kr/english/main/index.jsp Korean Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism http://www.mct.go.kr/english/index.jsp

Luxembourg

Luxembourgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs http://www.mae.lu/en/content/view/full/2204 Luxembourgian Ministry of Culture http://www.mcesr.public.lu/ Mauriatania

Mauritian Ministry of Culture http://www.gov.mu/portal/site/mac Mauritian Ministry of Foreign Affairs http://www.gov.mu/portal/site/mfasite

Mexico

Mexican Secretariat of Public Education http://www.sep.gob.mx/en/sep_en/ Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs http://www.sre.gob.mx/english/

Morocco

Moroccan Ministry for Foreign Affairs http://www.maec.gov.ma/en/default.html Moroccan Ministry for Culture http://www.minculture.gov.ma/

The Netherlands

Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs http://www.minbuza.nl/en/home Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science http://english.minocw.nl/

Nigeria

Nigerian Ministry of Culture and Tourism http://www.afdevinfo.com/htmlreports/org/org_14106.html Nigerian Ministry of Foreign Affairs http://www.mfa.gov.ng/structure.php

Norway

Norwegian Ministry of Culture http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/kkd.html Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/ud.html

Qatar Qatari Ministry of Culture, Arts and Heritage http://www.moc.gov.qa/en/e_home.html Foreign Ministry of Qatar http://english.mofa.gov.qa/ Russia

Russian Ministry for Foreign Affairs http://www.mid.ru/brp_4.nsf/main_eng Russian Ministry for Culture http://www.government.ru/eng/power/27/

Singapore

Singaporean Ministry of Foreign Affairs http://www.mfa.gov.sg/ Singaporean Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts, http://app.mica.gov.sg/

South Africa

South African Department of International Relations and Cooperation http://www.dfa.gov.za/ South African Department of Arts and Culture http://www.dac.gov.za/

Spain

Spanish Ministry for Culture http://www.mcu.es/ Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs http://www.maec.es/en/menuppal/Ministerio/Paginas/postingTXT(17-2)Ministerio.aspx

Switzerland

Swiss Ministry for Culture http://www.kulturministerium.ch/ Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs http://www.eda.admin.ch/eda/en/home.html Trinidad and Tobago

Trinidad and Tobago Ministry for the Arts and Multiculturalism/ Culture Division http://www.culture.gov.tt/culture_home.html Trinidad and Tobago Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Communication http://www.foreign.gov.tt/ Tunisia

Tunisian Ministry for Foreign Affairs http://www.diplomatie.gov.tn/index.php?id=4&no_cache=1&L=2

Turkey

Turkish Ministry for Culture and Tourism http://www.kultur.gov.tr/EN/ana-sayfa/2-0/20110803.html Turkish Ministry for Foreign Affairs http://www.mfa.gov.tr/default.en.mfa

United Arab Emirates

United Arab Emirates Ministry for Culture, Youth and Community Development http://www.mcycd.ae/en/Pages/HomePage.aspx United Arab Emirates Ministry for Foreign Affairs http://mofa.gov.ae/mofa_english/portal/7e38025d-309a-46f9-9cd0-7d905dba965a.aspx

United Kingdom

UK Department for Culture, Media and Sport http://www.culture.gov.uk/culture/index.aspx UK British Council http://www.britishcouncil.de/ United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/

United States

United States Department of State http://www.state.gov/ United States Department of State- Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs http://exchanges.state.gov/

Venezuela

Venezuelan Ministry of Education, Sports and Culture http://www.me.gob.ve/ Government of Venezuela Official Data http://www.presidencia.gob.ve/venezuela_datos_o.html Venezuelan Ministry for Foreign Affairs http://www.mre.gov.ve/

10. Appendices 10.1 Table 1 – UN Conventions (Global)

1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflicts

1970 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property

1972 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage

2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage

2005 Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expression

Algeria No Ratification Ratification Approval No Angola No Ratification Ratification No No Argentina Accession Ratification Acceptance Ratification Ratification Australia Ratification Acceptance Ratification No Accession Bahamas No Ratification No No No Barbados Accession Acceptance Accession Acceptance Accession Botswana Accession No Accession Acceptance No Brazil Ratification Ratification Acceptance Ratification Ratification Canada Accession Acceptance Acceptance No Acceptance China Accession Acceptance Ratification Ratification Ratification Colombia Accession Acceptance Acceptance Ratification No Egypt Ratification Acceptance Ratification Ratification Ratification France Ratification Ratification Acceptance Approval Acceptance Gabon Accession Acceptance Ratification Acceptance Ratification Germany Ratification Ratification Ratification No Ratification India Ratification Ratification Ratification Ratification Ratification Indonesia Ratification No Acceptance Acceptance No Italy Ratification Ratification Ratification Ratification Ratification Japan Ratification Acceptance Accession Acceptance No Korea No Acceptance Acceptance Acceptance Ratification Luxembourg Ratification No Ratification Approval Ratification Mauritius Accession Acceptance Ratification Ratification Ratification Mexico Ratification Acceptance Acceptance Ratification Ratification Morocco Accession Ratification Ratification Ratification No Netherlands Ratification Acceptance Accession No Accession Nigeria Accession Ratification Ratification Ratification Ratification Norway Ratification Ratification Ratification Ratification Ratification Qatar Accession Acceptance Acceptance Ratification Accession Russia Ratification Ratification Ratification No No Singapore No No No No No South Africa Accession Acceptance Ratification No Ratification Spain Ratification Ratification Acceptance Ratification Ratification Switzerland Accession Acceptance Ratification Ratification Ratification Trinidad & Tobago No No Ratification Ratification Ratification Tunisia Accession Acceptance Ratification Ratification Ratification Turkey Accession Ratification Ratification Ratification No UAE No No Accession Ratification No UK No Acceptance Ratification No Ratification

US Ratification Acceptance Ratification No No Venezuela Accession No Acceptance No 10.2 Table 2 – International Tourist Arrivals in 2010 (Global)

International Tourist Arrivals in 2010 (in

Millions) Algeria 1,91 Angola 294 Argentina 5,29 Australia 5,89 Bahamas 1,4 Barbados 0.568 Botswana 1,55 Brazil 5,16 Canada 16,1 China 55,67 Colombia 2,39 Egypt 14,05 France 76,8 Gabon 0.222 Germany 26.88 India 5,3 Indonesia 7 Italy 43,63 Japan 8.61 Korea 8.8 Luxembourg 0.879 Mauritius 0.87 Mexico 22.4 Morocco 9,29 Netherlands 10,1 Nigeria 1,41 Norway 4.4 Qatar 1.66 Russia 20,27 Singapore 9,16 South Africa 8.97 Spain 52.68 Switzerland 8.6 Trinidad & Tobago 0,66 Tunisia 6.9 Turkey 27 UAE 7.43 UK 28.13 US 59.75 Venezuela 0.745

10.3 Table 3 – Government Actions (Global) Conventions Embassies Official

Development Assistance

Total

Algeria 5 8 0 13 Angola 4 5.5 0 9.5 Argentina 8 8 0 16 Australia 6 6 3 15 Bahamas 2 1 0 3 Barbados 5 1.25 0 6.25 Botswana 3 3.5 0 6.5 Brazil 9 8.25 0 17.25 Canada 4 8.25 3 15.25 China 8 6.25 0 14.25 Colombia 5 5 0 10 Egypt 9 8 0 17 France 7 9.5 5 21.5 Gabon 7 4.75 0 11.75 Germany 8 9.5 3 20.5 India 10 9 0 19 Indonesia 4 6 0 10 Italy 10 6.25 1 17.25 Japan 5 8.5 2 15.5 Korea 8 3.25 0 11.25 Luxembourg 7 3.5 7 17.5 Mauritius 8 3.25 0 11.25 Mexico 8 6.75 0 14.75 Morocco 7 7.75 0 14.75 Netherlands 5 8.75 8 21.75 Nigeria 9 7.25 0 16.25 Norway 10 7.25 10 27.25 Qatar 6 5.75 0 11.75 Russia 6 9.25 0 15.25 Singapore 0 6.25 0 6.25 South Africa 6 9 0 15 Spain 9 8.5 4 21.5 Switzerland 8 8 4 20 Trinidad & Tobago

6 2.25 0 8.25

Tunisia 8 6.75 0 14.75 Turkey 7 8.5 1 16.5 UAE 3 6.25 2 11.25 UK 5 9.75 6 20.75 US 5 10 2 17 Venezuela 3 8.75 0 11.75

10.4 Table 4 – Freedom and Media Policy (Global)

RSF

Freedom House Nation Brands

Algeria 28 31 25 Angola 22 30 25 Argentina 17 23 16 Australia 7 12 9 Bahamas 39 10 25 Barbados 39 7 25 Botswana 19 21 25 Brazil 18 22 13 Canada 10 7 4 China 38 39 19 Colombia 35 27 25 Egypt 27 27 20 France 15 13 2 Gabon 23 35 25 Germany 6 5 1 India 26 19 18 Indonesia 24 25 24 Italy 16 19 6 Japan 4 11 5 Korea 14 17 21 Luxembourg 5 2 25 Mauritius 20 16 25 Mexico 31 27 17 Morocco 30 32 25 Netherlands 1 4 11 Nigeria 35 26 25 Norway 1 1 12 Qatar 25 32 25 Russia 34 38 14 Singapore 31 34 15 South Africa 12 18 23 Spain 13 15 10 Switzerland 1 3 8 Trinidad & Tobago

11 14 25

Tunisia 37 40 25 Turkey 33 24 22 UAE 21 35 25 UK 8 7 3 US 9 6 7 Venezuela 28 37 25

10.5 Table 5 – Cultural Initiatives (Global)

10.6 Table 6 – UN Conventions (Europe)

1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflicts

1970 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property

1972 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage

2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage

2005 Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expression

Austria Ratification No Ratification Ratification Ratification Belgium Ratification Ratification Ratification Acceptance No Bulgaria Accession Ratification Acceptance Ratification Ratification Cyprus Accession Ratification Acceptance Ratification Ratification Czech Republic Succession Succession Succession Acceptance Accession Denmark Ratification Ratification Ratification Approval Ratification Estonia Accession Ratification Ratification Approval Approval Finland Accession Ratification Ratification No Acceptance France Ratification Ratification Acceptance Approval Acceptance Germany Ratification Ratification Ratification No Ratification Greece Ratification Ratification Ratification Ratification Ratification Hungary Ratification Ratification Acceptance Ratification Ratification Ireland No No Ratification No Ratification Italy Ratification Ratification Ratification Ratification Ratification Latvia Accession No Acceptance Acceptance Accession Lithuania Accession Ratification Acceptance Ratification Accession Luxembourg Ratification No Ratification Approval Ratification Malta No No Acceptance No Accession Netherlands Ratification Acceptance Accession No Accession Poland Ratification Ratification Ratification Ratification Accession Portugal Ratification Ratification Ratification Ratification Ratification Romania Ratification Acceptance Acceptance Acceptance Accession Slovakia Succession Succession Succession Ratification Ratification Slovenia Succession Succession Succession Ratification Ratification Spain Ratification Ratification Acceptance Ratification Ratification Sweden Accession Ratification Ratification Ratification Ratification United Kingdom

No Acceptance Ratification No Ratification

I n s

10.7 Table 7 – International Tourists Arrivals in 2010 (Europe)

International Tourist Arrivals in 2010 (in millions)

Austria 22

Belgium 7.22

Bulgaria 6.05

Cyprus 2.17

Czech Republic 6.33

Denmark 9.1

Estonia 2.12

Finland 3.67

France 76.8

Germany 26.88

Greece 15.01

Hungary 9.51

Ireland 7.19

Italy 43.63

Latvia 1.37

Lithuania 2

Luxembourg 0.91

Malta 1.33

The Netherlands 10.88

Poland 12.47

Portugal 12.47

Romania 6.87

Slovakia 1.33

Slovenia 1.84

Spain 52.68

Sweden 4.95

United Kingdom 28.13

10.8 Table 8 – Official Development Assistance, 2010 (Europe)

Official Development Assistance (Bi USD) Total GDP Percentage

Austria 1.19894 391.635 0.31%

Belgium 3.00023 471.765 0.64%

Bulgaria 0 50.62 0.00%

Cyprus 0 23.291 0.00%

Czech Republic 0.2147 199.012 0.11%

Denmark 2.86663 313.825 0.91%

Estonia 0 18.605 0.00%

Finland 1.33536 240.139 0.56%

France 12.91562 2668.794 0.48%

Germany 12.72305 3332.803 0.38%

Greece 0.50003 325.083 0.15%

Hungary 0.11692 145.634 0.08%

Ireland 0.89515 216.107 0.41%

Italy 3.11087 2121.119 0.15%

Latvia 0 23.955 0.00%

Lithuania 0 35.152 0.00%

Luxembourg 0.3992 54.045 0.74%

Malta 0 7.972 0.00%

Netherlands 6.3506 797.447 0.80%

Poland 0.37465 479.026 0.08%

Portugal 0.6481 225.972 0.29%

Romania 0 168.644 0.00%

Slovakia 0.0754 92.432 0.08%

Slovenia 0.07124 49.11 0.15%

Spain 5.91659 1424.687 0.42%

Sweden 4.52662 443.718 1.02%

United Kingdom 13.76307 2222.629 0.62%

I n s t i t u t e

10.9 Table 9 – International Perception and Media Policy RSF Ranking Freedom House

2010 Nation Brands

2008 Ranking

Austria 7 32 14 7 Belgium 14 6 20 7 Bulgaria 70 76 - 27 Cyprus 45 37 - 21 Czech Republic 23 24 31 13 Denmark 11 5 15 4 Estonia 9 19 44 10 Finland 1 1 18 2 France 44 40 2 13 Germany 17 19 1 5 Greece 70 63 - 26 Hungary 23 40 28 16 Ireland 9 14 19 6 Italy 49 72 6 20 Latvia 30 55 - 23 Lithuania 11 32 42 12 Luxembourg 14 6 - 10 Malta 14 37 - 15 Netherlands 1 11 12 3 Poland 32 47 30 19 Portugal 40 16 - 18 Romania 52 88 41 25 Slovakia 35 43 - 21 Slovenia 46 52 - 24 Spain 39 47 11 17 Sweden 1 1 10 1 United Kingdom 19 26 3 9

10.10 Table 10 – Eurostats (Europe)