CULTURAL DIPLOMACY AND POLICY IN SOUTH AFRICA

Paper presented at The Second International Cultural Administration Conference· University of International Business Economy. Beijing. CHINA. 12 July 2014 

Dr. Lebogang. L. Nawa, et al

Conference attendance sponsored by:

Part 1: Introduction

2

Cultural diplomacy should not be viewed as a new phenomenon. It has existed, albeit under different terminologies, from primordial times when nations began to notice the presence of their foreign counterparts and initiated opportunities for sustained interactions with them. In such circumstances, culture played a crucial role in the mediation of differences and the enhancement of mutual understanding and benefits. In certain cases, the arrangements were rather loose and solely involved government officials or high profile personalities such as monarchs, priests, explorers, and merchants. Ordinary people were left out of the situation or, at least involved as secondary participants.

3

The state of affairs is quite different today. Now, modern states not only set up formal rules to guide such liaisons, they also involve the public in international relations. The process has been taken further in certain instances whereby governments now compose policies aimed at the role of ordinary citizens (representing culture) in international relations. Thus culture is no longer just a conduit or entertainment element for cross-national interactions. Culture is now part and parcel of public diplomacy; hence the term ‘cultural diplomacy’ or alternatively ‘international cultural policy’. South Africa is yet to pronounce itself convincingly on its compliance to the new diplomatic order.

The presentation takes the advantage of the cited international paradigm shift to raise a few questions about the new development and also to analyse South Africa’s approach thereto and offer corresponding propositions. One of the fundamental questions towards this exploration is: what is public diplomacy and how does it relate to cultural diplomacy and/or cultural policy, if at all, in the South African context?  The presentation is divided into three parts. Part one presents a brief evolution of cultural diplomacy in history and also explores the semantic debates around the concept, and ancillary ones, with the view to create a conceptual or theoretical framework from which to understand South Africa’s diplomacy dynamics. Part two of this presentation identifies international trends in cultural diplomacy against which to examine South Africa’s approach and suggest solutions to challenges or problems uncovered. The last parts of the article conclude the discussion with the summary of the discussion and its findings as well as recommendations.   

4

Brief historical overview of the evolution of cultural diplomacy

From historical context, cross-national or cultural contacts and interactions seem to be as old as human nature itself. Accounts of explorers, pioneers, merchants, military invaders, and so forth, suggest that the earliest or first cross-cultural exchanges commenced as soon as people were able to devise means to literally move across geographical divides in order to meet their foreign counter-parts for various reasons.

The exact inaugural epochs of such encounters are subjects of various schools of thought. Africologists claim that the foremost cross-national or cultural interfaces, that ultimately led or contributed towards world civilisation, started thousands of years B.C in Africa, particularly around the northern entrance of the Nile River from the Mediterranean Sea (Blyden 1905, Huggins and Jackson 1937, Diop 1974). From a western perspective, the first cultural encounters are traced to the three centuries of Greek civilisation (800-500 BCE) ; be it called the Lyric Age, the Age of Colonisation, the Age of Tyrants, the Age of Law-givers or simply the Pre-Classical Age (Damen 2012).

5

Conceptual and theoretical framework  

Definitions of concepts are often mired in controversy mainly due to theoretical orientations from which they are framed. Foucault (1997) contends that concepts do not only commentate over what they mean, but also simultaneously constitute them, sometimes through some measure of concealment. Thus, to understand a concept is to know what it means, as well as to discover its true motive(s).  Definitions of cultural diplomacy proliferate, spawning in the process auxiliary terms such as public diplomacy, cultural relations, diplomatic relations, and cultural exchanges (Mitchell 1996, Fox 1999, Higham 2001, Marsden 2003, Leonard et al 2002, Schneider 2005, Lending 2000, Mulcahy 1999). Time constraints prevents us to scrutinise each of the replicas. However, we can find common ground among those relevant to the presentation.

6

7

Coined in 1965 by E.Guillon, public diplomacy refers to state diplomacy that is not exclusive to government agents but also involves the general public (Ryniejska–Kiełdanowicz 2009, Mark 2009). According to Mark (2009:15), the distinction between public diplomacy and cultural diplomacy is that “public diplomacy incorporates a wider set of activities than cultural diplomacy, primarily those government media and public relations activities aimed at a foreign public in order to explain a course of action, or present a case.”

Some scholars agree that cultural diplomacy is a feature of public policy so much so that the affinity of the two has led to them being used interchangeably or even as synonyms (Mark 2009, Kim 2011, Ryniejska–Kiełdanowicz 2009, Mark 2009, Marsden 2003, Leonard et al 2002, and Schneider 2005). Hence the prevalence of the phrases or slogans such as “cultural diplomacy is the linchpin of public diplomacy” (United States 2005:1) and “culture in politics” (Kim 2011:3).

8

If at all cultural diplomacy is culture in politics (Kim 2011) and public diplomacy is the promotion of national interests through cultural exchange, what then is cultural exchange and how does it differ from cultural diplomacy? Bound et al (2007:15) reason that “cultural exchange has been intertwined with the pursuit of foreign relations throughout history” through reciprocal exchange of gifts between high profile individuals whereby “people have used culture to display themselves, to assert their power, and to understand others.” Against this background, is cultural exchange at international level synonyms to cultural diplomacy? Mark (2009) argues that the distinction between the two can be identified in the agents involved therein. He points out that international cultural relations or exchanges in most cases involve private individuals or public organs and may not necessarily lead to foreign relations between the countries exposed to such activities whereas cultural diplomacy is often formalised into agreements, treaties and so forth by governments or their agencies.

9

Parts 2: International trends on cultural diplomacy

One of the major common denominators running through some modern states approaches in respect to cultural diplomacy is the attempt to bring together the erstwhile exclusive foreign relations and cultural exchanges paradigms. Pursuant to this objective, governments now review or realign their policies and programmes to allow the participation of citizens in world diplomacy. Uniformity in approach can neither be guaranteed nor even recommended at some point as conditions under which governments operate are not identical. This global challenge is reflected at two levels around cultural diplomacy application by governments, namely: the naming of policy and structural residency of cultural diplomacy.

10

It is observed that governments vacillate in using various terms in reference to cultural diplomacy. In a recent multi-countries comparative study on cultural diplomacy, it is learnt that, for instance, countries such as Austria, Sweden and the Netherlands use the terminology International Cultural Policy (ICP) while Australia, Canada, Singapore and the UK seem to prefer International Cultural Relations (ICR) (Wyszomirski et al 2013). The distinction between ICP and ICR is made in the next section.

The semantic choices underscore government or state theoretical or ideological influences which in turn also impact upon the setting up of goals and priorities, the funding of cultural diplomacy, structural arrangements, deployment of personnel, and the scales of operations. The intention of the presentation is not conduct a review of these aspects, but rather to select those that could benefit South Africa. Besides, the issue of cultural diplomacy philosophy has already been dealt with in the previous section. The next section now deals with the issues of structurisation and deployment of personnel for cultural diplomacy.

11

The structural configurations are not without their share of problems. For instance, the first option, as well as others may be characterised by jostling for turf, domain or positions. With regard to the second,

the Dutch government experienced situations whereby some cultural attachés at certain intervals created own fiefdoms for personal benefits that clashed with

government objectives. The physical and institutional distance between third party agents and the host

government department(s) have in certain instances not only failed to create conditions for financial

accountability, but governments also found it difficult to predict or gauge their impact to the given society in relations to the states cultural diplomacy objectives

(Mark 2009, Minnaert 2014). Owing to this, the onus is, in the final analysis, upon governments to chart a path that suits their conditions regardless of whether such choices may or may not be applicable to their foreign

counterparts.

12

Structures and personnel for cultural diplomacy:

The types of structures government put in place, as well their location and the people deployed to oversee them, determine their course, lifespan and the sustainability of the programmes. People can uphold, alter or destroy structures depending on how the serve their individual or collective interests (Minnaert 2014). Reverting to the multi-countries comparative study, it is observed that there are a number of ways in which governments configure institutional arrangements for cultural diplomacy. These are not necessarily mutually exclusive from each other.

The first is the assignment of a foreign ministry as the home-base to coordinate cultural diplomacy in partnership with other ministries and agencies. The other method is the employment of a variety of interagency/interdepartmental task forces (including politicians), councils, or experts such as cultural attaches to coordinate ICR within the government. The third approach is the use of third party agents to implement ICR, regardless of which ministry or ministries have formal and/or financial responsibility the (Wyszomirski et al 2003). These include non-governmental organs which are the German Goethe Institute British Council, Alliance Française, the Japan Foundation and even Canada Council.

13

Definitions of concepts : the case of South Africa

Even though it could be considered that the solution towards the bridging of the divide between the ICP and ICR in South Africa probably lies in the formalisation of such situation through policy, it is yet to become clear as to how to resolve tension between cultural policy and foreign policy. Is it simply by either collapsing existing cultural policies or certain dimensions thereof, into the diplomacy sphere or composing special policies aimed at establishing the role of culture in international relations? It is argued that a precursor or precondition to arriving at satisfactory answer to the question depends on the laying of good and strong theoretical foundation for the understanding of cultural diplomacy in South Africa.

The definitions of international cultural policy (ICP) and international cultural relations (ICR) have clear consequences for South Africa. Paschalidis (2009) indicates that some countries use ICP to refer to their external cultural policy as separate from the internal cultural policy as well as international cultural relations (ICR). There are exceptions, however. Wyszomirski, Burgess and Peila. (2003) postulate that there are countries that use the terms synonymously and others interchangeably. A distinction between the two is that ICP leans more towards providing course of action or guidelines, while ICR focuses on specific programmes on the relations. Mark (2009) adds that ICR does not necessarily and always involve government officials.

14

South Africa hoists its foreign policy on Ubuntu/Botho principles. Ubuntu/Botho is an ancient African philosophy that regards humane or people-oriented attitude, conduct and cooperation as central to the survival of human beings, individually and collectively. Central to this assertion is that an individual’s whole existence inextricably linked or relative to the group’s interests or survival on the basis of values such as group solidarity, conformity, compassion, respect, human dignity (Mokgoro 1997, Ngubane 1963). South Africa pledges to translate the Ubuntu/Botho tenets into its diplomatic dispensation through the adoption of “an approach to international relations that respects all nations, peoples, and cultures (South Africa 2011:4).

South Africa’s definition of cultural diplomacy is framed by the following statement from the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO): “Cultural diplomacy in South Africa is not simply about ‘culture’ in the narrow sense.  It is about a country projecting its power in the domain of ideas – to influence the ideas and outlook of states, international organisations, and non-state actors in order to pursue its national interests and enhance its geopolitical standing... The practice of Cultural Diplomacy is in-line with our domestic policy - which in turn informs our foreign policy – because our foreign policy is the externalisation of our domestic policy.”

15

Inferred in the definition is that indeed government and the society are significant role players in cultural diplomacy. Yet this does not resolve the ICP and ICR dilemma discussed earlier. Therefore, it now becomes opportune to examine the practical manifestations of South African government to the new cultural diplomacy paradigm with the view to solve the research problem posed earlier. The two selected areas of inquiry, and their corresponding reasons, are: legislative or policy guidelines and institutional arrangements for cultural diplomacy in South Africa.

Legislations or policies set jurisdiction parameters and also bestow, or deprive power or mandate to agents or agencies. At a deeper level, they also reveal ideologies behind particular provisions. Institutional arrangements point to the allocation of residency to cultural diplomacy functions and concomitant operations and coordination.

16

Legislative guidelines for cultural diplomacy and policy in South Africa

South Africa’s Constitution does not pronounce itself overtly on cultural diplomacy. The closest reference to cultural diplomacy or international cultural relations is contained in the section dealing with International Agreements (South Africa 1996, Sec 231). In this regard, the function is conspicuously assigned specifically to the national government, thus: “the negotiating and signing of all International Agreements is the responsibility of the national executive (cabinet)”. Sec 231(b) instructs that “an International Agreement becomes binding on the Republic only after it has been approved by both the National Assembly and the National Council of Provinces. Although the Constitution does not recognise the provincial and local government spheres as subjects of International Agreements, they are however not barred from participating in international relations in terms of other arrangements.

The phrase “cultural diplomacy” is not applicable in the vocabulary of pieces of legislations guiding South African government. It is usually found in strategic documents and speeches by government officials. Otherwise common phrases synonymous to or representing cultural diplomacy in South African legislation are: cultural exchange, (international) cultural relations, and cultural promotions. These are taken to mean cultural diplomacy for purposes of this discussion.

17

South Africa hoists its White Paper on South Africa’s Foreign Policy on Ubuntu/Botho principles., as discussed earlier. The White Paper further undertakes to translate the Ubuntu/Botho tenets into its diplomatic dispensation through the adoption of “an approach to international relations that respects all nations, peoples, and cultures” (South Africa 2011:4). The feasibility of this claim is, however, put into doubt by the conspicuous absence of cultural considerations in the contents of the document. Compounding the situation is the dearth of specific policy for cultural diplomacy in the country.

All matters relating to cultural diplomacy in the White Paper on Arts, Culture and Heritage are contained in Chapter 6, captioned International Cultural Co-operation. This section stipulates, among others, that: “We shall build on our unique convergence of cultures to develop international links for cultural exchange on the basis of mutual respect”. The White Paper then identifies central government subsidiary structures such as the National Arts Council (NAC) and the National Heritage Council (NHC) as vehicles for the cultural exchange objective. The National Arts Council Act, 1997 (Act 56 of 1997) has been put in place to guide the NAC on how to promote and facilitate national and international liaison between individuals and institutions in respect of the arts (SA 1997, sec 3,h). In practice however, the majority of the cultural diplomacy functions are instead discharged by the Department of Arts and Culture, prescribed as the principal host for culture in South Africa by laws superior to the White Paper. Elsewhere, cultural diplomacy functions are also obtainable in the Cultural Promotions Act, 1983 (Act 35 of 1983 (amended Act 59 of 1998) and are consigned to the relevant Minister.

18

The last two pieces of legislation worth mentioning in respect to cultural policy within government structures are the National Policy on South African Living Heritage (1st draft), and the Intergovernmental Relations Framework Act, 2005 (Act No 13 of 2005). The spirit of the latter is drawn from Chapter 3 of South Africa’s Constitution in respect to the principles and spirit of Co-operative Government. These doctrines make room for reproduction, albeit with modifications, across spheres of government. One such entity is the Municipal Inter-relations Framework of 1999.

Institutional arrangements for cultural diplomacy in South Africa

The situation under the DAC The DAC has put in place the Chief Directorate of International Relations (DIR) to deal with cultural aspects pertaining to the country’s foreign relations. The directorate consists of three units focusing on Africa, Middle-East, and Bi-lateral/Multi-lateral Relations.

Cultural diplomacy functions cut across all spheres and arms of government in South Africa. However, they resonate strongly within two specific departments: the Department of Arts and Culture (DAC) and the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO).

19

The DAC does not have a Cultural Diplomacy Policy and International Relations Strategy (IRS) on culture. However, it collaborates with the University of Pretoria on a 2-years programme on IR with the view towards cultivating knowledge and skills on the subject of cultural policy. It has also established partnership with DIRCO around the formulation of cultural policy for diplomacy. The absence of progress update can only lead to speculations. At a legislative level, it has embarked on the review of the White Paper on Arts, Culture and Heritage; the current elements of which, as quoted earlier, relate to international cooperation.

At the operational level, the DAC has established partnership with international counterparts and other agencies on programmes such as: the SA-Flemish Local Cultural Policy Project; SA-MMINO project; the reconstruction and development of Africa through arts and culture before and post-conflicts/wars in collaboration with the Presidency and Pan African Women Association (PAWA); the establishment of Africa World Heritage Fund; participation in global debates on culture and cultural diplomacy at world bodies such as UNESCO and World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO); the endorsement of the 1972 World Heritage Treaty; envisaged appointment or deployment of cultural attaches to South Africa's missions abroad; providing support for institutions under stress in Africa such as the building of library in Mali for scarce manuscripts and the concomitant training of archivists; the establishment of “Bilateral cultural seasons” for cultural exchange with international countries; and finally, the actual entering and implementation of international cultural agreements/treaties and exchanges (Graham 2013).

20

The cultural diplomacy situation under DIRCO:

Unlike the DAC, DIRCO has not put in place any unit specifically assigned to cultural diplomacy. Instead, cultural diplomacy functions are submerged into the operations of Chief Directorate: Public Diplomacy. One of the most visible means in which DIRCO discharges its cultural advocacy role is through the provision of protocol services to the provincial and local governments. These include advising provincial governments and municipalities in protocol services in relation to international visits to and from South Africa (DIRCO 2008).

The cultural diplomacy situation under other government structures:

Legislations in South Africa do not consign cultural diplomacy solely to the national sphere of government. They also apply to the two others, the provincial and local governments as well as to the parliament as one of the three arms of government in South Africa. Primary legislations on local government are generally silent on cultural diplomacy, yet some municipalities engage in international relations exercises such as signing cultural twining and exchange agreements with their foreign counterparts. In October 1998, the South African government embarked on the process of putting together a Municipal International Relation Policy Framework to guide local councils on cultural diplomacy. This framework however does not make any specific reference on cultural diplomacy. It merely sets a broad framework of the international relations spectrum.

21

The earlier discussion in the section on South African legislations and cultural diplomacy identified the NAC and NHC as government’s two ancillary bodies that are mandated to tackle issues of cultural diplomacy. The NAC’s role in cultural diplomacy is centred around dispensing funds for projects or programmes on international cultural exchanges, events and studies (NAC 2004). To this end, in the National Policy on South African Living Heritage (1st draft), the DAC advocates the establishment of a body for the coordination of cultural diplomacy initiatives taken by the DAC (South Africa 2009).

The NHC is a public entity that came into existence through an amendment of the Cultural Laws Second Amendment Act 69 of 2001. The process culminated in its promulgation through the National Heritage Council Act 11 of 1999. Its mission is to “transform, protect and promote South African heritage for sustainable development” by setting up or being involved in heritage protection and promotion programmes that are national and international in stature. In the process of executing these programmes, such as liberation routes and world heritage sites, the department gets in contact with counterparts from governments and independent bodies in Africa and other continents (South Africa 2009). Some of these bodies fall under the banner of the world body, UNESCO.

22

Parts 3: ConclusionCultural diplomacy is as elusive as the concept of culture from which it is derived. It is difficult to be pinned down, and pigeon-holed into a single or standard definition. Various schools of thought proliferate from it and will continue likewise as long as human beings still exist. While debates about the exact dates of the early or cross-national exchanges continue, the idea that such interactions are almost as old as human existence is not unreasonable.

The early cultural exchanges between or among various nations or social groupings since or during primordial times were not always for mutual benefits. Assorted documents confirm that relationships between or among nations were characterised by military invasions, economic sanctions and cultural annihilation. Historically, South Africa found itself in this type of situation. The post-1994 government is now burdened with the task of cleansing that image by repositioning itself to the international world as a custodian of human rights and beacon of human relations through the injection of the Ubuntu/Botho philosophy into its legislations, administrative apparatuses and programmes.

23

Legally, cultural diplomacy in South Africa is a concurrent function among all three spheres of government. While much of the power is concentrated on the country’s President, provisions are however made for the enactment of other laws that can spread the authority to other spheres of governments and their agents or agencies. A few such doctrines were cited and discussed in this regard. The glaring gap that emerged in the process was policy deficiency or deficit around cultural diplomacy in South Africa. This is the point acknowledged by government and about which subsequently mechanism were put in place towards its resolution. The delay or failure in producing a cultural diplomacy policy can but only perpetuates the country’s current ambivalent positioning and application of culture in diplomatic affairs. Therefore, the recommendation about a speedy leap over this cul-de-sac cannot be overemphasised because South Africa cannot afford to unwittingly project an image of indecisiveness in making the transition from a government-centred foreign-relations tradition to the new people-orientated public diplomacy trajectory with culture as one of the significant features. It is further recommended that the two departments that have been assigned with cultural diplomacy functions adopt an approach that separates internal cultural policy from external cultural policy. An envisaged external cultural policy should accommodate elements of both the people’s perspective or interests (culture) and the state’s objectives (diplomacy); hence, the suggested term to be adopted, cultural diplomacy policy. This wording clearly distinguishes the national cultural policy from the policy on diplomatic relations, though they would be some ambience between the two concepts. END

REFERENCES

•Ajibade T. 2013. Nigeria and cultural diplomacy. Online: http://www.punchng.com/opinion/nigeria-and-cultural-diplomacy (Date of access: 19 February 2014).

•African Training and Research Centre in Administration for Development. 2013. “The role of diplomats in promoting African cultures in order to foster a more dynamic African integration for tackling economic challenges”. Paper presented at the High-level Pan-African Forum for Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Diplomats. Online: http://www.cafrad.org/Workshops/Rabat08-10_04_13/BUSIEKA.pdf. (Date of access: 4 March 2014).

•Bound K., Briggs R., Holden J and S. Jones. 2007. Cultural Diplomacy. London: Demos.

•Blyden, E. W. 1905. West Africa before Europe. London: C. M. Phillips.

•Cartwright M. 2012. Odysseus. Online:  http://www.ancient.eu.com/odysseus/ (Date of access: 19 February 2014).

•Clarke, J. H. 1994. Who betrayed the African revolution? Third World Press: Chicago.

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

•Damen. 2012. A Guide to Writing in History and Classics. Online: http://www.usu.edu/markdamen/clasdram/chapters/031gkhist.htm (Date of access: 4 February 2014).

•De Villiers, K., De Coning, T., and E. Smit. 2008. Twinning and winning. USB LEADERS LAB. August 2008: 16-21.

• Diop, C. A. 1974. The African origin of civilization: myth or reality. Chicago: Lawrence Hill Books.

• Foucault, M. 1977. Discipline and punish: the birth of the prison. New York, NY: Vintage Books.

• Fox, R. 1999. Cultural Diplomacy at the Crossroads: Cultural Relations in Europe and the Wider World. London: British Council.

• Fransman, M. 2010.  Cultural diplomacy and sports as tools for nation building and development. Online: http://www.dfa.gov.za/docs/speeches/2010/frans1119.html (Date of access: 29 February 2014).

• Geldenhuis, D. 2012. Political Culture in South African Foreign Policy. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science 2 (18): 29-38.

• Graham, L, Chief Directorate: International Relations, Department of Arts and Culture. South Africa. Interview with M. Sirayi and L. Nawa. 2013. Unpublished interview.

• Higham, R. 2001. The world needs more Canada. Canada needs more Canada. In The Handing Down of Culture, Smaller Societies, and Globalization, ed. P. Baillargeonm, 134-142. Ontario: Grubstreet Editions.

• Huggins, W. N and Jackson J. G. 1937. An introduction to African civilizations. New York: Citadel Press.

24

• Kim, H. 2011. Cultural diplomacy as the means of Soft Power in an Information Age. Online: http://www.culturaldiplomacy.org/pdf/case-studies/Hwajung_Kim_Cultural_Diplomacy_as_the_Means_of_Soft_Power_in_the_Information_Age.pdf (Date of access: 3 March 2014).

• Lending, M. 2000. Change and Renewal. Norwegian Foreign Cultural Policy 2001-2005. Oslo: Royal Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

• Mark, S. 2009. A greater role for cultural diplomacy. Netherlands: Netherlands Institute of International Relations ‘Clingendael’

• Minnaert, T. 2014. Footprint or fingerprint: international cultural policy as identity. International Journal of Cultural Policy 20 (1): 99–113.

• Mitchell, J. M. 1986. International Cultural Relations. London: Allen & Unwin.

• Mulcahy, K. V. 1999. Cultural Diplomacy and the Exchange Programs: 1938-1978. Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society 29 (1): 7-28.

• ——— 1999. Cultural Diplomacy in the Post-Cold War World: Introduction. Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society 29 (1): 3-6.

• Ryniejska – Kiełdanowicz, M. 2014. Cultural diplomacy as a form of international communication. Online: www.instituteforpr.org (Date of access: 4 March 2014).

• South African History Online. 2014. South Africa's Foreign Relations during Apartheid, 1948. Online: http://www.sahistory.org.za/20th-century-south-africa/south-africas-foreign-relations-during-apartheid-1948 (Date of access: 4 March 2014).

• Tangwa, C. 2012. London 2012 Olympics: Burnishing Cameroon’s latent cultural diplomacy. Online: http://www.canutetangwa.com/2012/08/london-2012-olympics-burnishing-cameroons-latent-cultural-diplomacy.html (Date of access: 19 February 2014).

• Maxwell, R. 2007. The place of arts and culture in Canadian foreign policy. Canadian Conference of the Arts. Online: http://ccarts.ca/policy-resources/publications/

• Or http://ccarts.ca/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/PDS-BackgrounddocumentENGFINALgs27.09.07.pdf (Date of access: 4 March 2014).

• Minnaert, T. 2014. Footprint or fingerprint: international cultural policy as identity policy. International Journal of Cultural Policy 20 (1): 99-113.

• Mokebe, T, Deputy-Director: Policy and Systems, Department of Sports, Recreation, Arts and Culture, City of Tshwane. 2008. Interview with L.L. Nawa. 6 March. Pretoria. Unpublished interview.

• Mokgoro, J. Y. 1997. “Ubuntu and the law in South Africa”. Paper delivered at the first Colloquium Constitution and Law held at Potchefstroom on 31 October. Online: http://www.ajol.info/index.php/pelj/article/download/43567/27090 (Date of access: 13 March 2014).

• Ngubane, J.K. 1963. An African explains Apartheid. Great Britain: Pall Mall.

• Paschadilis, G., 2009. Exporting national culture: histories of cultural institutes abroad. International Journal of Cultural Policy 15 (3), 275–289.

• Schneider, C. P. 2005. Culture communicates: US diplomacy that works. In The New Public Diplomacy. Soft Power in International Relations, ed. J. Melissen, 147-168. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

25

• Topić, M and Sciortino, C. 2012. Cultural diplomacy and cultural Imperialism: a framework for the analysis. In Cultural diplomacy and Cultural imperialism: European perspective(s), eds M. Topić and M. Rodin, 9-19. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

• United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation. 1996. Cultural Charter for Africa. Online: http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/FIELD/Dakar/pdf/CulturalCharterAfrica.PDF (Date of access: 4 March 2014).

• Wyszomirski, M.J., Burgess, C., and C. Peila. 2003. International cultural relations: a multi-country comparison. Centre for Arts and Culture. Ohio State University.

•  

• Government (and related) publications• South Africa. Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Act no. 108 of 1996.

• South Africa. Culture Promotion Act, no. 35 of 1983.

• South Africa. Intergovernmental Relations Framework Act, no 13 of 2005.

• South Africa. National Arts Council Act, no 56 of 1997

• South Africa. Department of Arts and Culture. 1996. White Paper on Arts, Culture and Heritage.

• South Africa. Department of International Relations and Cooperation. 2011. White Paper on South Africa’s Foreign Policy.

• South African Local Government Association [SALGA]. 2012. Municipal International Relations Presentation to KZN Technical MuniMEC. 21 September 2012 Kishore Harie – SALGA KZN.

• United States. Department of State, Advisory Committee on Cultural Diplomacy. 2005. “Cultural Diplomacy: !e Linchpin of Public Diplomacy.” Report of the Advisory Committee on Cultural Diplomacy, September 2005. Online: http://iwp.uiowa.edu/about/CulturalDiplomacyReport.pdf (Date of access: 4 March 2014).

•  

26