Reporter Volume 25, No.

23 April 7, 1994
Needed: Cultural Understanding As Well As Economic Diplomacy
By PHILIP G. ALTBACH
and WILLIAM K.
CUMMINGS
The end of the Cold War has brought with it many changes. One of
them is exemplified by the failure of the United States-Japan trade
talks during the Clinton-Housokawa summit. As President Clinton said,
economics has become part of diplomacy. National security no longer
dominates U.S.-Japan relations, and this link, so important for both
countries, has become much more complex. The Washington meeting showed
that domestic political requirements and continuing friction over
trade are the key factors at present. This is unfortunate if one takes
a long-term perspective. What is needed is cultural diplomacy, or
better yet, cultural understanding, as a key underpinning for all
relationships between the two countries.
Considerable ignorance persists. Just look at the images
portrayed on television or in the newspapers of one country concerning
the other. The Japanese public sees a colossal misunderstanding of
American society and American reality portrayed even by the highest
officials. Racial and ethnic stereotypes are endemic. Few in Japan
have a clear understanding of the complexity of American culture and
society. Similarly, Americans are woefully ignorant of Japan. Films
such as Rising Sun feed misunderstanding. Japanese investments come in
for harsh criticism, while Dutch or British investments cause no
problems. Reporting on Japan is generally unsophisticated and tends to
reinforce stereotypes rather than build understanding.
We need to rethink a half-century of cultural and educational
contacts and programs. We need, on both sides, to develop a set of
cultural relations that will improve basic understanding of two
complex cultures so that policy can be made on a firm base of
knowledge, and so that public opinion in both countries is wellinformed. As relations between Japan and the United States grow more
complex, the need for more knowledge and understanding is great.
There is an impressive knowledge base. Most Japanese students
study English, although few have opportunity to use it, and fewer
still have the ability to speak it with any fluency. There is a
considerable literature concerning both countriesQsocial science
studies abound and small groups of academies in each country know a
good deal. Many books are translated. There are also significant
imbalances in this knowledge base. For example, very few Americans
study JapaneseQonly about 27,000 at the secondary level and 46,000 in
college. There are fewer than 2,000 American students in Japan, while
some 40,000 Japanese study in the United States. Two thousand
different books are translated annually from English into Japanese
while only 50 are translated from Japanese into English. There has
been significant progress, but there is also a long way to go.
During the 1960s, as Japan's economy bubbled, several new
initiatives were launched, including the Ministry of Education's
plans to host 100,000 by the year 2000, and the plans of groups like
the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science to sponsor foreign
researchers in Japan's laboratories. The argument was advanced that
Japan should take these steps as a payback for the benefits it has
received in the past from the U.S. Fulbright program and other
binational opportunities. These Japanese initiatives were open to
American young people, but relatively few Americans responded.
Gradually, students from other nationalities, especially Chinese and
Southeast Asians and recently Russians, participated. One reaction in
Japan is to wonder whether there is anything more that Japan can do
to make studying in Japan more attractive to Americans.
The answer is yes, there are other measures that Japan can
consider. At the university level, more active international exchange
offices and better housing arrangements for foreign students would be
helpful. The Ministry of Education could ease accreditation rules for

U.S. Universities in Japan, and develop more flexible terms for

foreign researchers. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs could ease visa
regulations.

There are also many measures worth considering in the U.S. High
school social studies courses should show adequate recognition of
the changing world economy and of Asia's contribution, both past
and present, to world civilization. Japanese language should be as
available in high schools as French or Italian. Language
requirements should be strengthened at the university level. All of
this will become possible if America's national leaders say that
culture is as important as mathematics and economics, and that Asian
culture deserves as much consideration as the European tradition.
In the current climate, it seems as if educational and cultural
relations are taking a back seat to hardball economic and political
maneuvering. Our argument is that the Japan-United States
relationship is of primary importance for both countries and that
both sides need to take steps now to ensure that there is a basis
for knowledge and understanding in this relationship. Of course,
knowledge does not always lead to agreement, but it is a basic
requirement for informed decision-making. Further, people at all
levels of society need to have an unbiased and well-informed
understanding of the two flagships of the Pacific RimQJapan and the
United States.
Philip G. Altbach is professor and director of the Comparative
Education Center, and William K. Cummings is professor of education
and director of the Asian Studies Program, both at UB.

Feature Story:

November 2000

Track Two:
Beyond Traditional Diplomacy
By David L. Phillips The
author is a senior fellow at
Columbia University's
International Conflict
Resolution Program and an
adviser to the Bureau of
European Affairs.

rograms that encourage unofficial dialogue between

adversaries or communities in conflict are what track
two diplomacy is all about. Designed to complement
official diplomacy, track two initiatives advance U.S.
interests.
Recognizing this, the State Department has played a key
role in assisting Columbia University's track two portfolio
in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean region. Today,
U.S. Embassies in Ankara, Athens and Nicosia are fully
engaged in promoting track two activities.

0&ht"j&&
Taxiarhis Church, a Greek
Orthodox church in
Fethiye, Turkey, curently
being restored by the
social relation committee
of Fethiye.

Embassy public affairs officers created exchange

programs to foster Greek and Turkish cooperation among
intellectuals, journalists, academics and archaeologists.
Participants represent business, civic and religious
communities as well as the governments of both
countries. Embassy staff monitor projects in the fields of
archaeology, dance, the arts, academia, culture, sports,
media, tourism, trade and banking. The Bureau of
Educational and Cultural Affairs funded the programs.
To encourage appreciation for the track two approach,
Columbia University's International Conflict Resolution
Program has conducted seminars for embassy staff abroad
and roundtable discussions with representatives of the
Bureau of European Affairs in Washington. Once wary of
these informal activities, U.S. officials increasingly view
track two programs as innovative tools for reducing
international tensions.
In Cyprus, the university organized activities to mobilize
support for a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation. Since a
solution to the Cyprus question is influenced by Greece
and Turkey, the program pursued a regional approach
involving citizens of both nations. These efforts have
helped improve relations between the two countries.
After the Turkish earthquake of August 1999, Greece
responded generously and quickly, sending the first
international rescue teams. Soon afterwards, when a

( )

teams to the Greek capital. This "earthquake diplomacy"

signaled a new phase in Turkish-Greek relations. A
network of civil society leaders, established in 1997, laid
the groundwork for the rapprochement that has occurred.
Both countries' political leaders recognized the shift in
public opinion after the earthquakes. At the Taksim
Roundtable, a meeting of Greek and Turkish officials,
Greece's Foreign Minister George Papandreou said,
"People have dared to think what politicians believed was
impossible. They have gone beyond our diplomatic
maneuvers. In a glorious moment, they have taken
diplomacy into their own hands."
This new spirit helped inspire formal diplomacy. Mr.
Papandreou and Turkey's Foreign Minister, Ismail Cern,
created working groups in culture, tourism, trade,
environmental concerns, multilateral cooperation and
combating organized crime. Today, Greece and Turkey
have started a dialogue on such core issues as territorial
waters, law of the sea jurisdiction and resolution of the
dispute over islets in the Aegean and Eastern
Mediterranean. Their ministries of education also have
taken steps to eliminate negative stereotyping in
textbooks.
To reach this point, both Turkey and Greece had to
overcome deeply rooted mutual mistrust. Animosities
were compounded by the perception that Greece was
working behind the scenes to keep Turkey out of the
European Union. A consensus developed that Turkey's
democratic development would be enhanced if it were
integrated into European institutions. But after the 1997
Luxembourg Summit, Ankara broke off most formal
contact with Greece. And after Greece was implicated in
supporting Abdullah Ocalan, head of the terrorist
Kurdistan Workers Party, prospects for improved GreekTurkish relations seemed remote.
So did Turkey's EU candidacy. Member nations objected to
Turkey's candidacy, citing the unresolved Cyprus
question, Greek-Turkish relations and human rights
concerns. Deciding to take on these issues, Columbia
University mobilized a series of track two initiatives
specifically designed to address problems affecting
Turkey's relations with the European Union.
Meetings were convened of Cypriot business leaders, who
believed that contact between the two factions produces
mutual benefit. The sessions yielded tangible results. The
U.N. phone system was upgraded, multiplying tenfold the
number of calls between the northern and southern
regions of the divided island. Other projects were
identified in the fields of trade, tourism,
communications and the environment.

A Greek Cypriot businessman, needing goat's milk

from the north to fulfill export orders, printed Tshirts that read, "Make cheese, not war." Eco-tourism
aimed at saving an endangered species of turtle was
explored. Internet contact expanded. Waste
management projects developed. And an important
dialogue is under way to solve the acute water
shortage afflicting the entire island.

Left, Greek and Turkish earthquake

rescue teams display their flags side by
side. Right, Prime Minister Simitis of
Greece (in gray suit) thanks Turkish
Ambassador Koyonoglu (in dark blue suit)
and the Turkish rescue team in Athens.
To improve the climate for Greek-Turkish relations,
Columbia University assembled media
representatives, think tank experts, scholars and
business leaders from Greece and Turkey. These
meetings revitalized the Greek-Turkish Business
Council and catalyzed transactions, including the sale
of information technology from Greece to Turkey.
The gatherings also helped establish joint ventures
between Greek and Turkish businesses to promote
power production and grid transmission in third
countries, including Macedonia and the Central
Asian Republics.
One innovative activity focused on the shared
history of Greeks and Turks. Research groups were
created to study events during the burning of Smyrna
ordepending on national perspectivethe fire of
Izmir. The 1919 event was a defining moment for
Greek and Turkish national identities. Scholars are
preparing parallel and joint publications as a starting
point for national dialogue on historical events and
their effect upon contemporary attitudes.

Today, track two activities are expanding. In April, Greek and

Turkish mayors met in Washington, D.C. A Greek-Turkish writers'
symposium was convened in Athens. Last May, the Voice of
America sponsored a multimedia
conference on "Greek-Turkish Rapprochement." In June, Bilkent
University's amphitheater was packed with Turkish students
attending a performance by Greek pianist Dimitrios Sgouros,
conducted by the distinguished Turkish composer Gurer Aykal.
Villagers in Turkish coastal communities on the Aegean, where they
recall the Greek spoken by their grandparents, have located and
invited former Greek residents of their towns to return and visit.
The resort town of Golkoy on the Bodrum peninsula in Turkey has
established a sister-city partnership with Leros in Greece. There
have been meetings and joint projects on a multitude of topics, from
trade to church restoration and from pharmacy to sports.
To advance human rights in Turkey, Columbia organized a
democracy dialogue with Turkish citizens, including those of
Kurdish origin. Rejecting separatism and terrorism, participants
discussed ways to promote moderation by addressing the legitimate
demands of Kurds for more human and cultural rights. They drafted
a declaration of common principles that has influenced the debate.
Turkey has taken positive steps by lifting the state of emergency in
several provinces, expanding Kurdish cultural rights and initiating
legal and constitutional reforms. But there is more work to do.
Track two initiatives helped revitalize Greek-Turkish diplomacy at
its low point. But track two is no substitute for progress in formal
negotiations. The Cyprus talks are on again. While track two efforts
can build stronger relations between the Greek and Turkish Cypriot
communities, they cannot compel either side to finalize an
agreement. And there is growing public pressure on Greece and
Turkey to address core concerns affecting their bilateral
relationship.
Will this lovefest continue? The United States must use all the tools
at its disposal to ensure that it does. And track two activities have
proven to be among the more effective tools for encouraging GreekTurkish dialogue.
U.S. officials recognize that track two programs can add value by
contributing to official diplomacy when there is close consultation
and cooperation between officials and responsible nongovernmental
organizations. Innovative problem solving is encouraged at the
Department of State, and track two diplomacy has found its way
into the toolbox of American diplomacy.

Turkish conductor Gurer Aykal applauds Greek pianist Dimitrios

Sgouros at a Bilkent University concert before an audience of 5,000
Turks.

CULTURAL DIPLOMACY - THE FUTURE

Dr. Robert T. Taylor

Represetative
The British Council
Greece
It is a unique chance to stand back and look at the events of our century and to think ahead to the next. Much has
been written regarding particular problems which alter our environment or aspects of the framework of our society
which affect us in our daily lives. These are all factors which depend mainly on the specific policies and practices of
individual governments. However, above and beyond these individual policies are global attitudes and it is here that
diplomacy, in general, plays its part. Diplomatic relations between governments do not normally impinge directly on
the lives of the majority of people, although everyone can be disastrously affected when they go wrong. Governments,
whether elected or not, carry out a political will which is determined mainly by present necessities and governed by
past events. Governments are normally preoccupied with relatively short-term policies to meet immediate crises and
not with the long-term future.
We have passed through the industrial revolution and now live in the age of technical innovation. Ours is hardly a
visionary age. The technological wonders that surround and excite us seem more to compound rather than resolve
fundamental problems. Over the last generation one unsensational progression has been achieved that has brought
about a degree of international convergence of thought. The propagation of the written word, with information
freely passing across frontiers and above all, cultural exchanges between peoples are caused by the spread of
education. This is the area of cultural diplomacy between countries, and the time is opportune to capitalise on the
potential it yields for world stability, peace and prosperity. I do not see cultural diplomacy as simply one element in
normal diplomatic relations - it is something which can transcend diplomacy itself. It is often said that the golden
age of diplomacy has passed. This may be, but beyond diplomacy is cultural diplomacy and for me this particular
form of cultural relation is proving itself today and holds the promise for the future.
It is accepted in most countries today that cultural relations are an essential third dimension in relations between
states: "third" because they accompany politics and trade. It was Willy Brandt in 1966 who first gave currency to the
term "the third pillar of foreign policy." Senator Fulbrighl, after whom one of the most imaginative exchange
schemes is named, wrote in 1964: "Foreign policy camiot be based on military posture and diplomatic activities
alone in today's world. The shape of the world a generation from now will be influenced far more by how well we
communicate the values of our society to others than by our military or diplomatic superiority." The French, who
pioneered cultural relations, consider the representation of their culture abroad to be virtually a sacred mission and
spend half their budget for foreign relations on it. But whereas the French Government has traditionally identified this
work closely with French interests and foreign policy, the general tendency in other democracies since 1945, has
been to distance it from government direction and control. The idea of people communicating with each other across
national boundaries has been a constant theme throughout the world over the last 40 years and is one of the
fundamental beliefs of the European Community.
At its most effective, the purpose of cultural diplomacy is to achieve understanding and co-operation between
national societies for their mutual benefit. Cultural relations proceed ideally by the accumulation of experiences
between two countries through open professional exchanges rather than by selective self-projection: the latter being
better described as propaganda. Cultural relations portrays an honest picture of each country rather than a beautified
one. It does not conceal national problems but neither does it make a show of them. It neither pretends the warts do
not exist nor does it parade them to the repugnance of others. Equally though, let us not be naive. Governments,
even in open democratic countries, look for a return on the investment of funds in cultural relations in terms of
national advantage. Whereas the real return is for the people of the country through long-term relationships with
other peoples which produce and propagate understanding and encourage co-operation. It is because these
relationships can flourish best, if not subject to politics, that cultural diplomacy work is best done by organisations
that enjoy some degree of independence from the state machinery. Such organisations, as in Britain, are sometimes
constitutionally independent. Elsewhere they are formally responsible to a ministry, usually the Foreign Ministry,

but encouraged by the government and the ambassador overseas to exercise a considerable measure of autonomy
and independence. In France and Germany, e.g., there is a mixture of the two. Cultural diplomacy is spread over a
range of institutions and ministries, but with the Foreign Ministry co-ordinating the overall programme and policy.
Indeed, today, the concept of the "cultural attache" slavishly scoring points for his political master, is the very
antithesis of right-minded cultural diplomacy and is probably out-of-date, even in the embassies of the most
totalitarian of states.
But what of culture itself, the undefined concept which is the very heart of the matter? The component parts
comprise the arts, libraries and information services, literature, language teaching, science and technology, social
structure, the exchange of persons, links between communities and institutions, and educational aid and training in
the developing world. T.S. Elliott settled for the simple definition of culture as "that which makes life worth living."
The word "culture" itself certainly varies in the depth of its meaning. In German, for instance, "culture" is a more
fundamental word than it is in English. In England the idea of culture has "never moved the man on the Clapham
Common bus" as the ordinary citizen has been styled; and yet he himself incorporates a very distinctive culture in the
sense of a set of values, attitudes and a view of the world.
There is the need for a measure of independence from government policy for cultural relations, but the work is
bound to depend, to a large extent, on the public purse. However much money may be raised from cultural activities
themselves, or from collaborators and sponsors, it can do no more than make up a proportion of the total cost. The
proportion will vary according to each country's policy and management and it will be determined by the
attractiveness of what is on offer - artistically, scientifically, linguistically or educationally - but it can never be more
than a proportion.
Most forms of cultural activity are subsidised and this is the accepted style of our age. Governments are called
upon to make grants and must justify these to the tax-payers. If governments are persuaded to go on funding
cultural relations in a time of recession, a convincing rationale is needed concerning the good done by cultural
relations not just to the participants and beneficiaries, but to the national interests at large.
Fortunately for us today, Clausewitz's pronouncement of 1827 that "war is the continuation of politics by other
means" is no longer true. However, although there is a consensus about the need to avoid war, there is little in the way
of a concerted policy to promote peace in the world. However fervently ordinary citizens desire peace they find little
scope for action on its behalf. When such action is attempted it is all too easily channelled into political campaigns.
This is one area where cultural diplomacy can and does play a part. Culture is not a quick "wonder cure" for trouble
spots, but as part of the pattern of relationships between states it creates an atmosphere that is favourable to peace.
The emphasis on "that which makes life worth living", generates an atmosphere which is against destruction. This is
not a matter of woolly idealism but of practical common sense, of sound investment. In 1944, when the British
Government committed itself to continued expenditure on the work of the British Council - its agent for cultural
relations overseas - it said: "The most general and remote of these aims is a peace of understanding between the
peoples of the world." The Federal Republic of Germany gives particular prominence to peace in its cultural
relations. In 1978 the Foreign Office there said: "Our foreign cultural policy is essentially international co-operation
in the cultural sector. It is part of our foreign policy, a policy designed to promote the safe-guarding of world peace."
The contribution that cultural relations make to peace is a cumulative one and is achieved through promoting
understanding. Activities arranged by cultural agencies create a favourable impression on foreigners in leading
positions, either directly, as with high culture, or indirectly through the reputation built up through professional
exchanges and through the exchange of information. Sir Anthony Parsons, former Foreign Policy Advisor to Mrs.
Thatcher, expressed it well when he said. "Nations, like people, do not act solely in accordance with an objective
evaluation of their best interests. Decision-making at all levels is more often informed by emotional and
psychological factors. It is in this area, often intangible and difficult to quantify in terms of balancing the books, that
cultural relations play a leading part. It really is blatantly obvious. If you are thoroughly familiar with someone
else's language and literature, if you know and love their country, its arts and its people; you feel instinctively
disposed - all other things being equal or nearly equal - to support them actively when you consider them to be
right, and to avoid too severe a criticism when you regard them as being in the wrong. These simple truths certainly
work when we are concerned with individuals; why not then so far as the rest of the world?" Most people would
share this belief, but perhaps it is because they are "simple truths" that they are so difficult to prove. The exchange of
persons is probably the most enduring means of increasing understanding and usually takes up the largest part of the
resources of cultural agencies. Mostly it is directed at key persons in priority areas. The careful identification of
target groups is essential, as are tact and restraint. International goodwill and understanding are rarely achieved by
direct assault. They are more usually the by-products of activities in which men and women work together for
reasons that seem to be good and sufficient in themselves.
I have looked briefly at the general arguments for funding cultural relations. For each country a rationale is
needed to justify government expenditure. Let me finish by looking at the changes in rationale which have taken
place in Britain during this century. Every country has its own individual approach and, as I commented earlier,
France is the one with the most intense and comprehensive attitude to Cultural Relations - it is one which, in
parts, I envy. The French idea of bearing a cultural mission to the world is of long standing, it is a messianic
approach - how different from Britain! Any notion that Britain had a sacred or moral duty to spread its culture (as
distinct from its order justice or trade) found little favour during the imperial days. Culture was not a concept that
attracted enthusiasm within Britain: we did not. like France, possess the intellectual tradition of seeing literature and
language, the arts as an expression of nationhood that should be transmitted to others. One British official in 1919
concisely put it: "To promote one's country7 in times of peace is not cricket." A British Foreign Office memorandum
of the time commented: "Of the three main elements which make up British influence - political, economic and
culture - the first two have long been recognised as fundamental. The third, cultural influence, while vaguely
creditable, is of little practical use, and so far above worldly considerations that it ought never to be degraded to
political ends."

Compare this with Talleyrand's famous prescription to French Ambassadors leaving Paris to take up their posts:
"Make them love France." The difference was apparent in our two colonial policies. While France diffused her
language through a series of schools with seconded teachers, and bestowed recognisably French attitudes of thought
with it, Britain built upon the tradition and practices of the colonial country and left education to the mission
schools. We preferred simply not to bother about cultures as long as the country functioned in our favour.
In the 1930's, when the British Government established the British Council to counter propaganda from fascist
countries, the Treasury wrote, "There is some danger that the aim of the British Council may imperceptibly be
transformed into a general desire to spread British culture throughout the world and it would be impossible to
defend such expenditure in Parliament." One might think that today these attitudes have changed but it is sad to
report, as recently as 1977, when the Government commissioned a review of cultural and information agencies, the
Berrill report said. "Culture should be given a low priority in developing countries because it is of doubtful value to
their needs and resources spent on other activities would normally bring greater benefit to them." How little the
Berrill report knew of the world. In fact, the search for a cultural identity which leads to artistic exchange, is usually
one of the higliest priorities for developing nations. Fortunately, the Berrill recommendations were never accepted.
The concept of cultural relations in Britain now is not only acceptable, it is even respectable. It is no longer the belief
of a few idealists, but a firm conviction of the Government that cultural relations have a key role to play. Only last
year, Parliament made a detailed review of cultural diplomacy and strongly recommended that more funds should be
devoted to this activity - a far cry from the views of earlier governments! The report confirmed that the role of cultural
relations is not to promote trade or diplomacy, but to enrich the human spirit, enhance international understanding,
and expand the horizons of men and women throughout the world.
Cultural relations are our best hope of transmuting traditional prejudices into attitudes of understanding and cooperation. Culture has the advantage of being a possession which all people can share. Today we can speak more
meaningfully than ever before of a "world culture". Accessible by virtue of its shared humanity, it can be transmitted
freely and without censorship in its diversity beyond political frontiers by modern methods of diffusion. There is, of
course, no panacea for the world's ills, but cultural diplomacy does offer potential for their reduction and
manageability. If I may return to my starting point of diplomacy and politics. I shall define cultural diplomacy as the
best means yet devised by civilisation for preventing international affairs from being governed by politics alone. For
me, cultural diplomacy is one of the key foundations for the 21st Century; a foundation on which we can build
mutual trust and understanding.

Dr. Robert T. Taylor is the British Council representative in Greece. He holds a B.A., M.A. and D.Phil, from
Oxford University. He has been a research associate and Fulbright Scholar at the University of Michigan, and ICI
Research Fellow at the University of Liverpool. He has travelled to India, Spain and Mexico as the British Council
representative, has contributed to Chambers Encyclopaedia and has published many papers in scientific journals.

Cultural Protection Treaties and Other International

Agreements
Treaty on the Protection of Artistic and Scientific Institutions and Historic
Monuments (Roerich Pact) (15 Apr 35)
Convention for the Projection of Cultural Property in Jhe_ Eventof Armed Conflict (14
May 54).
text version and other commentary / States Parties to the Convention
European Cultural Convention (19 December 1954)
European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage (6 May 1969)
Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and
Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (14 Nov 70). text version. States Parties to
the Convention.
Convention Concerning^ the Protection of the^^ W_orld_Qjliural_ajndNat ural Heritage (16
Nov 72).
text version. States Parties to the Convention. Convention Secretariat
Convention concernant la Protection du Patrimoine Mondial, Culturel et Naturel
Convention on the Protection of the Archeological. Historical, and Artistic Heritage of the
American Nations (Convention of San Salvador) (16 Jun 76)
European Convention on Offences Relating to Cultural Property (texijversion)(23 Jun
Convention for the Protection of the Architectural Heritage of Europe (Text version).
Convention pour la Sauvegarde du Patrimoine Architectural de FEurope (3 Oct 85)
European Convention for the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage of Europe
(Revised) (text version) (16 Jan 92)
UN General Assembly Resolution (A/RES/48/15) on the Return or Restitution of
Cultural Property to the Countries of Origin (2 Nov 93).
Buenos Aires Draft Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural
Heritage (August 1994).
Unidroit Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects (24 June 1995).
(via City University) text version. About the Conference, Paper by Marina Schneider,
Unidroit Research Officer, delivered at London Conference on Art Theft, November
1995. Signatories.
Final Communique of the NATO Partnership for Peace Conference on Cultural Heritage
Protection in Wartime and in State of Emergency, Cracow, 18-21 June 1996.

UNESCO Recommendations concerning cultural heritage

Other International Charters and Standards

Cultural Diplomacy

sp e el a I ii-e d a a -3 n c i e s- U n esco
speo.piograrner EUROMED 3 \ international Uyel sp s c. o tg a

actors K NC-Osand (NOQs

=-"----
t?-

K in

d.i.vi duals

nidations-

scholarships /"
J u oat: on

exchange of i V
university cooi

1CCROM ./

M FA- cult, d 2 p a rtrn 5 n t

Ministry of culruie
dipLmij-'ions.^./

... <t European Union- EUROM]

aditional sch<

1. ORGANIZATION. OBJECTIVES (follow link)

2. STATUS, PERSPECTIVE (see below)

The OCCDO is a non-profit, non-partisan international Orthodox, Christian organization.'Our

purpose is:
t. To inform?

governments
international organizations
members of parliaments
journalists and media
cultural organizations, universities
other organizations and churches

on the cultures, activities and positions of the Orthodox church.

2. To foster cooperation and understanding.between countries of Orthodox tradition.
3. To help all Orthodox Christians realize the richness of their diverse cultures, the power of their
apostolic Faith and the deep unity of their one Apostolic Church.
As a diplomatic organization, we also work to denounce the persecutions against
Christians, especially in Egypt, Turkey, Sudan etc.
The OCCDO publishes:
a monthly Orthodox World News bulletin (>April 1999) (see subscription form)
an annual report on the state of the Orthodox world (>December 1999) (see
order form).

CULTURE: The notion of Orthodox arts and cultures is slowly emerging in public consciousness.
One of our goals is to promote and explain how the Orthodox faith has shaped and is still shaping
artistic expressions and cultures in countries of the "Christian Orthodox Commonwealth", i.e.
Greece, Russia, Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia and also Egypt, Ethiopia, Armenia etc.
DIPLOMACY: Recent events in ex-Yugoslavia and Russia have shown that the media often
present a one-sided view of events where the Orthodox Church is involved. There are also
many countries where Christians and Orthodox Christians are under persecution such as
Egypt and Sudan.

If you wish to receive more information, to become a supporting member of the OCCDO
or express your thoughts, please fill out the membership form.
Our permanent offices will be located in Washington, D.C. and Silicon Valley, CA in the
United States. Our goal is to maintain a network of accredited correspondents in major
cities around the world. Contact us if you feel that you qualify for a position of
correspondent or accredited representative.
(c) Orthodox Christian Cultural and Diplomatic Organization

http://www.occdo.org/html/about.htm

15/11/2000