While reflecting on the news of the day, Edgard Telles Ribeiro told Global Atlanta that he was reminded of the paintings of Jackson Pollock, the American artist whose “drip and splash” paintings earned him the well-deserved reputation as a founder of the school of abstract expressionism.
Mr. Ribeiro, a Brazilian career diplomat and writer, visits Atlanta on occasion to see his brother Ambassador Hermano Telles Ribeiro, the current consul general of Brazil based in Atlanta.
His insight about the Pollock paintings initially was prompted by a succession of thoughts cascading down from a general consideration of the “state of the world” today to the current situation in his home country undergoing yet again a political scrum, to the implosion of the Republican Party in the U.S. and ending with what he calls “the gran finale,” essentially the state of mind of Donald Trump.
“Good Old Jackson would never have guessed the range his art would achieve exactly 60 years after his death… It’s all there — you just have to LOOK!,” he explained.
“Examine the painting closely. Isn’t it obvious. The tension, the confusion, the energy, the humor, the anxiety, the “no exit” sign…” he said of his reaction to one of the Pollock works.
The drip paintings, mostly unnamed and just assigned a number the year in which they were completed dating back primarily to the early 1950s following the devastation of World War II, and famous for their energy and creativity as well as capturing a sense of the nuclear paranoia and historical and personal vulnerability of the time.
Much as the artist layered his paintings, today’s times also layer the exigencies of the world stage– subsets for Mr. Ribeiro’s “world” classification,” including the refugee crises forcing people to create routes while escaping from their homes in search of safety, the indiscriminate killing of health workers and innocents by the trajectories of modern weapons, the wakes of trading vessels on the high seas, the traces of jet streams in the skies, satellite pathways in space, and the air surrounding us all, filled with the energy of telecommunications.
The state of the world may have caught up with Jackson Pollock’s art, which inspired other artists and should not be viewed as merely negative or hopeless. Yet just how far geopolitics have come from the optimistic proclamations of “a new world order” that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union can be evoked by Mr. Pollock’s masterpieces.
But even Mr. Ribeiro seems somewhat surprised by his insight. “An unexpected association between fine arts and political landscapes,” he calls it. “And all of a sudden we find ourselves navigating a new theory –thinking not outside the box” (an expression that he recalls was coined in the 1990s and which he considers quite stale today), “but outside the frame…Jackson Pollock’s to be more explicit.”
After a diplomatic career which took him to all corners of the world, Mr. Ribeiro retired from foreign service in 2014. Before having done so, however, he had filled postings in the economic, political and cultural departments of Brazil’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs with notable responsibilities as Secretary-General of the Brazilian Commission of UNESCO, head of the Cultural Department of the Brazilian Foreign Ministry from 2003-05 and head of the Brazilian Financial Office in New York from 2010 until 2014.
His diplomatic career did not keep him from publishing eight novels and three collections of short stories as well as teaching film and script writing in the University of Brasilia from 1978-82.
His most recent novel, titled “His Own Man,” which won the Brazilian Pen Club Award, was published in English in the United States last year. It has been described as a Machiavellian tale set during South America’s “dirty wars,” revealing the successful techniques of a diplomat who renounces his democratic ideals and thrives under a brutal military dictatorship that takes over his country in 1964.
Throughout his career, Mr. Ribeiro has been a promoter of “cultural diplomacy,” and often is called to discuss the topic. He made the following address titled “Cultural Diplomacy: its role as a tool of foreign policy” at Georgia State University in 2014.
CULTURAL DIPLOMACY: Its role as a tool in foreign policy
Edgard Telles Ribeiro*
As some of you may know, I am a diplomat as well as a writer. As a consequence, I feel comfortable to
talk about foreign affairs and cultural affairs, as if they could be seen as the two sides of a single coin. In fact, I firmly believe that these subjects complement one another. To me the very words foreign relations and cultural relations go hand in hand. Or, at least, they should….
You are all familiar in general terms with culture, and one of its manifestations, which is art. But how familiar are you with foreign relations, diplomacy and what diplomats actually do? Shouldn’t we spend a few moments discussing some basic notions about this mysterious profession that can sometimes be so puzzling in the eyes of non-diplomats?
Essentially, diplomats represent their country abroad. Whether they work in Embassies or Consulates, whether they deal with political matters, commerce or technical cooperation, whether they grant visas or handle administration, they project the interest of their nations beyond their borders.
Sometimes they may be involved in multilateral work. In which case, they will be posted to the United Nations, in New York, or in Geneva, and maybe deal with trade and work at the WTO; or be posted at UNESCO, in Paris, and handle education, science and cultural matters; or choose to work in a regional context, such as the Organization of the American States.
Beyond that, however, most of the time, whenever assigned to foreign posts, diplomats will be involved in bilateral work. They may be in Bangkok one year, in Buenos Aires the next, in Rome if they are lucky, in Bangladesh if they enjoy the challenges involved in that particular posting. Because a lot of charm and beauty can be found in smaller posts. I myself had three small postings, and thoroughly enjoyed all of them.
And one aspect of the diplomat’s daily responsibilities may well be of a cultural nature. As it happens, in my case, I spent a great part of my career dealing with cultural matters, which led me to write a thesis on this subject, and later on to head the Cultural Department of my Ministry in Brasilia.
In reality, my love for this subject goes back to my younger days. Before becoming a diplomat, I was a journalist and a film critic in Brazil. So when I joined the Foreign Service, I was naturally inclined to deal with these themes. And as it turned out, a few years later, I started a parallel career as a writer, and have since published a number of novels and collections of short stories.
These circumstances have helped me to focus on the importance of cultural matters, both from the perspective of a diplomat and that of a writer. In other words, with time, I have developed a firm conviction that cultural relations can play a very important role to defuse tensions in today’s world, if only they could be used as a tool in foreign policy.
Why is it, then, that the bureaucracies that rule our systems and administrations seldom give culture a chance to project our values beyond our borders? Why is it that trade systematically takes precedence over culture, when it is obvious that commerce alone cannot create lasting ties beyond our own frontiers?
We are all aware of the essential role trade has played the cement relations between peoples over the ages. But after modern States emerged from the ashes of two World Wars in the past century, governments should have opened more space to cultural avenues as an additional bridge to expand mutual awareness between nations. Trade alone cannot do it. Politics alone obviously cannot do it.
In all these years dealing with this fascinating theme, I have often been saddened and frustrated to notice the neglect with which cultural relations tend to be addressed by politicians or members of the academic community – and even by my own colleagues in the Foreign Service, be they Brazilian or diplomats from other countries.
This perception is particularly distressing because I believe that the roots of many of the problems we face in the international arena today are essentially cultural in nature, or culturally related. To me, this paradox represents a constant source of amazement and frustration.
Yet, there are reasons for this. Because when one speaks of culture in the context of diplomacy, there is a general tendency not to take the topic very seriously, if compared to the basic themes usually discussed in the domain of foreign affairs.
Take books, for instance: why is it that so few books on cultural diplomacy are available? The short answer is: cultural relations are not associated with crises, wars, loss and destruction.
An American scholar called Philip Coombs stated this problem quite clearly. Here’s what he said: “Cultural activities tend to get brushed aside, not only in the press but in the high places in governments, by the pressure of current crises. They occupy, as it were, the quiet, calm and sunny side of foreign relations, not the dramatic, stormy side.”
The “sunny side of foreign relations”. This is where we have been relegated to, those of us who believe in these ideas…
One way to be taken seriously is to evoke xenophobia (a word of Greek origin meaning, as you know, the fear of the unknown). Norman Daniel did just that. In a book titled The cultural barrier, he made the following point: “Xenophobia, which divides people, actually unites them emotionally, because it is the common weakness of the human race”.
Here’s an expression to keep in mind, in this exchange of ours, “the common weakness of the human race”. And indeed, self-centered societies tend to see “the other” as “the enemy”. Or, to say the least, as a potential threat.
This explains many of the challenges we face today in some parts of the world. Challenges somewhat similar to the ones faced, a few generations ago, by the two Super Powers during the years of the Cold War, when the “other” often meant “the aggressor”.
Of course, our world has considerably changed since the days of the Cold War. Yesterday’s single confrontation has led to today’s multiple conflicts. The Berlin wall has fallen and a thousand new walls have appeared in its place, whether real or metaphorical. But whether we are talking of single or multiple conflicts, it doesn’t really matter.
What matters is that the common denominators of these conflicts have all to do, as in the past, with ignorance, mistrust, and all kinds of misconceptions. And here, again, culture could play a unique role to unblock tensions— if only Governments decided to invest in this powerful instrument that is part of our common heritage…
Mistrust often escalates and generates fear or resentment. More often than not, hatred. But if one takes the trouble to examine a particular conflict and search for its distant causes, the seed of discord is often a very minor one – especially if compared to its devastating consequences.
In reality, the hatred that some races, ethnicities or even opposing political factions feel for one another, results from endless layers of misperceptions accumulated over time – all of which could probably benefit from some level of analysis or mediation, given the right conditions.
In extreme and complex scenarios such as one observes these days, can culture help reduce tensions, and thus build bridges leading towards moderation? And what role can cultural diplomacy play in some of these scenarios?
A major one, if only governments could become aware of its potential. Why major?
Because in an age of vague and porous borders, distances can no longer be measured in geographical terms, but in cultural terms.
In other words, in terms of affinities, versus the lack of them. In terms of openness, versus suspicion. Once this is understood, we are at the front door of cultural relations.
*********
Cultural relations, it is worth mentioning, are not an invention of our times. We are not discussing a recent phenomenon, or something created by globalization. The vast majority of greater cultures, throughout History, were formed through the influence of other cultures. Borrowing was an inevitable part of this process. The influence of philosophers, artists and thinkers has always crossed frontiers.
From the Athens of Pericles to the Medieval University, from the Italian Renaissance to the revolutions of the 18th and 19th centuries, from the wealth of knowledge of the many civilizations born in Asia to the wonders of Old Egypt, or the Inca and Mayan Empires, a sort of spontaneous universality has always been around us, to a smaller or greater degree. In some cases, stimulated by princes, popes or kings, in others in spite of their objections.
What makes it different today is the speed with which this knowledge crisscrosses the world. And the role governments play in directing this cultural flow. Some governments know how to benefit from this continuous source of wealth – derived from their cultural presence beyond their borders.
Others, particularly in the Third World, are so burdened by different priorities that they neglect to emphasize their culture as a major asset in the regional and international community. They hesitate to invest in this domain, finding it extremely difficult to commit the necessary human and financial resources to projects that often seem a waste of time and money.
On the basis of these few general ideas, we should now be in a position to establish a major difference between cultural relations and cultural diplomacy.
We might say that cultural relations are the spontaneous flow of information that has always been present in the community of nations, whether governments liked it or not; and that cultural diplomacy would consist of the use of cultural relations as an instrument of foreign policy.
In other words, nations – or at least some nations – take advantage of the spontaneous flow of cultural exchange, and add to them. They go with the flow, so to speak. They do so by designing specific projects to be shown in some parts of the world where, for whatever reason, they want to be better represented. They act – and this is very important – without expecting quick returns on these investments.
In fact, cultural diplomacy only works well if its objectives remain invisible. In other words, if it is not perceived as a ploy to achieve a given result.
Thus, cultural diplomacy represents a long-term investment, with no guaranteed dividends. What it does, and it does beautifully, is something less tangible: it helps to create a positive atmosphere around the nation whose culture it promotes.
Half a century ago, political analysts and diplomats could perhaps afford to disregard the importance of cultural diplomacy. They could be excused for this major oversight. Not anymore, though. In 1945, when the UN was created, there were roughly 50 countries in existence. In 1965, there were 120. Today, there are nearly 200. The world’s population is growing at a rate of 140 million per year (the vast majority of which, 125 million, coming from the developing world).
Each morning, we wake up to face an amazing convergence of revolutions in practically all fields of human knowledge, which the Internet spreads around. Progress in all domains, be they scientific, technical or economic, has never been more astounding than today.
We deal with an excess of information, which defy the imagination and often leave us powerless in the midst of such excess.
This picture is further complicated by a common vulnerability to major problems that are no longer perceived as national issues, but seen as transnational challenges, such as ecological threats, transmission of diseases of epidemic proportions, transnational crime, stock-market crashes engulfing all our economies simultaneously, and so on. And more recently the threat steaming from international terrorism.
Against this complex and fluid background, it is easy to understand that, in the near future, the well- being, and even the survival, of some nations may depend on how well they perform internationally. The less known a country, the lesser its chances of competing, the lesser its possibilities of having its views heard or respected. A nation can become less relevant for lack of visibility, regardless of its real economic importance. And it can easily become irrelevant, regardless of the wealth of its own past.
And just how do you make your presence felt outside your own borders? You could rely on your military might, if that’s your geopolitical option, and if you can afford the weapons. Or you could count on trade, if you excel in that particular domain. Or on a strictly political agenda, devising strategic alliances to keep your enemies at bay. Or on technical cooperation projects, which represent a good link between countries. Or, as often is the case, on a combination of some of the above. But all of these agendas (political, economic, commercial, etc.) could be greatly enhanced if the country’s cultural background was better known beyond its borders.
Why, you may wonder? For a simple reason: no other instrument available to us can be perceived as a part of the common heritage of humankind. Culture, having no frontiers, and being such a diversified manifestation of human nature (and sometimes human genius), is charged with subjective and symbolic meaning. Although created in a specific country, it is usually accepted as belonging to all, and not only to that specific country.
In this regard, Beethoven is much more than a German composer, and Picasso has long ceased to be a Spanish painter. Both happen to be among our favorite artists. They do not belong to any given country or culture. Geniuses transcend not only their own countries, but also their own cultures. They belong, as it were, in a universe of their own. Which happens to be perceived as ours. And quite rightly so…
The pyramids do not fascinate us because they are located in Egypt, nor does the Acropolis, Angkor Vat or Machu Picchu inspire us because they are part of Greece, Cambodia or Peru. They inspire us, like music moves us, from Bach to The Beatles, because they reflect Humankind at its best.
The same can be said of writers, who take us, by the sheer power of their imagination, to the very heart of their countries and to other lands as well – imaginary lands, quite often; of architects, who keep marveling us with their audacity; of anyone, in fact, who transports us to higher dimensions, from art to folklore, from gastronomy to sports. Because culture, as T. S. Eliot reminded us, “. . . is everything that makes life worth living.”
It is this feeling of belonging, of being part of a higher sphere of human achievements that makes culture so appealing to all. Culture does not intimidate (as a military presence intimidates), nor does it oppress (as economic tensions often do), nor does it lead to competition, as so many of our other activities, like trade, end up doing.
On the contrary, culture seduces, amuses, gets to us emotionally, makes us think – and makes us feel as part of a whole. No other human-made activity has the same power, a power that has to do with radiance, rather than strength.
************
In the aftermath of World War II, Senator J. William Fulbright was among the first to summon the necessity to reconsider our priorities in this domain. This is what he said sixty years ago: “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.”
“A generation from now”, he said, sixty years ago – and we are all still waiting . . . If things have changed, they seem to have changed for the worse.
In a world where military solutions tend to leave on their wake a heritage of resentment and hate, how much better wouldn’t our chances be if governments could concentrate on values, and invest on long term projects rooted in education and cultural information?
Atlanta Ballet is the presenting sponsor of Global Atlanta's Culture Channel. Subscribe here for monthly Culture newsletters.
The Dean Rusk International Law Center at the University of Georgia is the presenting sponsor of Global Atlanta's Diplomacy Channel. Subscribe here for monthly Diplomacy newsletters.
