Introduction: reflecting on heritage diplomacy

Conjoining cultural heritage and diplomacy

Cultural heritage is an essential element in transmitting values, establishing narratives of historical and contemporary connectivity, and creating subjective and collective identities and a feeling of belonging. During the past decade, the potential of cultural heritage for state foreign policy and in international heritage governance has attracted increasing interest among heritage scholars. This potential, however, remains under-researched in the broader spectrum of international cultural relations. This special issue focuses on international cultural relations dealing with cultural heritage and culture in terms of heritage diplomacy. The contributors discuss the potentials and limitations of heritage diplomacy and how it could or should be approached in theory, policy, and praxis. The aim of the issue is to critically explore the previous research of heritage diplomacy, develop its theoretical basis and scope, and thereby extend the discussion to new topics and themes.

To recognize the potential of cultural heritage for international cultural relations, it is helpful to conceptualize heritage as a presentist and future-orientated process through which realities are constructed from the selected elements of the past (e.g. Ashworth, Graham, and Tunbridge 2007; Harrison 2013a; Lähdesmäki et al. 2020). In this conception, cultural heritage is not an essentialist ‘fact’ but emerges when something is narrated, defined, and/or treated as such in a specific sociocultural context (van Huis et al. 2019). The conception underlines how all heritage includes dissonances regarding the stories told through it, the ways the past is represented, and how memories are used in public spheres (Tunbridge and Ashworth 1996). This dissonance is not undesirable, but intrinsic to the very nature of heritage (Smith 2006, 82; Graham and Howard 2008, 3; Kisić 2016, 25) and crucial to its potential to look to the future. In this orientation to the future, cultural heritage has an active role: it ‘does’ things when actors discuss, manage, and use heritage for different purposes (Harrison 2013a, 2013b; Whitehead et al. 2019; Lähdesmäki and Čeginskas 2022). This capacity makes cultural heritage favourable ground for political projects; different meanings are attributed to heritage in diplomatic engagements, from the material and tangible to ideational structures (see also Giulia Sciorati 2023). Critical heritage scholars have often underlined the political dimension of cultural heritage. It functions as an arena for both manifesting and negotiating (dissonant) meanings, values and identities (e.g. van Huis et al. 2019; Kisić 2016; Harrison 2013a; Mäkinen et al. 2023). It may promote established worldviews and power hierarchies but also question them by offering space for deconstructing power asymmetries and creating novel dialogic connections between people. These different approaches to cultural heritage explain its utility for diplomacy.

Diverse definitions have been attributed to diplomacy in scholarship and practice. The use of terms such as ‘cultural diplomacy’, ‘public diplomacy,’ ‘new public diplomacy,’ and ‘(international) cultural relations’ reflect the development of the term throughout time. While all terms foreground the relevance of culture in diplomatic endeavours for creating (chiefly positive) engagements between states and people to negotiate mutual interests, to maintain peaceful relations and a geopolitical status quo, the concepts may diverge on understandings of the roles in, governance and aims of diplomacy (see also Dâmaso 2021, 7–8). In this issue, the contributors predominantly take one of two approaches, to frame heritage diplomacy in terms of cultural diplomacy or (international) cultural relations. Cultural diplomacy can be understood as a more traditional approach to diplomacy, which assumes that the state remains the central actor and is preoccupied with advancing its foreign policy goals and using culture for nation-branding. In contrast, (international) cultural relations is characterized by bottom-up and inclusive processes that are ‘primarily concerned with cross-border and transnational “people-to-people” interactions’ at arm’s length from governmental influence (Murray and Lamonica 2021, 14). Despite their alleged independence from the state’s interest in facilitating cultural cooperation and mutual cultural understanding, the long-term goal of international cultural relations is social and political transformation (see Dâmaso 2021, 7–8).

Scholars lack a clear or established definition of heritage diplomacy and instead offer partly overlapping conceptualizations (see Lähdesmäki and Čeginskas 2022). In earlier studies, heritage diplomacy has been commonly attributed to heritage-related actions in the state’s foreign policy and international relations, which includes multi-national cooperation on international heritage governance in the framework of UNESCO. More recent conceptualizations of heritage diplomacy have expanded to include more areas of policy, such as, development policy (Labadi 2020). Our previous research (Lähdesmäki and Čeginskas 2022) reveals how conceptual understandings of heritage diplomacy have been developed and advanced, in the past years by a few pivotal scholars, notably Tim Winter. Recent studies often draw on Winter’s seminal theorization of two core approaches in heritage diplomacy: ‘heritage in diplomacy’ and ‘heritage as diplomacy’ (Winter 2015, 1014–1015). The first refers to heritage-related initiatives and projects coordinated as part of diplomatic actions that do not depend on the notion of mutual or shared heritage as a mediator of relations, but rather ‘highlight the various ways in which heritage figures into existing diplomatic ties’ (Winter 2015, 1014). The second refers to utilization of the past in terms of a shared heritage and historical connectivity to shape international relations. Winter (2019, 2020, 2021), in his works on China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has further challenged the traditional conceptualization of heritage diplomacy in terms of soft power (Nye 2004) by emphasizing culture as a constant parameter of a state’s intertwined domestic and foreign policy that blurs rigid distinctions between internal and external objectives, policies and practices in building international relations (see also Lähdesmäki and Čeginskas 2022). In this view, heritage diplomacy is key for building lasting relationships between people and communities within and across state borders to strengthen intercultural dialogue, cohesion, and inclusion based on sharing heritage and connectivity. At the same time, this conceptualization reveals the limits of heritage diplomacy as a political and diplomatic tool in establishing international relations by underpinning the ability of heritage to create exclusion, division, and hierarchical power relations.

This special issue offers critical, novel, theoretical and methodological approaches to research on heritage diplomacy. The articles extend the discussion of cultural heritage from its role in ‘soft power’ and foreign policy to a dialogic approach within a broad spectrum of international cultural relations. Such an approach deconstructs existing hierarchies in domestic and international power relations and understands cultural heritage as a contact zone that fosters people-to-people connectivity and mutual cooperation based on trust (Lähdesmäki and Čeginskas 2022). Recent studies have taken a dialogic approach to governmental and non-governmental collaboration and initiatives of intercultural encounters (see e.g. Winter 2022; Clopot, Andersen, and Oldfield 2022; Čeginskas and Kaasik-Krogerus 2022). Several contributors to this special issue develop this approach further and explore cultural heritage as a site and form of dialogic exchange in diverse settings.

Heritage diplomacy is often connected to geopolitical and economic power in international relations, to identity- and nation-building processes on both the internal and global stage, and to states seeking reconciliation, peace, and transitional justice after conflict. The contributors refer to such diverse contexts, reflecting divergent approaches to heritage diplomacy. This includes heritage diplomacy as part of the external relations policy and practices of a nation (Sciorati) or of the European Union (EU) (Groth; Čeginskas and Lähdesmäki). It also includes peaceful encounters and interactions in cultural initiatives (Clopot) and museums (Grincheva) and tensions in the different interpretations of the past (Mäkinen et al. 2023; Turunen and Kaasik-Krogerus 2023) or in the negotiation about an international heritage regime (Schreiber and Pieliński). Moreover, the contributors explore heritage diplomacy in different frameworks: cultural diplomacy, international cultural relations, museum diplomacy, international heritage governance and cooperation, and dialogic approach to heritage. This allows us to move beyond the binary categories of international and internal cultural relations or a state’s external and domestic policy. The contributions show that relations and policies are entangled in a globalized and digitalized world that is shaped by the constant movement and interaction of people, ideas, and cultures.

Contemporary challenges in heritage diplomacy

Scholarly interest in heritage diplomacy reflects political attempts worldwide to use cultural heritage to advance international and intercultural relations and to succeed in global political power play. During the past decades, scholars have been interested in the role of culture and cultural heritage in Cold War relations and the development of international heritage governance and management. Since then, studies on emerging economic and political regional and international powers, such as India, South Korea, or Brazil, have counterbalanced the previous focus on North America, Europe, and Japan. More recent research has reflected the international and national security concerns of combatting extremism and trafficking of cultural heritage goods (see Lähdesmäki and Čeginskas 2022). Moreover, current antiracist movements and decolonial practices and policies in the cultural heritage field, as well as more broadly in society, have raised interest among heritage diplomacy scholars.

A much-researched example of heritage diplomacy is the BRI, which was launched in 2013 under the leadership of Xi Jinping to support a new grand strategy to make China an economic superpower. Studies reveal that this initiative is highly controversial and elicits criticism by the Western-led international community for encouraging corruption, failing to meet international standards, and leveraging a form of debt-trap diplomacy for geopolitical purposes (see Ohashi 2018). Winter’s research on the BRI underlines the strategic value of heritage diplomacy for China. He shows how China has advanced the Silk Road narrative underlying the BRI, reinterpreting the past to expand the country’s significance in international affairs, while framing its foreign policy ambitions within a discourse of peaceful connectivity and harmonious dialogue (Winter 2019).

In Europe, cultural diplomacy strategies of nation-branding and identity-building have been traditionally implemented by nation states with a long history of national cultural institutes abroad, but these policies have recently become restructured under EU guidance. Both the EU and the Council of Europe have emphasized cultural heritage in their efforts to promote intercultural dialogue, mutual understanding within and between communities, and peacebuilding (e.g. EC 2016; CoE 2017). The EU’s own strategic approach to culture and cultural heritage in international cultural relations is to complement (not replace) the member states’ existing diplomatic and development endeavours by strengthening ties among EU actors and reinforcing cooperation with partners (Dâmaso 2021, 16). While it respects the principle of subsidiarity, this strategy on international cultural relations nevertheless helps to position the EU as the central counterpart for its non-EU partner countries. The EU’s approach to international cultural relations includes intertwined internal and external objectives and emphasizes speaking with one voice by aligning member states’ diverse interests, priorities, and diplomacy practices into a joint European strategy.

The contributions in this issue bring out existing differences between single state actors and the EU in heritage diplomacy approaches, policies, and practices. As a political and economic union of 27 members, it is complex for the EU to develop and implement international cultural relations. Strategies and initiatives must be coordinated at EU level, taking into consideration state-level policies, projects, and actors, such as established national cultural institutes and their alliances within their umbrella organization (EUNIC). EU-level international cultural relations are typically based on funding temporary and often small-scale cultural projects that emphasize dialogue and people-to-people relations. In theory, this shifts the EU’s focus away from soft power towards strengthening civil society from the bottom up in collaboration with local stakeholder organizations, diverse EU actors, and the cultural institutes of member states (Dâmaso 2021, 8). A recent report outlines the challenge for the EU to negotiate a strategic international cultural relations policy that not only balances member states’ national and common EU interests, but also balances short-term approaches designed to unilaterally communicate positive messages about the EU against long-term dialogue and cooperation that considers local contexts and needs (Dâmaso 2021, 22–23).

The EU’s heritage-derived diplomacy is framed by a strong values-based discourse, which evokes the idea of equal partnership and mutual interests as a central element of external policy, joint activities, and cooperation with local stakeholders in partner countries. This values-based discourse brings out the social dimension of cultural heritage, such as its potential for community and capacity building, participation in society, and universal rights. Dialogue is a great tool in international cultural relations because it suggests openness, willingness to engage by listening, and negotiating common interests and disparate politics to bridge conflicts (see Čeginskas and Kaasik-Krogerus 2022). However, the dialogue approach ultimately disguises and mitigates existing power inequalities and geopolitical interests in international relations.

In its value-based approach to heritage diplomacy, the EU assumes a common framework of rules governing the cooperation between partners. The recent example of Russia’s war on Ukraine underlines the limits of this diplomacy. As Viktorija Čeginskas and Tuuli Lähdesmäki (2023) note in their article in this issue, building dialogic international cultural relations can only work if all parties agree on common goals and follow values and rules that underpin their commitment to collaboration (see also Lechner and Frost 2018, 14, 127). A good prerequisite for such common rules can be democratic principles, including the respect for fundamental freedoms, the rule of law, citizen participation, accountability, and transparency. Such principles belong to a value discourse commonly promoted by Western countries, particularly the EU, in their political rhetoric. This discourse is even represented as universal, as stated in the preamble of the founding treaty of the EU, the Treaty of Lisbon (TFEU 2007). On the one hand, such discourse may echo Eurocentrism and thus be perceived as a colonizing mindset when taken as a universal guideline for international cultural relations. On the other hand, democratic principles are not practiced around the world. In the end, such principles are needed to facilitate non-hierarchical relationships between people and to make dialogue work between states, entities, or communities to address global issues such as human rights, gender equality, social justice, sustainability, and the environment. The war in Ukraine is both a warning about the fragility of international cultural relations and a symbol of an important difference between democracies and authoritarian regimes in their approaches and goals to heritage diplomacy. While the EU’s value-based discourse and use of culture serve chiefly to strengthen (hierarchical) economic and political relationships with Ukraine in the framework of the Eastern Partnership Initiative, Putin’s Russia has consciously violated international law based on a narrative of historical cultural connectivity between both countries to legitimize its unwarranted attack on Ukraine and extend its power and territory across the state border.

Contributions to scholarship on heritage diplomacy

This special issue includes eight research articles and an afterword written by Tim Winter (2023). The idea for this issue arose in a combined paper panel and roundtable discussion in the session ‘Rethinking heritage diplomacy: challenges and potential of the concept and praxis’ that was chaired by the editors at the biannual SIEF (International Society for Ethnology and Folklore) Conference in June 2021. Both the session and the special issue are outcomes of the HERIDI project (EU heritage diplomacy and the dynamics of inter-heritage dialogue), funded by the Academy of Finland. Four of the session’s presentations were later developed as articles for this issue, and HERIDI project researchers contributed with three articles. We invited other scholars to contribute to the issue and enrich the discussion on heritage diplomacy based on their wide expertise. We are aware that the contributions to our issue strongly focus on European approaches. This is partly due to HERIDI’s focus on the EU and partly to the responses we received to our SIEF session call. The planned issue originally included more research articles that ranged more widely. A dialogue between non-Western and Western approaches is still needed in scholarly research on heritage diplomacy.

The first three articles of this special issue focus on the policy and practice of the EU’s international cultural relations and heritage diplomacy. In the first article, Katja Mäkinen, Tuuli Lähdesmäki, Sigrid Kaasik-Krogerus, Viktorija Čeginskas, and Johanna Turunen explore the EU’s core heritage action, the European Heritage Label, and how, in interviews, EU officials and professionals working at the labelled heritage sites give meanings to international cultural relations. The article underlines how internal and external cultural relations are blurred and deeply entangled in EU cultural heritage policies and initiatives. The authors argue that ‘EU external policies have an impact on the EU’s internal cultural policies and cultural relations, and EU internal policies impact its external relations in various ways’ (Mäkinen et al. 2023).

In the second article, Stefan Groth analyses EU policy frameworks for external relations and how they deal with cultural heritage. His analysis shows how heritage is repositioned in EU policy documents from its previous role as an identity resource to an abstract value resource supporting the idea of shared values. Such a move brings about flexibility in the use of heritage in the EU’s external relations. As Groth (2023) notes: ‘With a focus on values attached to heritage rather than a focus on heritage itself or on its specific and contextual features, such a framing of cultural heritage in EU policy programmes allows to circumvent issues of conflict by favouring abstract values instead of specific forms or even shared administrative or regulative frameworks – if these values remain abstract and open enough to allow for compatibility with other fields.’

The third article by Viktorija Čeginskas and Tuuli Lähdesmäki focuses on the EU’s approach to dialogue in its international cultural relations by exploring pilot projects jointly implemented by EUNIC and the EU Delegations in nine countries in Africa, Europe, and South America. Their discussion reveals that these pilot projects included both a traditional approach to cultural diplomacy through showcasing European culture and values and an international cultural relations approach by deepening people-to-people relations through an enhanced cooperation between European cultural institutes and local cultural operators and organizations. Aligning with Groth’s results, Čeginskas and Lähdesmäki note how the EU’s value discourse determines the EU’s aims and priorities of collaboration with partner countries. The EU’s challenge is to negotiate between strategic communications of positive messages about the EU and the aim of building long-term collaborative relations based on trust.

The next two contributions continue the discussion on European heritage diplomacy but move the critical focus on Europe’s colonial past and the need for decolonial practices. Johanna Turunen and Sigrid Kaasik-Krogerus explore heritage diplomacy from the perspective of difficult heritage associated with structural violence in European history, in three case studies of Communist and Nazi regimes and the former European colonies. Their three case heritage sites have been awarded the European Heritage Label. The authors propose the concept of societal heritage diplomacy to argue that the heritagization of sites associated with violent regimes enables communities to negotiate the guilt and traumas of the past. Since heritage is also about the needs of the present and the desires for the future, as Harrison (2013a) claims, the heritagization of structural violence needs to be re-read in the context of the future. Turunen’s and Kaasik-Krogerus’ analysis indicates that the potential for societal heritage diplomacy has materialized for Communist and Nazi regimes, but not for colonial regimes.

Cristina Clopot continues the discussion on colonial heritage in her analysis of an EU action, the European Capital of Culture. She notes how the action could serve as a medium for effective heritage diplomacy but fails to do so, particularly in relation to Europe’s colonial past and its existing legacy in European countries. Clopot introduces the concept of decolonial heritage diplomacy and suggests that European Capitals of Culture may function as an arena for developing new models of cooperation. Such diplomacy may have wide effects since the European Capitals of Culture contribute to the discursive creation and representation of a European cultural heritage.

The final three contributions explore heritage diplomacy within wider geopolitical and global contexts. Natalia Grincheva highlights how digital and mixed media technologies create opportunities for diplomacy in the museum context, in connection with the discussion on decoloniality in museums. Virtual reality enables the presentation and preservation of artefacts in a new way, while immersive online environments for audience engagement help to transform contemporary museums from a tool of national projection and branding to open and participatory spaces that engage with the colonial legacies of heritage institutions. Grincheva shows that these novel museum practices offer a platform for establishing interpersonal and cross-cultural dialogue based on transnational narratives and discourses and can help to ‘establish a more power balanced and democratic “contact zone” of a cross-cultural dialogue to achieve mutual trust, respect, and understanding among various heritage stakeholders.’

Giulia Scoriati’s contribution extends the research on China’s heritage diplomacy by focusing on the country’s collaboration and engagement with Central Asian countries, particularly Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, in the context of the Chang’an-Tianshan Corridor World Heritage nomination. China’s future intentions for expanding this Silk Road listing through a historical narrative of a longer connection with Central Asian people than with Russia is in line with UNESCO’s recent ambition to diversify and improve the representation of non-Western heritage on the World Heritage (WH) List. Equally, the BRI refers to the country’s geopolitical goals and priorities for international relations through heritage-focused collaboration. By highlighting internal Chinese approaches to heritage management and identity politics, Sciorati adds a new dimension to the argument that heritage diplomacy and cultural diplomacy cannot always be entirely separated.

Schreiber’s and Pieliński’s contribution connects to the discussion on tensions over the selection of sites for the WH List. The authors introduce the Ostroms’ goods typology as a tool to examine the complex negotiations and heritage diplomacy discourse that inform the creation of the WH List. Their discussion highlights the discrepancy between the apparently inclusive framing of WH as serving all humanity and being open to all nations and communities and the exclusive process of selecting sites by a limited number of actors and diplomatic interventions, which highlights the inherently political nature of this process. To round off our special issue, Tim Winter offers his insight on heritage diplomacy and the issue’s contribution to research.

We would like to thank all authors for their thorough work and valuable contribution to the special issue as a whole. We are deeply grateful to all external reviewers whose proficient comments enabled the contributors to improve their articles and develop their arguments on heritage diplomacy. We also want to thank Tim Winter for his generous offer to contribute with an afterword to our special issue and Oliver Bennett, the chief editor of the International Journal of Cultural Policy, for smooth cooperation in the editorial process.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Academy of Finland under Grant 330602 (HERIDI 2020-2024).