In his important speech at the Sorbonne on September 26, 2017, President Macron had these words: "The strongest cement of the Union will always be culture and knowledge. (…) This Europe, traversed by so many wars and conflicts, what holds it, is its culture" (see EUROPE 11870). This courageous view is certainly a minority view in the European Council, but it is linked to the original vision of the pioneers of unification: 70 years ago, the Hague Congress structured its work into three committees: political, economic and cultural. Within the limits of its decision-making process and resources, the Council of Europe will have done its best to draw inspiration from it.
During the rise of the Europe of the Communities, the young Parliament was stubborn in its pressing for cultural action. It was not until the 1980s that bits of European cultural "policy" appeared, as if by break-in: the European Cities (then capitals) of Culture, invented by two non-conformist ministers (Mercouri and Lang), the first "Television without Frontiers" directive which, under the pretext of completing the single market, contained signs of common cultural voluntarism (quotas for European works) and the first MEDIA programmes, based on industrial policy, but decisive for our cinema. Then came the insertion, in the Maastricht Treaty, of an article on culture, the operative part of which remained unchanged until the Lisbon Treaty, except that the governments finally accepted the abandonment of unanimity in the Council and that the field was confirmed as a supporting competence.
The Union's institutions have not provided an official definition of culture, but everything indicates that it is "classical": heritage, literature, fine arts, theatre, dance, music, cinema… However, since 1982 there had been a much broader definition, adopted by UNESCO in Mexico City. This took into account the progress of anthropology, broadening the concept: lifestyles, value systems, traditions, beliefs… It is this broad conception that the Union needed, so that people would know each other better, especially in view of the great enlargement, and then with the multicultural development of our societies and the intensification of migration.
What is the most delicious way to get to know a 'foreigner'? Its culture in its strictest sense, but also in the broad sense: its history, traditions, festivals, songs, folklore, culinary art, specific clothing, spiritual universe, family environment, language, relationship to nature and sport, etc. This knowledge makes it possible to understand everyone else and to avoid many prejudices, conflicting distortions and mean spirited condemnations. It should have been the subject of massive investment on a continental scale.
In a flash of political lucidity, the Union invented the "European Year of Intercultural Dialogue" (see EUROPE 9575). With its €10 million, the operation created more than 8,000 activities in the EU, with the strong involvement of artistic figures (including the late Charles Aznavour), festivals, schools, religious leaders, sportsmen, local authorities etc.…
That was 10 years ago: a new spirit was blowing over Europe, then everything fell back.
While the promotion of intercultural dialogue was one of the three specific objectives of the Culture Programme 2007-2013, it only appears as a last priority among various specific actions of the Culture sub-programme of the current 'Creative Europe' (2013-2020). It has disappeared from the operative part of the proposal for a regulation establishing the programme 'Creative Europe' for 2021-2027 (see EUROPE 12030). In its Communication 'A new European Agenda for Culture', the Commission considers intercultural dialogue only in the context of the external dimension (strengthening international cultural relations) as if the problem no longer exists on the territory of the Union…
Among its current aims, there is cause for concern about the place of culture itself: not a word in the EU-2020 Strategy, in the White Paper on the future of Europe of March 2017, in the speeches on the State of the Union (except a brief mention in 2016), or in the Spinelli Group's Manifesto for the Future of Europe of August 2018. Within the Commission, responsibility for the Creative Europe programme, presented in 2013 as an advantageous combination of the former MEDIA and Culture programmes, is entrusted to two separate Directorates-General and split up in the EU Budget (Titles 9 and 15).
In its proposals for the new multiannual financial framework 2021-2027, the Commission allocates €1.85 billion to 'Creative Europe' for an EU of 27, which is roughly what it requested for the current programme in an EU of 28. Parliament and the Council had finally agreed on a budget of 1.46 billion. In both cases, the Culture component receives one third and the MEDIA component more than half. Admittedly, Parliament is in the throes of a major upheaval to significantly increase the overall allocation to the MFF (see EUROPE 12130), but the work and statements made by its Committee on Culture and Education demonstrate a clear priority in favour of the Erasmus+ mobility programme, which it even hopes will triple. Prognosis: in the end, the culture will continue business as usual.
It is right these days that the Commission should develop an economic (the famous cultural and creative industries) and technological (adaptation to digital technology) argument to get the regulation through. In addition, the European Year of Cultural Heritage, which is nearing completion (see EUROPE 12021), is to be welcomed. But in both cases, we miss the essential: culture, experienced and produced, as a place of understanding between peoples and individuals, as a reminder of the tragic as much as joyful school of subtlety and depth - a possible vaccine against trivialized brutalities, demagogic simplifications and hateful shortcuts. And for this necessarily transnational approach to culture, it was urgent to use the most appropriate means.
The sentence attributed to Monnet: "If I had to do it again, I would start with culture" is apocryphal, but the mere fact that it is often quoted betrays a collective lack. On the other hand, it is certain - this is the exercise of his Memoirs - that he wrote: "We do not merge States, we unite people". The insidious erasure of culture in the Union's strategic action and the recovery of the concept of 'cultural diversity' in the service of the exaltation of national cultures and indigenousness open up a contrary perspective. Its cost is much higher.
Original version in French by Renaud Denuit