Thank you to the organisers of this significant international cultural event, and in particular Ms. Wei Zhi, and the president Mr Chen Shenglai for inviting me for a second time to address this Forum. When I was here two years ago, this Festival and Forum was in its forth year, and we all came away having learned much about each other -- an experience I value very highly. Now in its sixth year, this event is clearly establishing itself as a significant focal point for cross-cultural communication. Judging by my own experience two years ago, and comments made by my colleagues around the world, this event is certainly succeeding in achieving its stated objective to present the best cultures from around the world, to promote Chinese traditional arts, to enhance Sino-international cultural exchanges and to develop cultural markets.

Our organization, the International Society for the Performing Arts (or ISPA) is very interested in the work done by this and other similar Festivals, since one of our shared objectives is to strengthen cross-cultural understanding between communities around the world -- through the universal language of the arts. I am delighted that our Chair, Mr. Graham Sheffield from the Barbican Centre in London is present here today -- he will be delivering a paper tomorrow. I joined ISPA as its Chief Executive Officer in 2002 after serving as arts executive in various organizations in South Africa, where I was fortunate to play a role in the transformation of the arts before and after South Africa's democratization in 1994.

ISPA is a 57 year old performing arts membership organization with about 500 leaders and practitioners representing more than 50 countries. Our members meet twice a year in different world cultural capitals to exchange ideas, concerns and business opportunities. We are working hard to continue to increase the diversity of our membership, because we find the strength of our organization in the diverse points of view expressed by our members. In this regard we embarked on a campaign to strengthen our ties with Asia by hosting a Forum in Beijing in 2001, a Congress in Singapore in 2003, and our Congress in June 2006 will be held in Hong Kong. If anybody here would like more information about ISPA and membership, please see me after this session, or at our booth at the Fair tomorrow -- we would welcome you to ISPA.

Our delegates leave ISPA Congresses empowered with knowledge and understanding of diverse perspectives to influence their communities, and to break down stereotypes. It is our hope that through the work of our organization our members can become more than just better arts executives, or better presenters, producers, artists or consultants -- that in addition to these roles, they will also become peacemakers who see conflict as an opportunity for learning and growth.

Which brings me to the topic of my paper today: ''Reducing Conflict: the REAL value of Cultural Collaboration.''

In my address to this Forum in 2002, I focused my remarks on the necessity of not only building cross-cultural bridges, but on the importance of crossing those bridges in two directions. I referred to the miracle of the peaceful demise of South Africa's system of ''Apartheid'', which was an oppressive system of racial segregation which crippled South Africa for at least a century until 1994. I also outlined the strong and crucial role played by the arts in this miracle. I ended my delivery with a challenge to all of us to do whatever we can to increase understanding between global communities.

And now, two years later, and three years after the tragedy of September 11, 2001, I look at the current state of world conflict, and I must conclude that we still have a lot of work to do. Just about every region around the world is involved in some conflict: there are currently 23 states around the world in an officially declared ''state of war'', and another 18 states where the United Nations have deployed International Peacekeepers. The real significance of the word ''war'' has lost its meaning. According to the official rules governing international conflict, a ''just or fair war'' can only be waged as a last resort, when all realistic options, which were likely to right the wrong have been pursued. War is the ultimate failure in communication -- it is when we admit that we cannot agree, compromise, find a solution, or welcome a differing opinion.

This world is made up of about 230 nations -- all unique, and different, and special. These nations are by no means homogenous -- they in turn make up the current world population of 6,4 billion -- all unique, and different, and special. The gathering in this room today represent a microcosm of this world -- we are all unique, and different, and special. We have gathered for this Forum because we are interested in each other's uniqueness, because we respect our differences, and because we celebrate our ''different-ness''. We are involved in the arts because we believe the arts have a role to play in preserving and reflecting those values that define us, separate us, and unite us. We take this embracing attitude for granted, because we cannot imagine any other way. If I may paraphrase South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu: our diverse cultures, beliefs, ethnic backgrounds, races and creeds together form the beauty that is this ''Rainbow World'' we live in. The rainbow is poorer without ALL its colors, and no color is more important than the others. We instinctively understand this, believe this, and may even defend it.

We know there is more that unites us, than there is that divides us.

But the sad reality of today's global village is that it is a village in strife. We have fellow rainbow citizens (and leaders) who still translate ''different from me'' into ''less than me.'' Or even worse, we have nations who are led by the belief that anybody who does not agree with them, or who is different from them is automatically wrong. We see this narrow-minded attitude of intolerance being articulated by the words and actions of many of our world leaders today. These leaders do not accept the basic truth that it is important to seek to understand ''others'', BEFORE you seek to be understood by them. Their agendas seem to be driven exclusively by self-interest, and the imperative of winning over the ''other'' to their point of view. Success (to them) is measured when their opinion prevailed, and they then proudly declare that an ''understanding'' has been reached.

However, this attitude is not only found among world leaders. Not surprisingly, many are only too happy to support this hard line, because (as it is with animals) it is a strong and basic human instinct to mistrust anybody from outside our own little world. It takes tremendous effort, self-discipline, creativity and character to develop the will and the skills to deal with these cross-cultural conflicts. We have to learn how to deal with the different ways in which we make decisions; handle and share knowledge; communicate and approach tasks. We even have different ways to deal with conflict. Unless we exert the will and self-discipline required to develop skills to handle these few fundamental patterns of cultural differences, we will not learn how to respect our differences, and how to live and work together harmoniously.

The animal kingdom has a very simple way of dealing with diversity: it is called the Law of the Jungle: ''Survival of the Strongest.'' But through our human intelligence, understanding and wisdom, we as humans have tacitly agreed that this law is not good enough for us. We do not want the strong, or the rich, or the powerful, or the cruel to dominate our species. We celebrate and uphold philosophies and policies of equality, freedom, justice, liberty and personal rights for all. And above all, we have the arts -- a common language understood by all -- that enables us to cross communication barriers, and prevents us from having to resort to the Law of the Jungle.

And yet, despite all our brilliant abilities to communicate better and faster than ever, despite our superior intelligence to understand the destructive forces of intolerance, and despite our finely developed programs of diplomacy, we seem to be doing not much better than our primitive neighbors in the animal kingdom when it comes to conflict resolution!

Fortunately, some of our global leaders increasingly realize the power of the one tool they still seem to underestimate: the arts. We now have many countries with very sophisticated machinery engaged in what is called ''Cultural Diplomacy.'' This discipline is defined as ''the exchange of ideas, information, art, and other aspects of culture among nations and their peoples in order to foster mutual understanding.'' Thomas Jefferson described it 220 years ago in more passionate language:

''You see I am an enthusiast on the subject of the arts. But it is an enthusiasm of which I am not ashamed, as its object is to improve the taste of my countrymen, to increase their reputation, to reconcile to them the respect of the world and procure them its praise.''

There is a growing realization that a country's people and its arts and culture are its best assets for communicating its diversity, its values and its character, and that culture is very often the first contact outsiders have with us. Although some countries (notably the French since the nineteenth century) have developed strong cultural diplomacy programs, some remain unsure how to apply this tool effectively. All have one goal in common: to convey the best image of their own country and culture to others. According to a paper by Dr. Margaret Wyszomirski (Ohio State University), some have very distinct goals: Australia, Austria, Canada, and the United Kingdom each seeks to correct what they see as outdated national images - Australia wants to dispel an image as a ''European-derivative culture''; Austria seeks a contemporary as well as a historic image; Canada seeks a more diverse, modern, and sophisticated image; the United Kingdom emphasizes its ''creativity, scientific innovation and excellence;'' the Netherlands wants to be a ''cultural free port,'' and Singapore seeks to be ''a global city for information, communication, and the arts.'' Her report also states that in 1999 China had cultural collaboration agreements with 121 countries, with approximately 20,000 people involved in these programs.

Cultural Diplomacy has clearly become a global reality of significant proportions. There are many examples of successful campaigns: the performances of Porgy and Bess in the Soviet Union in 1952; the tour of Martha Graham to Vietnam in 1975; the Jazz tours to the Middle East, Africa, South America, Asia and Europe from 1950-1975; Alvin Ailey's tour to Tanzania and Jordan in the 1960's, and recent tours by Yo Yo Ma, Denise Graves, Wynton Marsalis and many others. These projects succeeded in conveying messages about liberty, equality and freedom of expression. Given the scope and success of many more similar programs, it is fair to ask why we still have 40 nations so far apart, that war seems to be the only alternative?

Dr. Cynthia Schneider of Georgetown University writes that cultural diplomacy will succeed if it meets certain criteria, which include communicating values; considering the hosts' interests; a spirit of exchange and mutual respect; and cultivating long-term relationships. And this is where I think many Cultural Diplomacy programs fall short: they tend to be one-sided marketing (if not propaganda) exercises driven by the need to gain understanding or support. In my view the approach seems to be: ''Let me tell you about my culture'', rather than: ''I'd like to know more about your culture.'' On balance, some programs lack the mutuality implied in Schneider's criteria. Public support (and therefore Government funding) tends to be reactive and crisis-driven. As an example, the USA has accelerated its activities directly related to address perceived shortcomings in the area of Cultural Diplomacy since 9/11 by passing at least 7 Acts; creating 5 new US Government-sponsored international magazines and radio and TV stations; commissioning at least 14 major researches and reports into this area, and more than 8 National Conferences have been held on this topic.

In my home country -- South Africa -- we have a Zulu word which describes the ideal in cross-cultural relationships: ''UBUNTU.'' It is a unifying vision or a world view enshrined in the Zulu maxim ''umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu'', i.e. "a person is a person through other persons." It has also been translated as ''I am, because we are.'' UBUNTU is much more than simply being decent to your neighbor. It is more than what is generally meant by the management phrase: ''Win-Win.'' Although ''Win-Win'' seems to be an ideal worth pursuing, it also implies there are alternative scenario's, such as ''Win-Lose'', or ''Lose-Lose.'' UBUNTU does not contemplate these possibilities -- it assumes that all participants in any interaction (be that business, social, cultural or political) will enter the experience with no self-serving agenda. It assumes that all parties have only one shared agenda: to arrive at a consensus (through discussions which are often very long and drawn out) -- a consensus which serves the collective. This is as the bottom of African politics, as opposed to the Western democratic system where the majority rules. This spirit of reconciliation is expressed by African words like ''simunye'' ("we are one,'' meaning "unity is strength") and slogans like "an injury to one is an injury to all." (Johann Broodryk: UNISA)

I do not wish to deliver a comprehensive study of this philosophy -- and it is by no means a flawless philosophy - but I do want to share one more interpretation which links directly with my theme today. According to UBUNTU, my complete humanity is affirmed by recognizing yours in all its infinite variety. So it follows that we can also translate the Zulu phrase ''umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu'' as ''a person is a person through the otherness of other persons.'' UBUNTU dictates that, if we were to be human, we need to recognize and accept the genuine otherness of our fellow citizens -- their diverse histories, religions, languages, customs, creeds and politics.

I hope I have illustrated clearly the difference between the agenda-driven Cultural Diplomacy route, and the humanity-driven UBUNTU. Between the Cartesian self-interest, where the individual exists in isolation, and the rest of society is merely an added extra, and a means to the individual's ends on the one hand, and UBUNTU, where the very existence of the individual is defined in their relationship with others. The Western approach to individualism drives the sometimes childish spirit of competitiveness, where ''Win-Lose'' is almost preferred over ''Win-Win.'' In contrast, UBUNTU sees people instinctively working together.

I emphasize these differences (and I might be guilty of some exaggeration to make my point) so that we as arts practitioners can clearly identify the role we can and must play. I would hope that most of us are driven by passions beyond filling our theatres, or having successful tours, or signing lucrative contracts, or gaining international acclaim. While these are all very satisfying short-term compensations for doing what we do, I put it to you that the REAL value of our collaborative efforts lie in the influence we have on our communities, and more importantly, on the world. If anybody still doubts the power of this universal language, let me use the words of actor Danny Cox:

"In our multicultural world, one language speaks to all of us. It is the language of arts. Whether art is shared in actions, images, or sounded out loud, it can bring us all together, no matter what our differences. Art reminds us of the best of what it means to be human."

We as professionals and leaders in this industry must know that future societies will not measure our activities by looking at our budgets or attendance figures, but by the lasting impact we've had (or not) on our communities through the wise and creative and visionary application of this powerful language. Whether we recognize it or not, our daily activities have profound and far-reaching impact, and we should apply all our individual and collective creative energy to aim our efforts at reducing global conflict. While serving our short-term industry needs, we should also empower our communities to cross the chasms between them, armed with the knowledge and understanding they have gained through our efforts.

Will this be easy? Of course not. Will it attract criticism? Of course. But I am reminded of an African story regarding this challenge:

We all know that dogs have a natural instinct to chase moving vehicles, which is usually accompanied by non-stop, loud barking. We also know that nobody has ever been able to determine what dogs will actually do when they finally catch a vehicle! But this does not stop them from chasing and barking -- until the vehicle stops. Then the chasing and barking end, and they often find other uses for the vehicle's wheels…. So the moral of this little story is: when you hear the barking dogs of criticism behind you, you can rest assured that it means you are moving forward!

So my closing message to you is to boldly continue seeking new and meaningful ways of applying your knowledge and creativity in pursuit of a more peaceful world. The next time you plan a season, or book an artist, or design a show, think about the effect this will have on this world -- will it make the world a better place? A world where artificial political borders are no more than mere lines on a map. A world where these lines do not become chasms worth killing for. A world where the language of the arts crosses and eradicates borders freely and boldly -- because we ultimately are all members of the same race. A world where our differences are celebrated at least as much as our similarities.

This should be our goal, as well as our duty.

Thank you.

home / who we are / what we do / how to join / contact us

International Society for the Performing Arts Foundation
305 7th Ave., 5th Floor
New York, NY 10001-6008
USA
tel 212.206.8490
fax 212.206.8603
info@ispa.org
http://www.ispa.org/