MIGRATION

Edited by Elzbieta Gozdziak, Georgetown University

doi:10.1111/j.1468-2435.2009.00535.x

European Cultural Policy and

Migration: Why Should Cultural
Policy in the European Union
Address the Impact of Migration
on Identity and Social
Integration?1
Karsten Xuereb*

ABSTRACT

This study attempts to examine why European Union cultural policy does
not address the issue of migration of people from non-European countries
to Europe with sufcient recognition of the major impact it has on Euro-
pean cultural identity, and what are some of the advantages of doing so. It
is important to note that a strong cultural policy common to all members
of the European Union does not exist and may be said not to be in the
interest of European nation states. Nevertheless, the impact of European
Union cultural policy on various aspects of cultural and social life in Eur-
ope is growing and is therefore assessed both in terms of its ofcial
description as stated by Article 151 of the Treaty of European Union and
with regard to the variety of programmes it establishes.

The remit and implementation of cultural policy are found to be constricted

by various supranational and national issues, and their relation to the
impact of migration, while in existence, is limited. Cultural initiatives
already being run within the framework of European Union cultural policy
and which address issues related to migrant cultures and European citizenry
are assessed. This analysis leads to suggestions and recommendations, the
aim of which is to foster a greater recognition of the importance of the
value of cultural difference due to the inuence of migration on European

* The author is the Culture Attache at the Permanent Representation of Malta to the EU,
Brussels.

 2009 The Author

Journal Compilation  2009 IOM Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd.,
International Migration Vol. 49 (2) 2011 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK,
ISSN 0020-7985 and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
 European cultural policy and migration 29

social settings, and to encourage the formulation of European cultural poli-

cies that aim at more reciprocity and mutuality. This paper joins a growing
number of calls for a change in the perspective of policy-making to reect
the transnational reality of migration and its impact on and contribution to
culture in Europe. It does this while at the same time acknowledging the
fact that nation states play a largely determining role in the ideation and
implementation of European Union cultural policy.

This research is based on a theoretical framework that provides the discus-

sion with a foundation from which to assess contemporary models of mul-
ticulturalism and integration as well as grapple with the implications of
cultural policy on European self-identication and representation. This
analysis roots its critical perspective in a close reading of Ziauddin Sar-
dars propositions of mutually assured diversity and transmodernism
which are applied to the context of cultural policy.

This paper is based on research carried out through the collection of sec-
ondary data, with resources that provide information which is recent and
relevant to current issues of migration, social integration and European
culture and identity.

INTRODUCTION

Individuals across all social and political borders are shaped by their
histories, memories and cultures. These powerful elements inuence the
interaction between groups of people of different cultural identities, and
pose difcult challenges to policy-makers in culturally diverse societies
such as many of those within the European Union (EU). Various patterns
of intercultural communication are played out between migrants from
outside the EU and European citizens in EU Member States, both within
and more often outside structured policies aimed at managing issues
dealing with migration, citizenship and cultural identity successfully.

This paper is out to nd out how cultural policy can address the demo-
graphic, social and cultural changes brought about by the migration of
people from non-European countries into the EU. It is driven by an
interest to research how European cultural policy has encouraged cul-
tural actors to respond to migration and what it can do further in the
near future. EU cultural policy can prove to be one of the ideal tools
with which to address issues of European citizenship, including the inte-
gration of migrant individuals and communities into a diverse yet
socially inclusive Europe.

In this light, migration may be seen to contribute in no small way to open-

ing up new spaces for dialogue, mutual understanding and integration. An

 2009 The Author

Journal Compilation  2009 IOM
30 Xuereb

important expression of this perspective comes from Kevin Roberts, editor

of The challenge of transcultural diversity, the third and last in a series
of reports by the Council of Europe on diversity in Europe. He states that:

Global migrations present a fundamental challenge to European social

and cultural policy. There are clear indications that these [] migra-
tions will bring with them new dangers of social tension, antagonism
and conict. But perhaps there might also be new possibilities for con-
fronting these threats [] we might suggest that there is now no alterna-
tive that the new complexities of the European social space now make
it imperative that we take up this latter challenge (Robins, 2006: 24)2.

This study tries to put such observations into practice by doing three
things:

1. it asks whether existing EU cultural policy, as described by Article

151 of the Treaty of European Union (TEU), addresses the issue
of migration, especially from non-European countries into Europe,
with sufcient recognition of the major impact it has on European
cultural identity
2. on nding this is not the case, it argues in favour of why this should
be so by highlighting the need to address the impact of migration
on issues of European identity, citizenship and integration
3. nally, it assesses a few of the main cultural initiatives being run
within the framework of European cultural policy on the basis of
how they address issues related to the impact of migration on
European society, arguing in favour of such initiatives being sup-
ported and developed to meet contemporary complexities.

The EU does not have one comprehensive cultural policy that can be
implemented in all its Member States since it functions on the principle
of subsidiarity, which advocates that higher authorities should not inter-
fere in matters that can be dealt with effectively at a lower, national,
level. However, it does have a common cultural goal as expressed in
Article 151 of the TEU.3 This document states that the Community
shall contribute to the owering of the cultures of the Member States,
while respecting their national and regional diversity and at the same
time bringing the common cultural heritage to the fore (CEC, 1997).
This single phrase that opens Article 151 poses a number of important
questions, such as:

does the phrase national and regional diversity include that of

new EU citizens such as migrants?

 2009 The Author

Journal Compilation  2009 IOM
 European cultural policy and migration 31

are the cultures of non-European migrants considered as belong-

ing and contributing to contemporary European culture, both at
a regional and at a national level?
are migrants cultures considered strictly in relation to particular
migrant ethnic groups, and therefore below or outside the
regional and national levels?
with regard to the common cultural heritage, one needs to ask
common to whom?
and is the heritage invoked of a contemporary, or horizontal
kind, as well as historical, or vertical?4

One other question worth asking deals with how possible is it to secure
the implementation of particular policies in individual Member States
when the basic principle underlying EU cultural policy is that of subsidi-
arity, hence allowing nations to guard their sovereignty with regard to
cultural identity. While the Article itself does not address these questions
in an effective way, this paper tries to do that. One further issue to be is
highlighted is the fact that ironically, an allocation of competence based
on subsidiarity allows various regional authorities to go far beyond the
guidelines set out by Article 151 and to address the elds of migration
and culture through a combined effort.

This paper adopts a broad understanding of culture by including general

manifestations of human behaviour together with artistic expression.
Hence, this perspective is greatly interested in social developments
brought about by or in combination with migration in contemporary
Europe. There are real benets to cultural understanding and action to
be gained by striving for an afnity between culture and migration poli-
cies, since migrants and their communities provide Europe with some of
the most creative cultural expressions. Choosing to acknowledge this ele-
ment of European culture brings culture and migration very close
indeed.

This paper will try to challenge the reader to consider what kind of EU
cultural policy is one which stays away from addressing social issues
related to migration. It will argue that such policy is limited because
unrepresentative of the diversity within Europe due to migration. In the
rst of the two reports on diversity in Europe published by the Council
of Europe, Tony Bennett argues that all cultures are in fact diverse and
policies that encourage unitary and homogenous cultures, particularly
related to the safeguarding of nationalism, are a negation of this reality
(Robins, 2006: 15).

 2009 The Author

Journal Compilation  2009 IOM
32 Xuereb

Transnational migrants

One current challenge cultural policy in Europe needs to adapt to is the

transnational nature of many contemporary migrants, and the sense of
belonging they share with more than one country. In cultural terms, this
means that migrants may have cultural afliations to more than one
country, be it their country of origin, the country of their familys ori-
gins, a country they might have migrated to earlier, one they have come
from, or the one they live in.5

As Kevin Robins points out, many migrants who have travelled to Eur-
ope since the 1990s do not share the pattern of earlier migrants. Many
of the latter group might have travelled to the homeland of the coloniser
or close to the imperial centre (2006: 25). More recent migrants try to
travel to those countries which would accept them and hence patterns
are far more arbitrary. The result is a more random logic of migra-
tion and a relatively wide distribution of particular groups across
Europe (2006: 25). This has led to a new kind of dispersed and cross-
border migration pattern giving rise to migration ows, connections
and networks that are very exible and diverse (2006: 25). Developments
in communication technology have made building or maintaining rela-
tionships across most borders relatively cheap and easy, and have been
crucial in facilitating this phenomenon.

Chouki El Hamels view is more binary, as he sees migrants inhabiting a

double space: one national, dened by the local borders, and the other
transnational, involved in the act of migration itself (El Hamel, 2002:
305).

El Hamel observes that the concept of citizenship as belonging to the

national collective has been greatly challenged by migration. He com-
ments on the negative citizenry which religious groups like Muslims
face, since the model of citizenship adopted in many European countries
does not include the cultures of migrants experience (2002: 306). As a
consequence, when migrants feel that they cannot integrate within their
new society, they may focus more on their background and assert distin-
guishing characteristics. El Hamel describes this process and the result
as divisive diversity, which European cultural policy should strive to
avoid or curtail (2002: 305).

Expanding on the issue of Muslim migrant communities in Europe, El

Hamel points out that they may look for legitimacy in the migratory

 2009 The Author

Journal Compilation  2009 IOM
 European cultural policy and migration 33

space that lies between the country of departure and that of arrival, and
which exists more as an experience shared by the migrants than an
actual place. This space of diaspora, which Chris Barker describes as a
dispersed network of ethnically and culturally related peoples (Barker:
255), helps Muslim migrants transcend national belonging and create a
category outside the formula us vs. them (El Hamel, 2002: 306). How-
ever, this may ironically increase the rigidity of cultural categorization
by the dominant culture, and lead to resentment on either side.

The ensuing discussion of migration and culturally diverse societies

needs to engage with a brief overview of contemporary thoughts about
multiculturalism which, in its vastness, can be described as addressing
cultural difference and celebrating it (Barker, 2003: 414). A succinct
framework is provided by two Western approaches, namely liberal and
postmodern multiculturalism, which will be described briey hereunder
and provide the ground for a critique based on Ziauddin Sardars views.

Multiculturalism

Multiculturalism debates and practices have been topical in Europe over

the past forty years with varying results in different countries and social
settings. The European Commission denes multiculturalism as the
acceptance of immigrants and minority groups as distinct communities
whose languages and social behaviours and infrastructures distinguish
them from the majority (Meinhof & Triandafyllidou, 2006: 8). More-
over, multiculturalism advocates members of such groups should be
granted rights equal to each other and, more importantly, to members
of majority groups.

With regard to citizenship, the 1990s saw a growing realisation that the
classical dimensions of citizenship in terms of civil, political and social
as identied by T.H. Marshall in 1950 may need to include cultural enti-
tlements. Turner argues that there rose the recognition of the value of
cultural empowerment and participation of citizens, including migrants,
within diverse, yet strongly national, cultural life (Robins, 2006: 31).

Within the discourse on multiculturalism, traditional liberalism pro-

motes the idea that individuals should be viewed as equivalent to each
other, irrespective of ethnic, religious, sexual or other characteristics or
afliations. In the light of this equating perspective, which may have
had a negative impact by homogenising different individuals, the last
decade has seen the reappraisal of the liberal view of cultural difference.

 2009 The Author

Journal Compilation  2009 IOM
34 Xuereb

M. Walzer, for example, tries to do this by referring to two types of

respect that can be shown towards citizens, who should be treated
equally. The rst form calls for the strongest possible commitment to
individual rights and [] to a rigorously neutral state, that is, a state
without cultural or religious projects or, indeed, any sort of collective
goals beyond the personal freedom [] of its citizens. The other
allows for a state committed to the survival and ourishing of a partic-
ular nation, culture or religion [] so long as the basic rights of citizens
who have different commitments or no such commitments at all are pro-
tected (Wang, 2004: 302).

Bhikhu Parekh goes further by stating clearly that a politics of citizen-

ships which both promotes the rights of communities with regard to
each other, as well as the obligations of communities to each other is an
essential precondition of the pluralist vision. He suggests ways of pro-
moting cultural difference in citizenship, such as giving cultural diversity
public status and dignity, and encouraging minority groups to accept
the obligations associated with citizenship at their own pace and in ways
congruent with their own sense of identity (Wang, 2004: 303).

Therefore, liberal multiculturalism tends to focus on the relationships

between state, groups and individuals, and provides the theoretical
background for group rights. However, whether cultural communities
can be viewed as groups with their own special rights or as citizens
with particular cultural characteristics whose rights and duties are part
of those of the larger community remains unclear. This is mostly due
to the complexity involved in dening concepts that deal with issues of
cultural difference and cultural identity and, as noted above, the chang-
ing relationship between migrant members of the community and the
state.

Some of the main problems raised and not resolved by liberal multicul-
turalism are the notions of origin, ethnic purity and exclusion to be
faced when trying to dene what forms an identity and what makes one
identity different to another. It is important to be aware that the inter-
relation of people across cultures over hundreds of years might allow
one to subscribe to the belief in an anterior pure preceding any cul-
tural and ethnic mixing (Hutnyk, 2005: 81). However, one should also
challenge the value of shaping current cultural and social policies based
on distinguishing (and, to recall Maalouf, predominantly vertical) fea-
tures, rather than those that different people have in common and which
are currently (and therefore, horizontally) in the process of sharing.

 2009 The Author

Journal Compilation  2009 IOM
 European cultural policy and migration 35

As has been shown, liberal multiculturalism seeks to establish a bal-

ance between difference and equality and freedom and culture, while
dealing with issues of citizenship and cultural policy. Nevertheless, it
is still far from providing any clear guidelines that target ethnic and
cultural integration in a satisfactory way. On the other hand, post-
modern multiculturalism focuses on the possibilities of difference and
the shifting relationship between people and their identities and cul-
tures. This approach is even less amenable to feed policy since it
makes the link between cultural identity and particular ethnic or social
groups less tenable and direct. The identities of members of such
groups are seen as lying outside such categorization. However, in
terms of power relations, individuals may feel less able to represent
themselves and assert their citizenship rights because of an inability to
act upon the cultural links with other people within these same groups
(Wang, 2004: 303).

While discussions of multiculturalism have brought great progress to

intercultural dialogue, cultural policy in Europe should not simply pro-
mote multiculturalism and celebrate difference. The dangers of doing
that include the development of parallel societies that neither share
close intercultural communication nor try to transcend difference and
achieve integration through mutual dialogue (Schiffbauer, 2005: 30). As
has been seen in various European states such as the Netherlands,
France and the UK to mention but three, multiculturalist approaches
may lead to having people who resent the rapid cultural change and call
for assimilationist and possibly racist policies, on the one hand, and on
the other reactionary and extremist behaviour among migrants that has
become a major unsettling and confrontational feature of various Euro-
pean societies. Rather, policy should encourage the acceptance of cul-
tural difference in order to transcend divisions with an aim to create a
community whose members can work closer together. One of the main
problems caused by multiculturalist policies that stop at promoting eth-
nic and cultural multifaceted societies is the occlusion of power differ-
ences that do not allow different cultural groups and individuals within
those groups to have an equal opportunity to contribute to the outcome
of societys policies.

It is therefore opportune to turn to Ziauddin Sardar, a British Muslim

thinker and writer, and the way he looks at current social structures.
His writing lies within the eld of cultural relations, and stresses the
need to keep relations across different cultures open to change, in a pro-
cess that is more equal and mutual. For the purpose of this study, his

 2009 The Author

Journal Compilation  2009 IOM
36 Xuereb

thoughts are applied to cultural policy and migration, and possible

insights are sought.

Sardar on common histories

Sardar states that contemporary cultural relations is as much about

building the future on a specic set of core values as it is about under-
standing the past and present of people other than ourselves (Sardar,
2004a: 5). In order to promote the values he supports, based on the con-
cepts of transmodernism and mutually assured diversity, discussed
further below, Sardar challenges the double-bind created in the West as a
result of narrow-visioned modernism and self-satised multiculturalism.

Sardar argues that there sometimes is a common past which is ignored

in the fabrication of history, thus keeping peoples apart, or in conict,
on false (pre)texts. With regard to the negation of Britains common
history, Sardar claims this is an articial act that helps maintain a false
sense of divided identity. He points out that since Europe engineered a
cultural identity based on a common descent from the supposed
traditions of ancient Greece and Rome and 2,000 years of Christianity,
British history books always began with the arrival of the Romans.
Therefore, British history begins by submerging, barbarising and
differentiating itself from Celtic history (Sardar, 2004b: 15).6

Sardar argues in favour of adopting a more inclusive version of history,

one which looks at what binds people rather than divides them. One
could try to adopt the same approach to that of the European peo-
ples, if there is such a thing as a common history to bring them
together (CEC, 2001).7 The next step would be to extend such an
approach to include migrants, since migration has always been part of
Europes history, and the intermingling between people of European
and non-European cultures and the ensuing cultural enrichment are
common to either side.

By extending the argument to take into consideration the West, of which

the EU forms an important part, and Islam, the two may also be seen
to share a lot, historically, as well as not being opposite, homogeneous
units, but rather, diverse in themselves. A document published by the
German Institute of Foreign Affairs (IFA) makes this case:

What is the West? Is it supposed to be a world inhabited by pure Euro-

peans of common Christian tradition in opposition to the ethnically

 2009 The Author

Journal Compilation  2009 IOM
 European cultural policy and migration 37

and religiously different Muslim world? Since Western countries are

home to many millions of Muslim migrants from Asia and Africa
many of them holding European citizenship this division loses its
edge. Many of these immigrants have assimilated themselves to the
Western way of life and have become part of it. Moreover, Muslim
immigrants have inuenced Western societies as well (IFA, 2004: 105).

Before expanding on the relevance of Sardars views to this discussion

and in particular with reference to the concept of mutuality, one
needs to reect on a point raised earlier which queried the existence of a
history common to all Europeans. While advocating research into the
common roots that underlie European identity, one should balance
efforts trying to recognise proximity in the past with looking forward
towards a sense of convergence or at least, of collaboration and commu-
nity between people of European and non-European origin. In accepting
that, together with the similarities they share, citizens of European ori-
gin and migrants have different pasts, one should move forward to seek
ways how they can share a common future.

In trying to address this particular issue, Article 151 of the TEU does
not seem to offer much of a way forward. This is so because it focuses
on a sense of common heritage even though it has proved difcult to
establish what lies in common not only between Europeans and
migrants, but also between Europeans themselves. Therefore, speaking
of common heritage, without addressing issues of migration and their
consequences for European integration, is problematic.

Such awareness may encourage one to balance attempts to bring about

a European common heritage with a clear realisation that Europeans
are all very different from each other. This may lead one to say that
including non-European migrants in this scenario should not reduce
European diversity into a homogenous, and opposite, unit. In such a
light, the cultural differences that do exist between the two matter less
than when one depicts a monolithic, Christian and unitary European
people exclusive to others.

Mutuality

Sardar refers to Martin Rose and Nick Wadham-Smiths denition of

mutuality, which is described as the quality of a two-way relationship,
with overtones of benet distributed between the two parties, and of
ownership shared. Furthermore, there are implications of equality in

 2009 The Author

Journal Compilation  2009 IOM
38 Xuereb

the relationship and there is certainly a strong sense of movement in

both directions between the parties (2004a: 9). It is a process of joint
ownership and implies equality and a two-way relationship where trust
arises not from unequal relationships and conversations based on
asymmetrical distribution of power, but from relationships built on
respect, openness, and a preparedness, where appropriate, to change
ones own mind (2004a: 10).

However, Sardar is also aware of the limits of mutuality, which cannot

work if a culture has accepted its backwardness in relation to moder-
nity and postmodernity and if it is ambivalent and hostile to both new
inuences (as in the host countrys culture) and possibly even its own
tradition. Sardar goes on to say that mutuality can be unconditionally
good in its own right, but wonders what good is it when faced with a
culture of resistance whose very reason to be is to disengage itself from
dominant modern forms of cultural expression? Within a European
context, a cultural policy should try to engage with (and bring on
board) all those who it is supposed to be working for and inuencing,
meaning both established citizens and migrants, irrespective of the
groups cultural identities or attitudes towards the cultural scenario, but
with a great deal of sensitivity. In discussing EU cultural policy matters
it is important to widen the focus from the policy-setting side of things
to include the migrants responses and identity structures themselves
(2004a: 10).

Sardar nds great fault with the postmodernist model of multicultural-

ism, which he believes fetishes difference by emphasising and celebrat-
ing it for its own sake while dismissing inequality based on identity.
Equality is seen only as equality before the law and the delivery of
homogeneity within a capitalist framework [] in other words, we
assume that there is only one and the same way of being human. He
goes on to say that multicultural relations that emphasise difference and
promote sameness are not conducive to mutuality, which

is not about difference for the sake of difference; or about promoting a

western framework of sameness. Mutuality must be about acculturation
where both sides of the cultural relations equation change, transform
and transcend their own limitations (2004a: 14).

Susan Bassnett echoes Sardars point about challenging the notion that
all cultures can be subsumed within the dominant culture (and treated
the same). She adds a warning against feelings of superiority while

 2009 The Author

Journal Compilation  2009 IOM
 European cultural policy and migration 39

promoting the message of cultural difference in a positive manner, in a

way that abandons the misleading idea that all cultures are fundamen-
tally the same, but not falling into the trap of claiming the superiority
of one cultural system over another (Bassnett, 2004: 61).

Transmodernism and mutually assured diversity

In contrast to postmodernism, outlined above, Sardar proposes his view

of transmodernism, which sees tradition as dynamic, amenable, capable
of changing and eager to change; and it sees traditional cultures not as
pre-modern but as communities with potential to transcend the domi-
nant model of modernity (2004a: 18). In words that recall Maaloufs
description of vertical and horizontal heritage, Sardar says that trans-
modernism encourages Western cultures to see non-Western cultures
on their own terms, with their own eyes (ideas, concepts, notions) and
as (part of) the common future rather than the past of humanity.
Transmodernism focuses ones eyes on the signs of change, and
attempts to make visible what is often shrouded from the gaze of the
outsiders (2004a: 19). Sardar gives the example of contemporary Islam,
which might not seem to be changing much from a Western point of
view, when in fact it has gone through several changes partly due to
events like the attacks in, among others, New York, Madrid and Lon-
don, the outcry over the cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed in
European newspapers and general misgivings about the link between ter-
rorism and the Muslim faith.

Sardar challenges multiculturalisms limits with his concept of mutually

assured diversity. Once again focusing on what different human beings
have in common, Sardar points out that

[w]hat is mutual is that the human condition is a cultural condition

and that culture is an essential relational attribute, an enabling feature
of knowing, being and doing [] It is the acceptance that for all people
everywhere identity is not formed in a vacuum but within a cultural
realm that comes with values, history, axes to grind and a variety of
perplexities, conundrums and perennial questions (2004a: 21).

In contrasting one with the other, Sardar states that while multicultural-
ism is ready to acknowledge that everyone has their own history, mutu-
ally assured diversity is nourished by the vision that all identities have
futures. In this case, identity is envisioned as a cultural aptitude to seek
a better future fashioned out of all the possibilities and predicaments

 2009 The Author

Journal Compilation  2009 IOM
40 Xuereb

offered by contemporary times and circumstances and in the light of his-

tories that shape those circumstances (2004a: 23).

Such a complex envisioning of identity cannot easily inform a cultural

policy that can deal with issues of migration and integration effectively.
However, the views expressed by Sardar are earnest, and seek to estab-
lish an open and inclusive framework for cultural interaction between
people of different cultures. In spite of historical and practical obstacles
that lie in the way of the implementation of policies inspired by such
visions, policies that are informed by a quest for inclusivity, both in for-
mulation and implementation, are to be pursued since they have the
potential to contribute greatly to more integration among the citizens of
Europe. This is so especially at a time when social dynamics are chang-
ing rapidly and reactionary policies are limited in the social cohesion
they may lead to.

The evolution of EU cultural policy

Although cultural policy in Europe is not a recent phenomenon, Euro-

pean institutions have mostly ascribed it importance in recent years. The
TEU signed in Maastricht in 1992, and the subsequent amendment in
Amsterdam in 1997, is an important point in the formal inception of
cultural policy in Europe as it contained a title on culture. Before that,
the European Cultural Convention signed in 1954 by the member states
of the Council of Europe and the interest shown in culture by the Euro-
pean Economic Community (EEC) from the 1970s onwards had put cul-
ture as a minor item on the agenda of collaboration between European
states. Documents like the Declaration on European Identity published
in 1973 and the inuential Tindemans Report of 1976 helped establish a
much-needed link between culture, identity and the need of a political
commitment by the nations of Europe.

During the last ten to fteen years the member states of the EU have
shown growing interest in European cultural policy. The expansionary
and integrationist movements within Europe have highlighted the impor-
tant role European cultural issues have to play. On the one hand, the
integrationist agenda pushed for common cultural spaces and particu-
larly markets such as the audiovisual sector. On the other hand, the
regionalist agenda tried to raise the prole of the different identities
within a united Europe. The national framework, already responsible
for the inception of cultural policies for nation states, underpinned both
these movements and drove many of Europes cultural initiatives. As

 2009 The Author

Journal Compilation  2009 IOM
 European cultural policy and migration 41

argued by Ulrike Hanna Meinhof, Anna Triandafyllidou and Kevin

Robins among others, the contemporary cultural imaginary in Europe
has undergone such changes as to nd exclusively national frameworks
wanting and unable to cope with current demographic and social trends
and their effects on the cultural scene (Meinhof & Triandafyllidou,
2006; Robins, 2006). Migration is one of the major inuences to chal-
lenge traditional conceptions of Europe structured on nation states, and
the increased ux of people across European borders has encouraged
critics and policy-makers to re-assess the impact of cultural policies in
Europe.

There is one irony in the relationship between EU cultural policy and its
rise in prole and issues of social cohesion which is worth noting. As
Bennett points out, policy makers in the EU have long known that to
forge a united Europe requires not simply economic and monetary
union or a shared legal and political architecture, but also the creation
of a more palpable sense of European consciousness and shared identity
among the peoples of Europe. With this aim, they have sought to har-
ness culture as a vehicle for promoting solidarity and social cohesion
among Europeans (Bennett, 2001: 108). Unfortunately, national consid-
erations and budgetary constraints have not allowed cultural policy to
act with the wide-ranging inuence it might otherwise have had.

An EU cultural policy to deal with citizenship and migration

One of the key concerns related to migration, and which this paper will
focus on here, is the impact of migration into and within the EU on
national states and their citizens. Janine Brodie says that the corner-
stones of modern governance, especially the symmetries forged largely
in the past two centuries between national states, national territory,
and national citizenship rights, have been progressively fractured by
transnational networks, ows, and identities (Brodie, 2004: 323). This
particular time is an opportune moment for making the best use of
migration. Policies that aid the European integration project through
the establishment of encounters based on open dialogue between
national and global or transnational citizens should be adopted over
ones that encourage divisionary nationalism.

The cultural action supported by the EU with the intention of promot-

ing European citizenship is one of the main ways in which the EU can
engage with migrants cultures while addressing issues of citizenship
for all Europeans. Rather than deal with both aspects of citizenship

 2009 The Author

Journal Compilation  2009 IOM
42 Xuereb

separately, the cultural programme in favour of European citizenship

can engage with both, possibly channelling the benets of having
migrants go through the citizenship-integration process to feed the cur-
rent and planned programmes in the areas of youth, culture, media and
civic participation (CEC, 2004).

The benecial impact on raising awareness about migration issues and

fostering a sense of common citizenship among all people residing in
Europe is particularly attainable through the EUs commitment to
cultural exchanges, initiatives and participation projects directed at
young people. For example, between 2007 and 2013 the Commission
plans to implement 40,000 such projects and involve 70,000 young
people in voluntary schemes. This vast number of young people
makes the potential socio-educational benets to European society by
combining cultural perspectives with an awareness of migration in
Europe signicant.

With regard to the general objectives of cultural programmes beyond

2007, including the current Culture programme and the European Capi-
tals of Culture programme, those expressing the transnational mobility
of people working in the cultural sector and intercultural dialogue
augur well for an approach that should try to encompass more migrants
and their interaction with Europe within the general cultural framework
(CEC, 2004: 11).

The Culture programme

The current Culture programme does not specically target cultural

issues related to migrants in Europe. However, since it goes beyond the
purely sectorial approach which previous generations of culture pro-
grammes took and encourages an interdisciplinary approach, there may
be more room for cultural work which encourages dialogue and collabo-
ration involving migrant cultures (CEC, 2006a: 5).

The Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency of the Com-

missions Culture Unit says that this approach aims at promoting
increased cooperation between cultural players by encouraging various
types of cooperation projects between different sectors. It also points
out that the programme encourages participants to propose cultural
activities and means of cultural co-operation that can build bridges
between diverse ethnic and social groups with an aim to foster inter-
cultural dialogue (CEC, 2006a: 5).

 2009 The Author

Journal Compilation  2009 IOM
 European cultural policy and migration 43

Nevertheless, it is not clear how this will be aimed for while concur-
rently encouraging projects to build on commonly shared European
values and encourage the sense of collective identity in the context of
the richness and diversity of cultures in Europe (CEC, 2006a: 5). In
other words, the inherent tension that lies between an inter-cultural per-
spective which potentially includes migrant cultures and the importance
ascribed to striving for a sense of European unity is not seriously
addressed.

The good intentions that inform this programme are also expressed in
its Specic Objectives: they call on participants to promote the transna-
tional mobility of cultural players and to encourage the transnational
circulation of artistic and cultural works and products. Furthermore,
particular attention will be paid to actions promoting intercultural dia-
logue where some or all of the actions are intended to be carried out in
2008, European Year of Intercultural Dialogue (CEC, 2006a: 6). One
may notice that cultural collaborations involving migrant cultures could
play a major role in achieving these objectives, even though no direct
reference is made to such initiatives.

2008: European year of intercultural dialogue

The initiatives supported by the EU with regard to the European Year

of Intercultural Dialogue come closer in addressing migrant cultures
more directly. However, there are inferences rather than direct references
to the role of migrant cultures. Furthermore, a budget of 10 million to
fund three types of activity, namely information campaigns, grants for
actions at Community level and co-nancing of actions at national level,
was not very substantial. Nevertheless, it is worth acknowledging the
efforts the European Community made to set up this action. One should
note that when presenting the Proposal8 in October 2005, Jan Figel,
European Commissioner with responsibility for Education, Training and
Culture, stated:

Over the past few years, Europe has seen major changes resulting from
successive enlargements of the Union, greater mobility in the Single
Market, and increased travel to and trade with the rest of the world.
This has resulted in interaction between Europeans and the different
cultures, languages, ethnic groups and religions on the continent and
elsewhere. Dialogue between cultures would therefore appear to be an
essential tool in forging closer links both between European peoples
themselves and between their respective cultures.9

 2009 The Author

Journal Compilation  2009 IOM
44 Xuereb

Moreover, the Proposal itself speaks of intercultural dialogue as an

instrument which could facilitate the implementation of a series of strate-
gic priorities of the Union (CEC, 2005b: 2), particularly those address-
ing the renewed Lisbon strategy for growth and employment and the
Unions commitment to solidarity, social justice and greater cohesion
(CEC, 2005b: 4). In striving to create coherence with other policies and
objectives of the EU, the Commission views intercultural dialogue as
being part of the new approach to dialogue and communication desired
by the Commission, by contributing to the dialogue with European citi-
zens and all those living in the European Union. Such a statement is
very positive; however, it does not say whether migrant cultures are
included with those belonging to European citizens or rather with
those living in the European Union, and whether the cultures of the
former include inuences that have come from beyond European shores.

To conclude this brief look at the European Year of Intercultural Dia-

logue, one should add that the same text states that numerous Commu-
nity actions engage with intercultural dialogue, and initiatives that
have been launched or planned lie also in the elds of policy on asy-
lum and the integration of migrants (CEC, 2005b: 4). A case in point
is the European Fund for the Integration of Third-Country Nationals
programme which supports projects seeking to assist the setting up of
transnational cooperation networks or pilot projects designed to iden-
tify, exchange and evaluate good practice and new approaches in the
eld of integration; to increase the knowledge base for the development
of integration policies across the EU; and to support transnational dia-
logue and awareness of the impact of integration on society.10

European capitals of culture

One aim of cultural policy in Europe has been the development of a

common European identity. This is attempted by those actions often
dened as symbolic, such as the European Capitals of Culture pro-
gramme (ECOC). Although its organisation is still very much done
through national competence and it has generally had marginal effects
on highlighting issues related to migration and integration, its potential
to do this is worthy of note due to its relative public appeal and some-
times local and cosmopolitan, rather than nationalistic, approach. Up
till 2005 the ECOC was an intergovernmental action. However, follow-
ing the new competence on culture established within Maastricht, from
2005 the programme became a direct action of the Commissions DG
Culture within the Culture programme.

 2009 The Author

Journal Compilation  2009 IOM
 European cultural policy and migration 45

The ECOC is one of the principal ways with which EU cultural policy
attempts to awaken a European sense of belonging, albeit mostly sym-
bolically. The intention consists of diffusing its [Europes] symbols,
while respecting the contents of national and local cultures (Sassatelli,
2002: 436). The designation of the ECOC helps highlight the richness
and diversity of European cultures and the features they share and facil-
itates greater mutual acquaintance between EU citizens (CEC, 2005a).
The ECOC initiative can be used to heighten culturally diverse cities as
microcosms of a diverse Europe, and Sassatelli points out that the Eur-
ope referred to by the EU can be envisaged as an imagined community
in the making (Sassatelli, 2002: 436). However, if the project were more
practical in nature, the image of the community created through such
symbolic binding would be related more closely to the EUs more politi-
cal undertakings that promote mutual understanding and equality across
cultures.

The objectives outlined by the Commission with regard to the ECOC

programme are various.11 They encourage cities to highlight artistic
movements and styles shared by Europeans which it has inspired or to
which it has made a signicant contribution; to promote events involv-
ing people from other cities in Member States and leading to lasting cul-
tural cooperation, and to foster their movement within the EU; and to
generate long-lasting social impact by ensuring the mobilisation and par-
ticipation of large sections of the population, among others. Yet another
objective aims to promote dialogue between European cultures and
those from other parts of the world and, in that spirit, to optimize the
opening up to, and understanding of others, which are fundamental cul-
tural values. Once again, this programme offers cultural practitioners
room to engage with migrant cultures while not directly acknowledging
the impact doing so might have on the European cultural scene.

The following two examples are intended to show the potential that lies
in having this action engage with social integration and shared Europe-
anness in more practical terms that can hopefully have an impact in the
long term. The rst refers to Copenhagen, which was selected as the
European Capital of Culture in 1996. This proved a good opportunity
to organize a cultural programme involving artists from culturally
diverse communities but more could have been done to achieve the aim
of addressing issues about cultural difference in what was (and still is) a
culturally challenging and somewhat narrow scene (Skot-Hansen, 2002:
201). Eight years later in Genoa, European Capital of Culture in 2004,
over forty lms were screened, all related to the theme of migration and

 2009 The Author

Journal Compilation  2009 IOM
46 Xuereb

crossing borders, both physically and culturally. Genoa in particular,

and Italy in general, were seen in the light of their long history of travel-
ling, discovery, migration and related events that have lead to the diver-
sication of culture within societies worldwide (Mercati, 2005).
Unfortunately, not many (documented) long-term effects have been
recorded. Also, in both cases, the immediate environments of the neigh-
bourhood and the school could have been more of a major focus for
efforts aimed at responding constructively to cultural difference.

With regard to lm, the Commission itself has outlined the high cul-
tural and social impact of the audiovisual media [which] offer a unique
platform for intercultural dialogue and for promoting mutual knowledge
and understanding. It is hoped that the new MEDIA programme,
MEDIA 2007, will encourage Europeans to watch stories [] that
reect the reality of their own lives and histories in such a way as to
include the migratory trends and the growing cultural differences with
society (CEC, 2004: 3). In its quest to address the insufcient circula-
tion of non-national audiovisual works, migration may provide both
funders and producers with the right cross-border and cross-cultural
stimulus to work at themes, values and ideas that go beyond national
borders (CEC, 2004: 14).

Incorporation of culture into wider policy action

Trying to make of cultural policy a comprehensive tool with which to

tackle societys ethnic and cultural problems is very daunting. Two of
the main reasons for this are: (i) the complexity of issues involved which
go far beyond a cultural policys remit and well into other related, but
politically different, social elds such as employment, education, housing
and health; and (ii) the traditionally relatively low political and nancial
commitment cultural policy receives to be implemented. Although the
Commission does say it aims at combining cultural policy with other
policies in order to contribute towards achieving fuller social cohesion
and a shared sense of citizenship which is not based on cultural divisions
but a common aim to ourish together, it is difcult to see how the
present political disposition of the EUs member states will help achieve
that (CEC, 2004: 9).12

With regard to the formulation of its cultural policy, it is important for

the EU to develop an agenda which promotes ideas and values about
being European that go beyond establishing strict norms of what distin-
guishes communities from others, thus separating European and

 2009 The Author

Journal Compilation  2009 IOM
 European cultural policy and migration 47

non-European people on the basis of ethnicity, race, religion and other

cultural differences. Policy makers should seek to implement views like
Sardars about mutually assured diversity through the adoption of
coherent cultural and social policies that give the necessary weight to
the type of cultural approaches informed by the ideas supported in this
essay. Such policies can lead to a sentiment of shared citizenship of Eur-
ope. This would not simply be based on positive proclamations and
symbols of unity, but nd a true home in action which instils social
structures and dynamics that can live long into the future.

On the other hand, and outside the direct remit of cultural policy, it is
heartening to see that the EU has been introducing more of the dis-
course related to intercultural communication and cultural difference in
policies directed at integration and migration. Following the European
Council in Tampere in 1999 there have been positive developments such
as the recommendation of addressing the education and language skills
of migrants and thus aid the process of integration (CEC, 2003). More-
over, the process is not a one-sided one and, as mentioned above in rela-
tion to initiatives promoting intercultural dialogue, efforts seeking
mutual understanding and intercultural collaboration have been
launched in various elds, including those of lifelong learning, youth,
citizenship, combating discrimination and social exclusion, combating
racism and xenophobia and research (CEC, 2005b: 4).

CONCLUSION

In observations about European cultural policy, the European Cultural

Foundation (ECF) highlights the importance of dealing with migration
directly and says Migration should be approached in a way which
stresses mutual benets. Intercultural competence should be valued in
cultural policies and programmes (ECF, 2004: 26).

The choice of the right policies should help turn feelings of loss and
frustration on behalf of contemporary European citizens into gains,
encouraging the letting go of identities that have escaped anyway.
Instead, the focus should be shifted to the crucial question of who
these citizens want to be in the future. One consequence of this type of
social commitment can be the creation of a cultural milieu where Euro-
peans realise they nd themselves in the same territory as the many
newcomers: torn between clinging to past identities and exploring new
ones.

 2009 The Author

Journal Compilation  2009 IOM
48 Xuereb

The cultural agenda in Europe is of relatively minor importance yet

ideologically highly charged. Culture is a thorny issue particularly when
the division of competencies between the EU and its Member States is
considered. The conicts of interest and power between Member States
contributes to culture not being given a high place on the European
agenda. A narrow and impoverishing interpretation of subsidiarity,
whereby the potential of the Europe-wide implementation of policies is
contained by national self-interest, restricts the reach of cultural action
to what Therese Kaufmann and Gerald Raunig, writing for the Euro-
pean Institute for Progressive Cultural Policies (EIPCP), describe as
harmless areas such as cooperation and exchange (2002: 5). How-
ever, those actions that have been taken on an across-the-border level
have thrived and should be followed, and have their impact increased,
by others that introduce more migrational issues in the current remit of
EU cultural policy.

Nevertheless, one should not overlook the fact that the development of
cultural policies by the EU is also a reection of its changing identity
concept. From before the conception of a cultural policy in the early
days of Europe-building, to the growing interest in the media and the
cultural industries in the 1970s and 1980s, and the developments in
relation to European identity and integration in the 1990s, cultural
issues have been looked at differently and given more importance in
direct relation to the way the EU envisaged its priorities and sense of
identity. Hopefully, the trend towards a greater recognition of the
importance of the element of diversity in terms of cultural difference,
and the inuence of migration on European social settings, will grow
and lead to cultural policies and their implementation in combination
with other social policies that aim to make EU cultural policy more
inclusive and mutual (Mokre, 2003: 2). In spite of this shift in policy-
making and the acceptance of multiple identities related to migration
and the ux of populations, which type of culture gets what type of
political support is still subject to a hierarchy of importance (Mein-
hof & Triandafyllidou, 2006: 61). This situation will not be signicantly
changed within the foreseeable future unless it becomes possible
to envision other scenarios for the European future, ones that are
responsive to the new transcultural developments which migration has
played a part in creating and cultural policy can make creative use of
(2006: 184). By addressing issues related to migration through cultural
policy one may also achieve more topical ways of envisioning contem-
porary European societies and the relationships that give them their
diversity and complexity (2006: 56).

 2009 The Author

Journal Compilation  2009 IOM
 European cultural policy and migration 49

NOTES

1. This article is based on research done by the author while reading for an
M.A. in European Cultural Policy & Management at the University of
Warwick 2004-2005. The author is grateful to Prof Oliver Bennett, Dr Jon-
athan Vickery, Egil Bjrnsen and the staff at the Centre for Cultural Policy
Studies and Dr Martin Rose, Nick Wadham-Smith and Ginny Marriott at
the British Council.
2. This report by Kevin Roberts brings to an end the Cultural Policy and
Cultural Diversity project of the Council of Europe which includes the
reports Differing diversities (2001) by Tony Bennett and Differing diversi-
ties: Eastern European perspectives (2005) by Andrea Ellmeier and Bela
Rasky. These publications build on previous texts of the Council of Eur-
ope, chiey In from the margins (1997) and its Declaration on Cultural
Diversity (2001).
3. The full text is found in the Appendix.
4. In order to explain the concept of vertical heritage Maalouf says [] we
are all innitely closer to our contemporaries than to our ancestors recall-
ing historian Marc Blochs words Men are more the sons of their time
than of their fathers. He goes on to write that
each one of us has two heritages, a vertical one that comes to us from our
ancestors, our religious community and our popular traditions, and a hori-
zontal one transmitted to us by our contemporaries and by the age we live
in. It seems to me the latter is the more inuential of the two [ y]et this
fact is not reected in our perception of ourselves, and the inheritance we
invoke most frequently is the vertical one.
Thus, Maalouf highlights the gulf that exists between what we are and
what we think we are (Maalouf: 18).
5. Recent and relevant research on this theme has been collected by Ulrike
Hanna Meinhof and Anna Triandafyllidou in Transcultural Europe: Cul-
tural Policy in a Changing Europe (2006).
6. One main way of distinguishing and dividing people is a nationalistic
approach towards culture. Stuart Hall points out that [i]nstead of thinking
of national cultures as unied, we should think of them as a discursive
device which represents difference as unity or identity. They are cross-cut
by deep internal divisions and differences, and unied only through the
exercise of different forms of cultural power (Barker: 253).
7. This particular point is expanded below.
8. Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council con-
cerning the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue 2008.
9. IP 05 1226.
10. Agence Europe No 9253.
11. Decision 1622 2006 EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
24 October 2006 establishing a Community action for the European Capital
of Culture event for the years 2007 to 2019.

 2009 The Author

Journal Compilation  2009 IOM
50 Xuereb

12. With regard to the implementation of the EUs cultural policy, the Com-
mission itself stresses the need to build bridges between programmes of
different types, irrespective of whether they are in the eld of culture, sport,
training, education, and justice and home affairs, and to support coopera-
tion programmes with third countries. In so doing, [t]his [cultural] pro-
gramme will thus complement other Community instruments. Adjacently,
in the draft 18-month Programme of the German, Portuguese and Slove-
nian Presidencies issued on 4 December 2006 (16158 06) the Council of the
European Union noted that [t]he forthcoming Commission Communica-
tion on the role of culture in Europe, including the cultural compatibility of
other actions and policies of the E.C. as foreseen in the Treaties will be
thoroughly analysed, giving rise to a possible political declaration on the
political, economical and social signicance and added value of culture in
Europe.

REFERENCES

Barker, C.
2003 Cultural Studies: Theory and Practice, SAGE, London.
Bassnett, S.
2004 Intercultural dialogue in a multicultural world, In R. Bechler
(Ed.), Intercultural Dialogue, British Council, London.
Bennett, T.
2001 Differing diversities: cultural policy and cultural diversity, Council
of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg.
Brodie, J.
2004 Introduction: Globalization and Citizenship Beyond the National
State, Citizenship Studies, 8(4): 323332.
CEC
1997 Article 151 of the Treaty of European Union, Consolidated
Version of the Treaty Establishing the European Community http://
[Link]/eurlex/lex/en/treaties/dat/12002E/htm/C_2002325
[Link]#anArt152.
2003 Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European
Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the
Committee of the Regions on immigration, integration and employ-
ment, COM 336 nal [Link]
[Link].
2004 Communication from the Commission: Making citizenship work:
fostering European culture and diversity through programmes for
Youth, Culture, Audiovisual and Civic Participation, COM 154 nal
[Link]
2005a Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the
Council establishing a community action for the European Capital
of Culture event for the years 2007 to 2019, COM 209 nal
[Link]

 2009 The Author

Journal Compilation  2009 IOM
 European cultural policy and migration 51

2005b Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the

Council concerning the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue
2008, COM 467 nal.
2006a Draft Conditional Call for Proposals No XX 2006, Specica-
tions Support for Cultural Actions, Strand 1.2.1 Cultural Coop-
eration Measures.
Council of Europe
1954 European Cultural Convention, European Treaty Series, 18.
Council of the European Union
2006b Draft 18-month Programme of the German, Portuguese and Slove-
nian Presidencies (16158 06).
ECF
2004 On the Road, ECF, Amsterdam.
EEC
1973 Declaration on European Identity, Bulletin of the European Com-
munities, 12: 118122.
1976 European Union: Report by Mr Leo Tindemans, Prime Minister
of Belgium, to the European Council, Bulletin of the European
Communities, 1 76.
El Hamel, C.
2002 Muslim Diaspora in Western Europe: The Islamic Headscarf
(Hijab), the Media and Muslims Integration in France, Citizen-
ship Studies, 6(3): 293308.
Hutnyk, J.
2005 Hybridity, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 28(1): 79102.
IFA
2004 The West and the Muslim World: A Muslim position, IFA, Berlin.
Kaufmann, T., and G. Raunig
2002 Anticipating European Cultural Policies Position Paper on
European Cultural Policies, EIPCP, retrieved 1 September 2005,
[Link]
Lucchi, C.
2005 Salvadori: Il Meeting antirazzista per una nuova cultura sui
migranti, Prima Pagina, retrieved 10 August 2005, http://
[Link]/?codice=11014.
Maalouf, A.
2000 On Identity, The Harvill Press, London.
Marshall, T.H.
1950 Citizenship and social class, Cambridge University Press, Cam-
bridge.
Mercati, C.
2005 Lavventura necessaria: cinema tra emigrazione e immigrazione
dallOttocento ai giorni nostri, Genova 04, retrieved 3 June 2005,
[Link]

 2009 The Author

Journal Compilation  2009 IOM
52 Xuereb

Meinhof, U.H., and A. Triandafyllidou

2006 Transcultural Europe: Cultural Policy in a Changing Europe, Pal-
grave Macmillan, New York.
Mokre, M.
2003 Identity matters. On European cultural policy, EIPCP, retrieved
1 September 2005, [Link]
Robins, K.
2006 The challenge of transcultural diversities: Transversal study on the
theme of cultural policy and cultural diversity, Council of Europe
Publishing, Strasbourg.
Sardar, Z.
2004a Beyond Difference: Cultural Relations in the New Century: A lec-
ture for the British Councils 70th Anniversary, British Council,
London.
2004b What does it mean to be a British Muslim?, in R. Bechler
(Ed), What is British?, British Council, London.
Sassatelli, M.
2002 The Shaping of a European Cultural Identity through EU
Cultural Policy, European Journal of Social Theory, 5(4): 435
451.
Schiffbauer, W.
2005 Parallel Societies and Integration: German Turks and their Com-
munities in Germany, Kulturjournal of the Goethe-Institut, 1: 30
33.
Skot-Hansen, D.
2002 Danish Cultural Policy from Monoculture towards Cultural
Diversity, International Journal of Cultural Policy, 8(2): 197210.
Szaybo, P.
2004 From negative to positive: Roma and the transformation of
images, in R. Bechler (Ed.), Growing a bigger Europe, British
Council, London.
Turner, B.S.
2001 Outline of a general theory of cultural citizenship, in N. Steven-
son (Ed.), Culture and citizenship, Sage, London.
Van Ham, P.
2001 European Integration and the Post-Modern Condition, Routledge,
London.
Wang, L.
2004 Multiculturalism in Taiwan: Contradictions and challenges in
cultural policy, International Journal of Cultural Policy, 10(3):
301318.

 2009 The Author

Journal Compilation  2009 IOM
 European cultural policy and migration 53

APPENDIX

Title XII

Culture

Article 151

1. The Community shall contribute to the owering of the cultures of the

Member States, while respecting their national and regional diversity and
at the same time bringing the common cultural heritage to the fore.
2. Action by the Community shall be aimed at encouraging cooperation
between Member States and, if necessary, supporting and supplementing
their action in the following areas:
- improvement of the knowledge and dissemination of the culture and his-
tory of the European peoples,
- conservation and safeguarding of cultural heritage of European signi-
cance,
- non-commercial cultural exchanges,
- artistic and literary creation, including in the audiovisual sector.
3. The Community and the Member States shall foster cooperation with
third countries and the competent international organisations in the sphere
of culture, in particular the Council of Europe.
4. The Community shall take cultural aspects into account in its action
under other provisions of this Treaty, in particular in order to respect and
to promote the diversity of its cultures.
5. In order to contribute to the achievement of the objectives referred to in
this Article, the Council:
- acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 251 and
after consulting the Committee of the Regions, shall adopt incentive mea-
sures, excluding any harmonisation of the laws and regulations of the
Member States. The Council shall act unanimously throughout the proce-
dure referred to in Article 251,
- acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission, shall adopt rec-
ommendations.

 2009 The Author

Journal Compilation  2009 IOM
Copyright of International Migration is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or
emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.