Understanding EU cultural diplomacy
A clear way to understand European Union cultural diplomacy is to begin with a key distinction: the EU does not have a single, centralised cultural diplomacy service comparable to a state foreign ministry. Instead, it operates at the intersection of EU cultural policy, external relations, public diplomacy, development cooperation and Member State cultural diplomacy. The EU increasingly uses the broader term “international cultural relations” to signal a move away from one-way promotion of European culture abroad and toward reciprocity, dialogue, co-creation and partnership. (culture.ec.europa.eu)
What is EU cultural diplomacy?
In simple terms, EU cultural diplomacy uses cultural cooperation, exchange, heritage, education, creative industries and people-to-people contacts as tools of the EU’s external relations. Traditional cultural diplomacy usually involves a state presenting its culture abroad through language institutes, museums, exhibitions, scholarships, festivals and similar channels. France has the Institut français, Germany the Goethe-Institut, Spain the Instituto Cervantes, Italy the Istituti Italiani di Cultura, and so on.
The EU differs because culture remains primarily a Member State competence. Article 167 TFEU states that the EU should support the flourishing of Member States’ cultures while respecting their diversity, and that EU action should support and supplement—not replace—national cultural policies. It also calls for cooperation with third countries and international organisations in the cultural field. (EUR-Lex)
EU cultural diplomacy is therefore best seen as a multi-level system involving Member States, EU institutions, national cultural institutes, European cultural networks, civil society, artists and cultural organisations, and partner countries. This is why EU documents increasingly refer to “international cultural relations” rather than simply “cultural diplomacy.”
A very brief historical overview
There are roughly five stages in the development of Eu cultural diplomacy.
In the aftermath of World War II
After 1945, culture remained secondary to European integration, which focused mainly on economic and political cooperation. The founding treaties did not create a comprehensive European cultural policy, largely because culture was closely tied to national identity and sovereignty. Even so, the idea of a shared European culture appeared indirectly through notions such as common European heritage.
Maastricht gives culture a formal place
The Maastricht Treaty (1992) marked a key turning point by giving the EU an explicit cultural competence, as it could now encourage cultural cooperation while respecting national and regional diversity. This is the foundation of today’s Article 167 TFEU. The principle is crucial: EU cultural policy is supporting/coordinating rather than harmonising. That distinction explains much of the institutional architecture even today.
The 2007 European Agenda for Culture
A second major turning point was the European Agenda for Culture in a Globalising World (2007). This was particularly important for external relations because it explicitly recognised culture as relevant to the EU’s international role. The Commission describes 2007 as the point at which promoting culture in EU international relations became one of the three principal objectives of the European Agenda for Culture. (culture.ec.europa.eu) This was also the period in which the EU began thinking more systematically about culture as: an element of European identity; a contribution to economic development; a means of intercultural dialogue; an instrument for international cooperation.
Lisbon Treaty & EEAS: culture enters the external-action architecture
The Lisbon Treaty, which entered into force in 2009, fundamentally changed the institutional environment. Two things matter particularly:
- Article 167(3) TFEU explicitly provides for cooperation with third countries and international organisations in culture.
- The Lisbon Treaty created the European External Action Service (EEAS) and the strengthened position of the High Representative.
As a result, it became possible to link cultural policy more systematically to EU foreign policy. The European Parliament later described the Lisbon Treaty and the creation of the EEAS as establishing a new architecture for EU international cultural relations. (Legislative Observatory)
2016: a decisive move towards an EU cultural-diplomacy strategy
The most important document to know is the 2016 Joint Communication: “Towards an EU strategy for international cultural relations.” The Communication proposed three broad areas:
- Culture as an engine for sustainable social and economic development
- Culture and intercultural dialogue for peaceful inter-community relations
- Cooperation on cultural heritage
It also explicitly developed a strategic approach to cultural diplomacy, including cooperation between EU Member States and EU Delegations. (EUR-Lex) The European Commission and High Representative presented the Communication jointly, which is significant: cultural diplomacy became something connecting internal EU cultural policy with external/foreign policy.
2019: Consolidation
The Council Conclusions on an EU strategic approach to international cultural relations (2019) were important because they moved the 2016 strategy beyond a Commission/High Representative initiative and into a broader political framework endorsed by the Member States. The EEAS identifies 2016 and 2019 as key turning points in the development of structured EU international cultural relations.
The conceptual shift was from an older model of Europe presenting European culture abroad to an emerging EU model of Europe building relationships with its partners. In this approach, European and non-European actors cooperate, exchange, co-create and develop long-term relationships. The EEAS describes this as a move away from traditional “showcasing” of European soft power toward mutual exchange, people-to-people engagement and co-creation.
The current framework: 2023–2026 and the Culture Compass
There are two especially important developments. The Work Plan for Culture 2023–2026 includes international cultural relations as one of its four priorities. (culture.ec.europa.eu) It therefore gives international cultural relations a continuing place within the EU’s broader cultural policy framework, while Culture Compass for Europe — 2025 is a newer overarching framework, presented by the Commission in November 2025. It replaced the 2018 New European Agenda for Culture and has four broad directions: protecting cultural rights and values; empowering artists and cultural professionals; strengthening competitiveness, resilience and cohesion; advancing international cultural relations and partnerships. (European Commission)
Legal basis/ key documents
There is no single “EU Cultural Diplomacy Act.” Instead, the legal framework is spread across the treaties, international agreements, programmes, Council conclusions, Commission communications and external-action instruments. The key provisions are:
Article 3 TEU states that the EU is committed to respecting its cultural and linguistic diversity and safeguarding and enhancing Europe’s cultural heritage. (culture.ec.europa.eu)
Article 6 TFEU defines culture as an area where the EU has a supporting, coordinating and supplementary competence. This is fundamental, since the EU does not have general competence to impose a common cultural policy on Member States. (EUR-Lex)
Article 167 TFEU as the central cultural provision is the key article to be mentioned in this context. It says the Union shall contribute to the flourishing of Member State cultures while respecting national and regional diversity. It also identifies core elements: knowledge and dissemination of European peoples’ culture and history, cultural heritage, non-commercial cultural exchanges, artistic and literary creation, including audiovisual creation. Critically for diplomacy, Article 167(3) provides for EU and Member State cooperation with third countries and international organisations in culture. (EUR-Lex)
Articles 21–22 TEU provide the broader constitutional framework for the EU’s external action and Common Foreign and Security Policy. They matter because cultural diplomacy is ultimately connected to the EU’s external-action objectives: international cooperation, peace, human rights, democracy, rule of law, mutual understanding, etc.
Article 205 TFEU connects the EU’s external action to the principles and objectives established in the Treaty on European Union.
Another essential piece is the 2005 UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions. The EU is a party to this Convention. The Commission calls it the main legislation in this area for EU international cultural relations. (culture.ec.europa.eu) This matters because it gives EU cultural diplomacy an important normative foundation: cultural diversity is not simply something Europe wants to export; it is something the EU commits itself to protecting and promoting internationally. This goes hand in hand with the EU’s emphasis on cultural diversity, intercultural dialogue, human rights, freedom of expression, sustainable development, international cooperation.
The European Agenda for Culture (2007) marked the point at which culture became more explicitly connected to EU international relations. (culture.ec.europa.eu)
The 2016 Joint Communication — “Towards an EU strategy for international cultural relations” is probably the most important document for EU cultural diplomacy (EUR-Lex), since it defines the three conceptual pillars, which are central to the EU’s current international cultural relations framework: 1. Culture and sustainable development (with culture being treated as economically and socially productive, since it involves creative industries, cultural entrepreneurship, local cultural economies, tourism, employment, sustainable urban development); 2. Culture and peace/ dialogue (with culture becoming a tool for intercultural dialogue, reconciliation, preventing conflict, combating stereotypes, building trust, connecting societies); 3. Cultural heritage (explicitly referring to preservation, restoration, capacity-building, combating destruction of heritage, cooperation with UNESCO and the Council of Europe).
The 2017 European Parliament Resolution shows the Parliament’s political interpretation of cultural diplomacy. (Legislative Observatory)
At their turn, the 2019 Council Conclusions on international cultural relations were
important for understanding Member-State political support for the strategy. (European External Action Service)
The EU Work Plan for Culture 2023–2026 shows how international cultural relations were incorporated into the continuing cultural-policy framework. (culture.ec.europa.eu)
The Culture Compass for Europe (2025) is the most recent overarching cultural-policy framework and therefore essential for understanding where the policy is going now. (European Commission)
The main institutions
The European Commission is central to EU cultural policy. The main Directorate-General is DG EAC — Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture. It handles EU-level cultural policy and manages Creative Europe, the EU’s main programme supporting the cultural and creative sectors. (culture.ec.europa.eu)
However, international cultural relations are not limited to DG EAC. Other Commission departments may also be involved depending on the project: DG INTPA — International Partnerships; DG ENEST — Enlargement and Eastern Neighbourhood; DG MENA — Middle East, North Africa and Gulf; FPI — Service for Foreign Policy Instruments; DG CONNECT — digital/content issues; DG GROW — internal market/creative industries; and DG RTD — research and innovation. The EEAS specifically identifies several of these departments as partners in international cultural relations.
The EEAS (European External Action Service) is probably the institution one should associate most strongly with EU cultural diplomacy as foreign policy. While DG EAC stands for cultural policy, the EEAS stands for external relations/diplomatic dimension, currently describing international cultural relations as an important component of EU public diplomacy and works with EU Delegations around the world, the Member States, the Commission, with EUNIC, civil society, cultural organisations, international organisations. There is a key conceptual development from public diplomacy (communication, dialogue, trust-building and engagement with foreign publics) to International cultural relations (the cultural, artistic, educational and societal relationships that make that engagement possible). The EU now treats international cultural relations as an important pillar of public diplomacy.
EU Delegations are particularly important because they translate the policy into actual diplomatic practice. They are the EU’s diplomatic presence in partner countries. Cultural relations can therefore happen through cultural events, exhibitions, film festivals, artistic exchanges, heritage projects, youth programmes, academic cooperation, creative-industry cooperation, civil-society projects, intercultural dialogue. The current EEAS framework gives EU Delegations an increasingly important operational role, with Cultural Focal Points helping connect Delegations with local cultural actors.
EUNIC (European Union National Institutes for Culture) is the network bringing together national cultural institutes and organisations from EU Member States. This is where the EU’s unusual structure becomes very visible. The EU doesn’t replace the Goethe-Institut, Institut français, Instituto Cervantes, etc. Instead, it can coordinate and work with the national cultural institutes. The EEAS currently describes EUNIC as having 35 members and more than 125 local clusters, contributing to transnational cultural initiatives around the world. All in all, the EU institutions and the national cultural institutes build together the “Team Europe” approach. That is one of the most important practical characteristics of EU cultural diplomacy.
Creative Europe is the EU’s flagship funding programme for culture and the creative sectors. It supports areas such as performing arts, visual arts, literature, music, film/audiovisual, cultural heritage, creative industries, cross-border cooperation. It also has an external dimension, allowing cooperation with non-EU countries in appropriate frameworks. (culture.ec.europa.eu) A useful conceptual distinction relates to the fact that Creative Europe is not itself “cultural diplomacy.” Rather, it provides funding infrastructure through which cultural relations and European cooperation can occur.
European Spaces of Culture are projects designed to test new forms of cooperation between European and local cultural actors in third countries. They are particularly interesting because they embody the newer EU philosophy: not “let’s export European culture,” but “let’s build something together with local partners.” The initiative is implemented with EUNIC and supported by the EU (culture.ec.europa.eu), which best illustrates the shift from cultural diplomacy to international cultural relations.
The European Parliament has been an important advocate of a stronger EU cultural-diplomacy dimension. Its 2017 resolution on EU international cultural relations argued that culture should become an important component of political dialogue with third countries and that cultural considerations should be systematically incorporated into EU external programmes. (Legislative Observatory)
The Council of the EU represents Member States and is crucial for defining political priorities. Its 2019 Conclusions on an EU strategic approach to international cultural relations are particularly important. (European External Action Service)
Instead of an institutional map
If we were to paint a very vivid picture of the system, we could say, using an analogy, that the institutional map of the European Union’s cultural diplomacy closely resembles the human body: it has a head (the European Union) that provides the vision and coordinates the two lungs (Internal Culture/DG EAC and External Action/EEAS), which in turn animate the two upper limbs that implement cultural policies (Creative Europe and EU Delegations). Somewhere at the centre of this body lies the heart (International Cultural Relations), which pumps blood throughout the entire body, especially to the lower limbs (EUNIC and the Member States)—it’s like in football, they score the goals—all the way down to the most discreet network of interconnected cells (national cultural institutes, relevant ministries, artists, creatives, and NGOs) which form the skin of this body, in direct contact with the world (third countries, external partners, and the global cultural space).
The key point is that the EU does not simply operate above the Member States in a hierarchy; instead, it works through coordination, funding, partnerships, diplomacy and networks. You got the picture: a body without a head is not functional; a head without a body belongs in a museum of curiosities.
The most important conceptual debate
There is an interesting academic debate here: soft power vs. cultural relations. One approach sees culture as soft power: The EU uses culture to make itself attractive and thereby increase its influence. That is not entirely wrong. But the EU’s official discourse increasingly prefers a different model: Culture should create mutual relationships, rather than simply communicate a favourable image of Europe. This is why terms such as mutuality, reciprocity, co-creation, people-to-people relations, intercultural dialogue, partnership, cultural diversity appear so frequently in EU documents. The EEAS explicitly describes the contemporary approach as a shift away from simply “showcasing” European soft power. (European External Action Service)
The fundamental insight: a paradox backed by docs
It is a relatively recent effort to turn Europe’s cultural diversity from a set of national diplomatic assets into a coordinated instrument of EU external action. Yet this transformation remains incomplete. Because the EU has limited competence in culture and Member States retain primary responsibility, European cultural diplomacy is necessarily multi-level and networked—a feature that is both a strength and a weakness.
Its strength lies in the EU combining its diplomatic weight with the cultural expertise and identities of 27 Member States. Its weakness relates to Europe lacking a single cultural voice, since France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Poland, Romania and others maintain their own cultural diplomacy, institutions, priorities and identities.
This explains the EU’s current emphasis on “Team Europe”, EUNIC, EU Delegations and co-creation: the goal is not to replace national cultural diplomacy, but to align it more effectively with EU external action. This is the central institutional paradox of EU cultural diplomacy: Europe seeks to act collectively through culture abroad, while culture remains deeply national in legal competence, institutional structures and identity.