Dear colleagues,

I:
Cultural co-operation is an item on the agenda of many international organizations today. The climate for co-operation has improved considerably over the years. World cultures are integrated into national cultures to an extent which was unknown just a decade or two ago.

The Council of Europe, UNESCO and other international organizations, together with the EU, have joined forces for the exchange of ideas and competence in the field of culture. They have also implemented common projects, and common initiatives have been taken. EU has launched several programmes within the cultural field and has contributed substantially to the European dialogue on culture. This also goes for the Council of Europe which covers the whole of geographical Europe. At the Third Summit of Heads of States and Governments of the Council of Europe in Warsaw earlier this year, the promotion of intercultural and interfaith dialogue was integrated as part of the Action Plan. This is a backdrop also for our work in the Baltic Sea region.

A growing European awareness of our common cultural roots has emerged, following - on the one hand - enhanced European co-operation, and - on the other - the opening up between the eastern and western part of the continent. We realize that our specific national cultural expressions arise from common values and ideas, but they have taken on different forms from one country to another. In other words, there exists nothing like a uniform European culture. Unity in diversity might rather be an appropriate characteristic. It is a mulitude of flourishing culture in a many-facetted continent.

Our common European culture.

Fruitful international dialogue in the cultural field presupposes confidence in the value of our own national cultures, and awareness of one`s own cultural identity. With firm roots in your own culture you can reach out to other cultures and contribute to the international exchange of ideas.

In today’s media world we are continually exposed to the influence of dominant cultures from all over the world. In particular television is a powerful contributor to new habits and traditions. In this situation it’s most important not to become defensive. It is crucial that we strengthen our ability to develop our own national culture and preserve our cultural heritage. Although this is becoming increasingly difficult for the smaller nations.

Only strong cultures can survive and develop, but small cultures, too, can be strong.

Gathered here in a Baltic Sea setting, we must not forget the global challenges confronting us. It would be wrong to confine our ambitions to the construction of cultural co-operation and development in a self-contained Europe or in our region. Nevertheless, this does not prevent us from going into what are our direct concerns and our regional responsibilities.

II:
From the Norwegian side we strongly support cultural co-operation in the Baltic Sea region. We have from the very beginning - that is the first conference (of ministers of culture from this region) in 1993 – also expressed our wish to build this co-operation on Ars Baltica. Over the years, Ars Baltica has prove to be well suited for the task. It’s a structure which is efficient and works at a low cost. However, after about fifteen years, it could be time for an evaluation of its work. I know this has been done before, and the result was a continuation of Ars Baltica in its original form, based on confidence in its value and its efficiency.

However, our societies change rapidly, not least on the technical side. Internet and other electronic equipment have opened up for new forms of co-operation. Travelling is easier and less expensive than just some years ago, our cultural institutions. Your artists and institutions have established networks which work efficiently and independently without support from governmental or other official channels. On this backdrop I find it quite appropriate once again to look into our established, official forms of co-operation. It’s not a question of change just for the sake of change. However, it’s not a goal in itself to involve governments, ministries or other official instruments if others can do the work better and in closer contact with the artistic world. What I have in mind are cultural institutions and organizations and others operating in the field. I am not proposing a termination of Ars Baltica. I am just raising the question whether the time is ripe for a change in cultural co-operation in the Baltic Sea region.

Ars Baltica has proven to be a well suited mechanism to reach our goals, unbureaucratic and informal as it is. However, to put it bluntly: Is Ars Baltica in today’s world an unnecessary, or outdated, instrument? Without question, regional cultural co-operation must continue. But, should we do it in a different way? Leave it with the sector itself?

I would very much appreciate to have your opinion on these questions.

III:
Co-operation, in every form, must be based on mutual responsibility. This is a governing guideline which is the closest we can get to a guarantee for success. Without mutual responsibility, we would be losing the mutual respect which is quite fundamental for fruitful co-operation.

Today Ars Baltica is financially supported by all its member states, however, with unequal contributions. This can be historically explained. But over the years the economic situation too, has changed. Should we continue Ars Baltica - in its present form or with a different structure - future co-operation should be based on equal contributions from equal partners. This should be implemented already as from next year, 2006.

IV:
Our task as ministers of culture – as I see it – is not to go into the details of our co-operation. This should be left to the experts, the artists and the administrators. We, the ministers, should not express opinions on projects to be promoted, recommend artists or give emphasis to fields of co-operation. Our task is to prepare the ground, to provide the political platform for the work that is to be carried out. If possible, we should also be at hand to channel economic support into the work, from different sources, and to assist in building networks between institutions, artists and experts. If we are successful in this respect we have achieved a great deal in order to stimulate co-operation and make it constructive and goal oriented.

Contact between artists, writers and musicians on a professional level is essential. The professionals are torches to look up to, representing the best in our countries. But I would also like to point to the non-professionals, people who are living examples of their culture, tradition and history. I would very much like to see that this non professional aspect is integrated into the future work of our co-operation. What I have in mind is folk music, folk songs, folk dance etc., but also groups of non professionals working in other fields of culture, for example theatre, painting, pottery. If we give these groups the possibility to meet and exchange views, we are really preparing the ground for cultural understanding and future contact between our countries.

On the professional level I would also like to mention the field of architecture. Our environment is giving colour to our daily life. If it’s grey, we become grey, if it smiles, we smile. Should architecture be included in our future co-operation?

V:
Norwegian regional co-operation is mainly concentrated in three different regions:

The Nordic region, that is the five Nordic countries

The Barents region, which is the Nordic countries and Russia

and

The Baltic Sea region, the countries present here today.

The co-operation is organized in different ways within the different regions, with different structures and different administrative set-ups. However, an interesting aspect of this regional co-operation is that to a certain extent the regions overlap. This means that there are mutual interests within and between the regions. This should not be neglected. I will therefore suggest that in the future we more seriously than before look into the possibility of closer contacts between the regions. An exhibition touring in the Baltic Sea region could for example easily be presented also to the population in the Barents region and vice versa, and I am confident that it would be of great interest to everyone. The idea is not to establish new organizational structures, on the contrary, my wish is to establish contacts within the structures we already have.

VI:
Ministerial conferences have a central function in all international co-operation. The ministerial conferences constitute the political platform for the practical work in the following years. In discussing questions of mutual interest ideas for future co-operation are established, which can only be to the benefit of all of us. Without going into detail on the various projects, at these meetings, we have the possibility to give priorities to future work and to indicate the direction we want our co-operation to follow.

Another aspect which should not be neglected is the possibility meetings give for establishing contacts on the personal level. Our countries are close neighbours. On the professional level we have wide contacts through our institutions and artists, and we have close historical bonds. This means that we need meeting-places also at the politcal level, giving ministers the possibility to know each other.

The question I want to raise is how often the ministers should meet. This conference here in Bergen is the seventh in a line which started in 1993. That is a meeting every second year.

Is this the right interval? Should it be more often, or is an interval of three years more appropriate? At the meeting in St. Petersburg two years ago I suggested an interval of three years between the ministerial conferences, but there was no real discussion on the topic. I am therefore raising it again and would appreciate to have your opinion.

It would also be fruitful if we could exchange ideas on the character of the meetings. Should they have a more practical approach, where we, the ministers, give clearer directions for the cultural co-operation? Should they have a more scientific or professional approach, with lectures and discussions on the professional level?

We need forceful vehicles in our efforts to develop strategies and to keep up cultural and human values in a world dominated by economic and technical development. The ministerial conferences have been, are, and will be, such a vehicle.

VII:
National authorities have a responsibility to provide the opportunities for a lively artistic and cultural life at all levels of society. Our task is to make culture available to everybody and engage as many people as possible in cultural activities, regardless of their geographical or social setting. In pursuing these aims we see the need for international co-operation, and we see the success of joint forces. That is why we are here today, and I am confident that our deliberations will bring us a new step forward.

A result of our co-operation over the years is the establishment of a Baltic Sea Identity. Let us keep up and be proud of this identity. Identity is a fundamental prerequisite for all achievements. Now that we have this identity, our work will be to the benefit of all of our countries.

Thank you for your attention.