The Role of Cultural Diplomacy in International Theatre Exchange

What cultural diplomacy means in theatre exchange

Cultural diplomacy is the use of cultural activity—performance, exhibition, education, exchange—by states and state-linked institutions to build international relationships, communicate values and create mutual understanding. In international theatre exchange it appears whenever a tour, festival appearance, co-production, translation, residency or digital broadcast is supported, framed or negotiated through diplomatic channels. The diplomatic actor may be an embassy, a national cultural institute, a ministry, a city, a festival or an international network. It may also be absent: much international theatre is initiated by artists and independent producers, yet it can still have diplomatic effects by creating relationships across borders.

The term is often confused with cultural relations and with propaganda. Cultural relations are the wider, long-term web of contacts between societies; cultural diplomacy is the more deliberate use of culture by a state or state-linked body. The line is not always clean. A government may present a tour as friendship; an artist may experience it as professional opportunity; an audience may read it as national representation. Historical studies show that such framing has real consequences. Taylor Tobias’s study of the British Council’s early years traces the organisation from 1934 to 1947 and examines the political tensions around its theatre and dance work, including the Sadler’s Wells Ballet tour of the Netherlands in May 1940, which ended with the German invasion on 10 May and brought the Council international attention for its cultural propaganda (Tobias, 2024). The episode is a reminder that theatre diplomacy is never only aesthetic: it is also institutional, political and contingent on events.

For practitioners, the useful question is not simply whether cultural diplomacy is good or bad. It is who is doing the framing, what they want from the exchange, who pays, who speaks, and what artistic control remains. Those questions apply to state-funded tours and to independent festival invitations alike.

How diplomacy enters theatre practice

Official agencies and national representation

State-linked cultural agencies often support theatre abroad through touring grants, showcases, translation subsidies, residencies and market visits. Their aims may include language promotion, bilateral friendship, trade and tourism, or a country’s reputation. The British Council’s early history shows how quickly performance can become a vehicle for national projection: a ballet tour could be reported as evidence of national culture and institutional purpose, even as the tour’s immediate context was war (Tobias, 2024). Contemporary agencies differ widely in mandate, governance and openness, so artists should read the specific programme rather than assume that one national body works like another.

Official support can make exchange possible. It can cover freight, visas, translation, travel and fees that no single venue could fund. It can also create asymmetries: the funder’s priorities may shape which artists are visible, which languages are surtitled, and which stories are legible to international audiences. A production may be invited as “national culture” even when its makers see themselves as dissident, regional, multilingual or transnational. Good practice begins with clarity about that framing.

Festivals as cultural mediators

Festivals are among the most visible sites where theatre and diplomacy meet. Alice Golisano’s research examines the Festival d’Avignon, the Belgrade International Theatre Festival (BITEF) and the Sibiu International Theatre Festival (FITS) as European festivals with different geopolitical and cultural trajectories. The thesis argues that these festivals have reacted to historical ferment since post-war Europe and that their countries’ political allegiances and cultural politics have affected their curatorial approaches. It frames international theatre festivals as cultural mediators in building European cohesion and as actors in cultural diplomacy (Golisano, 2023).

This does not mean that festival directors are diplomats in disguise. It means that programming choices—which companies are invited, which languages are translated, which themes are grouped, which dignitaries attend—can produce diplomatic meanings alongside artistic ones. A festival may be a mediator between scenes, a broker of institutional relationships, or a stage for municipal and national prestige. Festivals can also resist official narratives by programming work that is critical of governments, provided that funding and political conditions allow it.

Touring and intercultural cooperation

International touring is one of the most concrete forms of exchange. A study of theatre tours by Ieva Meilutė and Virginija Jurėnienė analyses how tours are organised and argues that intercultural cooperation can occur on interpersonal (micro), interinstitutional (macro) and international (mezzo) levels. The study also identifies a mixed level and notes that a mediating element can appear in cooperation at micro or macro levels. It reports that both state and non-state theatres see evident benefit in international tours for the theatre, the troupe and audiences (Meilutė and Jurėnienė, 2020).

The three-level model is useful for planning. At the interpersonal level, a tour builds relationships between performers, technicians, hosts and audiences. At the interinstitutional level, it creates agreements between theatres, festivals, agencies and schools. At the international level, it may connect national scenes or policy frameworks. A tour can succeed artistically while failing institutionally, or produce strong institutional links with weak audience contact. Cultural diplomacy tends to value the institutional and international levels; theatre practitioners also need to protect the interpersonal and artistic ones.

Co-production and translation

Co-production and translation are quieter diplomatic forms. A co-production distributes creative authority, money, rehearsal time and presentation rights across countries; a translation decides whose language carries the play and whose is marked as foreign. These choices can support reciprocity, or they can reproduce a hierarchy in which one language, dramaturgy or funding system sets the terms. Translation rights, surtitle rights, recording rights and adaptation permissions should be agreed in writing, with the relevant jurisdiction and contractual terms checked by the parties involved. Cultural diplomacy rarely appears in a contract as such, but it is present in who has final approval over a text, who is credited, and who can tour the work later.

A recent case: theatre in Polish–Ukrainian relations

A recent pilot study by Andriy Sendetskyy examines the place and role of theatre in cultural diplomacy between Poland and Ukraine from 2014 to 2023. The research period was shaped by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and Poland’s support for Ukraine against the aggressor. The article explores theatre as a tool of cultural diplomacy in bilateral relations, focusing on interactions between representatives, governments and cultural institutions (Sendetskyy, 2025).

Because the study is explicitly a pilot, its findings should not be generalised into a universal model of theatre diplomacy in the region. Its value lies in showing how quickly artistic exchange can become entangled with security policy, solidarity, displacement and national representation. In such contexts, the ethical stakes are high: artists may be asked to embody a national cause, audiences may expect testimony, and funders may prefer clear political narratives. A responsible exchange does not avoid these pressures; it makes them visible and gives artists room to dissent, refuse or define their own terms.

Benefits, risks and the problem of instrumentalisation

Cultural diplomacy can bring real benefits to international theatre. It can fund mobility, support translation, open festival doors, create long-term institutional relationships and bring work to audiences who would not otherwise see it. The touring study’s finding that both state and non-state theatres perceive benefits is a useful corrective to the assumption that diplomacy only distorts art (Meilutė and Jurėnienė, 2020).

The risks are equally real. Diplomatically framed exchange can instrumentalise artists as national representatives, reward conformist narratives, discourage criticism of funders or host governments, and concentrate opportunities among already visible companies. It can also deepen unequal access: visa systems, freight costs, language barriers and documentation requirements fall unevenly on artists from poorer or more restricted contexts. A state may call a project “cultural diplomacy” while an independent company experiences it as unpaid labour, reputational risk or censorship. Historical cultural propaganda shows why the vocabulary of representation deserves scrutiny (Tobias, 2024).

The distinction between sponsorship and direction matters. A funder can support a tour without choosing the repertoire; an embassy can host a reception without requiring a political message; a festival can programme a national showcase while allowing critical work. Where those distinctions collapse, artists need to decide whether the opportunity is worth the conditions. There is no universal rule. Transparency, contractual clarity, editorial autonomy and fair payment are practical safeguards, not guarantees.

Practical questions for artists and producers

Before accepting a diplomatically framed opportunity, clarify the following:

• Who is the diplomatic actor? Is the invitation from a ministry, embassy, cultural institute, festival, city authority, NGO or independent producer? What is their stated purpose, and who else is involved?
• What is being asked of the work? Is it a performance, workshop, showcase, market event, press appearance or residency? Will the work be framed as national representation, and can the artists respond to that framing?
• Who controls programming and text? Confirm final approval over repertoire, translation, surtitles, adaptation, documentation and public statements.
• What are the terms? Establish fees, per diems, travel, accommodation, freight, insurance, cancellation and payment schedules in writing. Check visa and immigration requirements for the specific nationality, destination and dates through official government and host-venue guidance.
• What happens to the record? Agree who may film, stream, archive or publish the work, and under what credit and consent terms.
• How will success be judged? Distinguish artistic outcomes, audience access, institutional relationships and diplomatic objectives. Do not promise policy outcomes that the artists do not control.

These questions are especially important in co-productions and multilingual projects, where translation and rights decisions can determine whether an exchange is genuinely reciprocal. They also apply to digital exchange: a livestreamed performance can cross borders instantly, but rights, access, data and payment still require jurisdiction-specific agreements.

Conclusion: diplomacy as a frame, not a verdict

Cultural diplomacy is a frame through which states, institutions and festivals organise international theatre exchange. It can enable mobility and create meaningful relationships; it can also narrow artistic freedom and reproduce unequal power. The most useful critical position is neither automatic celebration nor automatic suspicion. It is to ask who is framing the exchange, what infrastructure supports it, whose language and labour are visible, and whether artists retain the ability to define their own work. In practice, good international theatre exchange treats diplomacy as one layer among many—alongside art, translation, kinship, curiosity and the mundane work of getting a company, a text and an audience into the same room.