In today’s turbulent world, geopolitical tensions are intensifying by the day; nationalist competition over cultural heritage is escalating; major digital corporations are expanding their dominance; and the ethical dilemmas of engaging with diverse governments are becoming more complex. In this context, UNESCO—as the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization—assumes heightened significance. From its inception, UNESCO has sought to deepen mutual understanding and empathy among nations through culture, education, and science. Yet in practice, it is often caught between its universal, ambitious ideals and the harsh realities of power politics in inter-state relations.
Examining these tensions not only enables a deeper understanding of UNESCO’s performance, but also helps identify pathways to strengthen the role of culture in post-conflict and post-war societies, in the digital age, and across countries with divergent political systems. These debates also remind us that culture can sometimes shift—from a vehicle of human freedom and flourishing—into an instrument of state soft power. This reality underscores the need for serious reflection on UNESCO’s methods and operational approaches.
Against this backdrop, the interview features Professor Milena Dragićević Šešić, a distinguished professor at the University of Arts in Belgrade and the founder of the UNESCO Chair in Interculturalism, Art Management and Mediation. She is widely recognized in the field of cultural policy and cultural diplomacy and has served as a consultant to institutions such as UNESCO, the Council of Europe, the European Cultural Foundation, and others. She has also implemented more than fifty cultural policy projects across regions including the Balkans, Cambodia, Central Asia, and the Middle East. This interview therefore draws on her perspective—grounded in critical pragmatism and a commitment to empowering local communities—which can bridge academic theorization and practical international work.
Interview Details
- Interviewer: Dr. Setareh Sadeqi, Faculty Member, Faculty of World Studies, University of Tehran
- Interviewee: Professor Milena Dragićević Šešić, Faculty Member, University of Arts in Belgrade; Founder of the UNESCO Chair in Interculturalism, Art Management and Mediation
- Date of Interview: Thursday, November 19, 2025
- Main Topics:
- UNESCO as mediator or reflector of power relations
- UNESCO and the challenges of the digital age
- UNESCO’s structural and ethical limitations in realizing the ideal of cultural emancipation
Note: In order to preserve academic independence and diversity of perspectives, it should be emphasized that the opinions expressed in this interview reflect solely the personal views of the interviewee and do not necessarily imply endorsement or adoption of a position by the Human Rights Institute of the University of Isfahan.
Interview Report
- UNESCO as Mediator or Reflector of Power Relations
UNESCO has consistently defined its central mission as strengthening mutual understanding through culture. Yet, in reality, processes such as intangible cultural heritage inscription often become arenas of intense nationalist competition, and the organization at times functions as a mirror of unequal power relations among states. This duality is particularly visible in disputes where multiple states claim ownership over elements of intangible cultural heritage.
Professor Dragićević Šešić, reflecting on this dual role, argues that UNESCO both reflects geopolitical realities—through the adoption and implementation of ideas shaped by major powers or the European Union—and simultaneously tries to perform a mediating function. She adds that UNESCO often attempts to resolve inter-state conflicts, yet at times avoids raising issues that are highly sensitive for powerful actors in order to preserve consensus and keep institutional processes moving.
A notable example of successful mediation, she argues, was UNESCO’s decision to include Documents of Nanjing Massacre (1937–1938) in the Memory of the World Register, despite strong objections from the Japanese government and divisions within academic circles. UNESCO focused on documented evidence and completed the registration process—demonstrating the organization’s capacity to withstand political pressure and prioritize historical truth, particularly when the matter concerns archival documentation rather than interpretive narratives.
By contrast, she refers to a personal experience in which she prepared an analytical report on the state of intercultural dialogue in Europe, but critical passages about legal inconsistencies in certain EU countries were removed. The governments concerned viewed the critique as excessively harsh, and UNESCO—given its intergovernmental character and commitment to representing states on an equal footing—was compelled to retreat and compromise. This case illustrates, in her assessment, how UNESCO may at times yield to power asymmetries, while ideas advanced by dominant actors tend to proceed more smoothly.
- Culture in Post-War Societies
Dragićević Šešić further emphasizes that in post-conflict settings, culture can function both as a tool of reconciliation and as a mechanism that sustains separation. For example, UNESCO’s projects in the Balkans after the wars following the breakup of the former Yugoslavia often remained largely symbolic and failed to generate deep social or political impact. She cites the reconstruction of three major religious sites—such as a mosque in Banja Luka (whose Muslim population had been displaced), an Orthodox church in Mostar (where a large Orthodox community no longer existed), and a Franciscan monastery near Dubrovnik in the south of present-day Bosnia and Herzegovina. These reconstructions were heavily promoted as symbols of interreligious unity, yet in practice, the sites remained detached from community life and did not address the deep, hidden trauma and fear within society. For this reason, she describes such initiatives as media-attractive and symbolically significant, but insufficiently deep to produce sustained transformation.
To achieve genuine impact, she insists that UNESCO’s cultural engagement must be long-term, community-based, and implemented with the participation of local educators—moving beyond bureaucratic reporting toward cultural work that becomes a real process of freedom and empowerment. She refers to more effective initiatives such as “Rebel Poets”, which connected young Balkan writers and concluded with the publication of a joint book. Many participants later became cultural activists who contributed directly to reconciliation processes in the region.
She also recounts intercultural dialogue seminars—organized with her Croatian colleague Sanja Andrić—for Bosnian youth in Mostar and Sarajevo. These seminars revealed the depth of trauma, lingering victimhood narratives, and entrenched hatred among three ethnic groups. Many participants had been children during the war and had grown up amid resentment and disappointment toward the international community. She notes that international cultural and educational sanctions during wartime intensified these sentiments, because they restricted not only weapons flows but also access to culture, education, and even public health.
On this basis, she argues that UNESCO requires sustained initiatives implemented by local trainers who understand the history and values of the target society; foreign experts—often lacking contextual knowledge—will rarely be effective on their own. She reinforces this point with an example from a mission in Cambodia, where external experts failed to grasp key differences between Vietnam’s and Cambodia’s colonial experiences under French rule. For her, institutional knowledge transfer between local and international experts is essential to prevent recurring mistakes.
- UNESCO and the Challenges of the Digital Age
Today’s threats to cultural diversity, she argues, arise less from states than from the monopolistic power of major digital corporations and the dominance of algorithms that control the visibility of content. In this environment, UNESCO’s state-centered governance model appears slow and cautious, and therefore insufficient.
Professor Dragićević Šešić describes her participation in UNESCO-related think tanks on digital cultural development, where innovative ideas were discussed, but effective and operational tools for confronting these problems remained elusive. She points to the 2005 Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, which includes an important principle known as “preferential treatment” intended to support smaller cultural markets and prevent full domination by larger—especially English-language—markets. Yet, according to research she conducted with colleagues, major powerful states rarely implement this principle meaningfully; in practice, it is often reduced to limited gestures such as inviting a small number of artists or offering minor support.
To illustrate the underlying inequality more concretely, she recalls a cultural marketing training course in the 1990s for Eastern European cultural actors in the United Kingdom. Trainers from the UK and the US taught strategies designed for large English-speaking markets. For instance, participants were encouraged to circulate calls for engagement across universities worldwide that operate in English—an approach that made little sense for a country like Estonia, with a small linguistic audience of fewer than two million people.
In the digital age, she argues, algorithms have worsened this structural imbalance. By creating echo chambers (prioritizing content aligned with the user’s preferences) and amplifying sensational or emotionally charged messages for engagement, algorithmic logics not only threaten democracy but also push small and minority languages to the margins. She warns that this dynamic constitutes a major risk for indigenous languages and cultural diversity. She therefore proposes that UNESCO develop a digital cultural governance framework that extends beyond governments—bringing together artists, digital platforms, civil society, linguists, and educational institutions to craft real policies supporting content production and distribution in indigenous languages, children’s books for minority communities, and stronger ethical standards for AI systems and algorithms.
While UNESCO has recently produced valuable normative instruments on AI ethics, she emphasizes that without enforceable implementation mechanisms, such documents will have limited practical impact.
- UNESCO’s Structural and Ethical Limitations in Realizing the Ideal of Cultural Emancipation
UNESCO’s global programmes often require engagement with governments that have weak records on human rights or cultural rights, creating an ethical dilemma: cooperation may inadvertently legitimize repression. Professor Dragićević Šešić states that she has repeatedly encountered this dilemma in missions to authoritarian and even dictatorial contexts. She notes that even in present-day Serbia—where the government exhibits authoritarian tendencies—she has maintained her position within the national UNESCO commission in order to work from within the system and avoid leaving the field to those who seek to silence critical voices.
In this context, she opposes cultural and educational sanctions, arguing that such measures—based on Serbia’s experience in the 1990s—harm civil society, youth, artists, academics, and even athletes more than they harm regimes.
She further points out that UNESCO’s response patterns may reflect Eurocentric tendencies. For example, she argues that the reaction to the war in Ukraine—where European experts were asked for immediate condemnation—made this Eurocentrism visible, while similar demands were not raised with the same urgency regarding wars in Sudan, Yemen, or Gaza. She also notes that self-censorship is not confined to authoritarian contexts: in European democracies, prominent theaters have declined to stage works related to Gaza due to indirect governmental pressures, suggesting that restrictions on cultural freedom can appear in varied political systems.
She presents UNESCO’s 2014 mission in Cambodia on creative industry development as a relatively successful example. Initial assessment revealed a deep gap between government and civil society: around 80 percent of the population was rural, while the urban middle class—considered the primary consumer of cultural products—remained small. Yet UNESCO’s intervention helped facilitate the first major artistic performance and a joint meeting between ministries and artists. Artists reported that their parents, for the first time, felt proud of their profession, and that official state recognition signaled the social value of their work. For her, this gradual shift shows that sustained, often behind-the-scenes engagement can strengthen cultural rights without direct confrontation—and can incrementally open civic space.
Nevertheless, she emphasizes that despite UNESCO’s role as a central platform for advancing cultural rights, the genuinely emancipatory power of culture is often lost amid bureaucratic routines and political compromise. Structural constraints such as intergovernmental consensus requirements—and the wider UN system’s power asymmetries—limit what UNESCO can realistically achieve.
She proposes the introduction of new, more concrete criteria for monitoring or membership-related evaluation—such as guaranteeing primary education and ensuring publicly funded publishing in minority languages—because cultural rights require investment. She cites the Roma community in Europe as a persistent case of marginalization: although Roma exhibitions were held at the Venice Biennale in 2007 and 2011 with support from the United States and certain European foundations, no culture minister from the twelve European host countries of Roma communities attended the opening, reflecting institutional disregard.
She also argues that UNESCO’s funding mechanisms are often shaped by large donors’ priorities—such as the European Union’s emphasis on “creative industries”—while greater diversification is needed to include marginalized groups, including sexual and gender minorities, Asian traditional artisans, or unemployed Roma workers who could enter labor markets through skills training. She emphasizes that in many Asian countries, investing in improving design and value chains for traditional crafts may be more profitable and sustainable than competing in global mass markets for pop music or film.
In sum, she calls for UNESCO to adopt more measurable benchmarks for states’ cultural rights commitments (such as minority-language education guarantees) and to diversify funding priorities beyond a narrow focus on creative industries. Finally, she underlines that independent researchers, artists, and cultural activists can hold UNESCO accountable and apply pressure that helps the organization return to its founding mission: culture as a process of human emancipation rather than merely an instrument of soft power or domination.
Policy Recommendations
- Moving from Symbolic Projects to Long-Term, Community-Based Cultural Interventions
UNESCO should reduce its reliance on short-term, symbolic, media-friendly projects and shift toward long-term, community-based cultural programmes built on the active participation of local communities. Such interventions must be designed and implemented with local educators, artists, and practitioners, addressing historical trauma, social fractures, and real post-war needs. Without a living connection to society, culture becomes a political display and loses its emancipatory capacity. Local participation must be substantive—central to design and implementation—not merely ceremonial.
- Creating a Digital Cultural Governance Framework Beyond State-Centered Models
In the face of platform dominance and algorithmic power, UNESCO’s state-centered model is insufficient. A multi-stakeholder framework is needed—engaging independent artists, digital platforms, civil society, linguists, and educational bodies. This framework should directly support the production and distribution of cultural content in indigenous and minority languages and develop enforceable ethical standards for algorithms and AI. Without implementation tools, UNESCO’s normative instruments will remain limited in impact.
- Defining Measurable Cultural Rights Indicators to Assess State Commitments
UNESCO can translate cultural rights from rhetoric into practice by establishing measurable indicators. Benchmarks such as guaranteeing primary education in minority languages, public funding for indigenous-language publishing and cultural production, and equitable access to cultural infrastructure should be formalized. These indicators can support monitoring, reporting, and even priority-setting for funding—reducing the risk that cultural rights remain purely politicized discourse.
- Rebalancing Cultural Support Priorities
UNESCO’s current emphasis on “creative industries,” often aligned with major donors’ priorities, risks neglecting large segments of marginalized communities. UNESCO’s cultural support policies should more consistently include ethnic and linguistic minorities, traditional artisans, rural communities, and socially marginalized labor groups. Investment in traditional crafts, indigenous cultural skills training, and local-market linkage can be both more sustainable and more equitable than competition in global mass culture markets.
Conclusion
Professor Milena Dragićević Šešić’s perspectives illuminate UNESCO’s difficult balance between universal ideals and the everyday realities of geopolitical power. Successful examples—such as the handling of the Nanjing documentation file, certain reconciliation-oriented initiatives in the Balkans, UNESCO’s intervention in Cambodia, and emerging reflections on digital governance—suggest that UNESCO is most effective when it prioritizes local empowerment, long-term commitment, institutional knowledge transfer, and sustained work beyond headlines.
At the same time, digital threats, ethical dilemmas of engagement with repressive regimes, Eurocentric patterns in public reactions, and structural constraints such as consensus requirements reveal the depth of reform needed. These reforms include multi-level governance approaches, stronger and more diverse cultural rights benchmarks, and diversified funding priorities.
Finally, she emphasizes the essential role of artists, civil society, and independent cultural actors in keeping UNESCO accountable and pushing it toward its founding mission—so that culture once again becomes an instrument of human emancipation rather than a mere tool of diplomatic, political, or economic power. In this sense, the interview not only clarifies UNESCO’s performance but also maps a pathway toward a more just, inclusive, and transformative cultural diplomacy for the twenty-first century.
