In the first part of this analysis, we saw how tactical communicators use culture as a tool to achieve strategic objectives in specific projects. Let’s recall the case of Some Call Us Balkans: they designed inclusive formats (a mobile forum and an open call) and fostered genuine collaboration between local artists and travellers. These actions generated trust and facilitated intercultural dialogue.
But there is another level at which culture also stands out: as a system that reduces uncertainty and accelerates agreement in multilateral contexts. Today, we will see how the same principles we saw in SCUB or the Louvre (creating accessible spaces, encouraging horizontal collaboration and demonstrating visible results) apply to negotiating tables, public-private partnerships and public diplomacy.
Many multilateral processes stall not because of a lack of mutual interest, but because of a lack of trust, information asymmetries, and opaque criteria. The parties share abstract goals—”sustainable collaboration,” “equitable exchange”—but they do not share signals about what those terms mean in practice.
The result: meetings that fail to make progress, drafts that circulate without consensus, and potential partners who withdraw because they see no evidence that their counterparts will comply with the agreement.
This problem cannot be solved with more declarations of intent. It can be solved by building systems that reduce uncertainty: a shared vocabulary about what each commitment means, verifiable actions that demonstrate real intent, and transparent monitoring mechanisms that all parties can see.
Culture can operate as a system that reduces uncertainty by following four verifiable phases:
Before discussing the agreement’s content, identify what each party understands by the key concepts. “Transparency,” “consultation,” and “reasonable deadlines” mean different things in Brasilia, Brussels, and Mexico City.
Practical tool: List of 5 critical terms in the agreement → each party describes in 2 sentences what specific behaviours they expect under each term → cross-comparison before the first formal meeting.
Transform abstractions into tangible gestures that counterparts can verify. If “commitment to civil society” is a stated value, what concrete evidence will demonstrate that commitment in the first 30 days?
Example: Publication of consultation minutes, participation of local representatives in technical meetings, translation of documents into indigenous languages if the project affects those communities.
Design early milestones that enable both parties to deliver value simultaneously. This builds a track record of compliance without relying on prior trust.
Mechanics: Commitment A (part 1) is activated only when commitment B (part 2) is visible → both executable in the short term (15-30 days) → public evidence of mutual compliance.
Create channels where stakeholders can see real progress, not just announcements. This maintains constructive pressure on all parties and reduces the risk of silent non-compliance.
Format: Public monitoring dashboard with 3-5 key indicators updated monthly + feedback mechanism for direct beneficiaries of the agreement.
Cultural cooperation between the European Union and Latin America and the Caribbean faced a classic challenge of multicultural diplomacy: decades of declarations about “shared values” and “historic ties” did not translate into effective collaboration among cultural institutions, universities, and civil society organisations.
The specific problem: Actors from 60+ countries with radically different political agendas, economic priorities and administrative systems needed to coordinate resources, share knowledge and generate joint projects—without the heavy governance structures that had historically failed.
The tactical response: Instead of creating a new bureaucratic framework, the EU-LAC Focus programme implemented a lightweight cultural infrastructure based on four steps:
Mapping expectations: Participatory studies identified that “cultural cooperation” meant different things in Bogotá (artist mobility) than in Berlin (digital access to heritage). A shared vocabulary on types of collaboration was created before soliciting projects.
Demonstrating commitment: Small initial funding (£5,000-£15,000) with transparent criteria and public evaluation. This showed seriousness without requiring premature institutional obligations.
Structured reciprocity: Co-funded projects where EU and LAC institutions contributed equivalent resources (not necessarily money—it could be infrastructure, staff time, access to networks). Both sides assumed shared risk.
Visible monitoring: Public database of all funded projects, including results, lessons learned, and contacts. Any partner could see what worked and replicate it.
Between 2010 and 2022, the programme facilitated more than 200 bilateral cultural cooperation projects, mobilised €12 million in co-financing and generated more than 50 academic publications on good practices. More importantly, the average time from the first conversation to the signed agreement was reduced from 18 months to 6 months, according to independent evaluations of the programme.
Success did not come from having more budget or political authority. It came from building systems that generated trust: shared vocabulary, verifiable actions and transparent monitoring enabled diverse actors to coordinate without needing years of shared history.
This is the quick diagnosis I use when assessing whether a multilateral negotiation is likely to stall. Use it in your next preparatory meeting or when you feel that a process is “not moving forward, but no one knows why”:
Mapping expectations:
☐ Have we asked each party to describe (in observable behaviours) what they expect under the three most ambiguous terms of the agreement?
☐ Are there significant differences that need to be resolved before moving forward?
Cultural signals:
☐ Does each stated commitment have a verifiable action associated with it within the first 30 days?
☐ Are these actions visible to external partners, not just negotiators?
Structured reciprocity:
☐ Does the first exchange of value co-occur (not sequentially)?
☐ Do both parties assume equivalent risk in the early stages?
Visible monitoring:
☐ Is there a public channel where external actors can see actual progress?
☐ Is there a mechanism for direct beneficiaries to provide feedback on the quality of implementation?
If you answered “no” to more than three questions, your process is at high risk of being blocked by mistrust—regardless of how solid the technical or political arguments may be.
The global context makes this approach more relevant than ever:
Fragmentation of actors: Traditional significant multilateral agreements are giving way to ad hoc coalitions of diverse actors—governments, foundations, universities, the private sector, community organisations. These coalitions have no shared history or established governance structures.
Speed of change: Global crises (pandemics, climate change, mass displacement) require rapid coordination. We cannot wait 18 months for “the parties to get to know each other” before acting.
Structural mistrust: Decades of broken promises—from sustainable development to technological cooperation—have generated scepticism towards any new agreement. Culture as infrastructure allows trust to be built through evidence, not discourse.
Culture is not an ornament that is added after agreements are signed. It is the infrastructure that makes those agreements possible—especially between actors without a shared history of cooperation.
When we think of culture as a system of signals, rituals, and evidence (not as a sector or budget), we unlock its real potential: reducing uncertainty, aligning expectations, and accelerating legitimate decisions in contexts where prior trust does not exist.
The cases of SCUB, the Louvre and EU-LAC demonstrate that this approach works at different scales and in other geographies. The question is not whether culture can facilitate agreements—it is whether we are willing to intentionally build that infrastructure.
If you work in multilateral processes hampered by mistrust, I hope this framework can help.
Let’s continue the conversation on LinkedIn. I am interested in learning what cultural signals work in your context.
Institutions keep designing messages for public feeds while their audiences make decisions in WhatsApp groups no institutional algorithm can reach. The problem is not technical. It is a question about how trust works when public visibility disappears and what remains are relationships.
When a deepfake involving your organisation surfaces, the first instinct is to treat it as a technical emergency. But what determines the real damage is not the fake content itself — it is what your organisation does, or fails to do, in the hours that follow. That is a communication decision.
Is your team already using AI without clear rules in place? This practical guide shows how to build an AI editorial policy for communication: what to allow, who reviews it, and how to disclose its use without putting trust at risk.