Global Culture Network: Building Peace Through Culture, Cities, and Cooperation
Network
Culture
In a world shaped by climate crisis, rapid technological change, and rising inequality, many search for new political models. Network States promise innovation through digital sovereignty. Yet peace rarely grows from new borders. Peace grows from shared meaning, trust, and culture.
This is where the idea of a Global Culture Network begins.
At Red Yellow Blue (RYB), we follow debates on Network ideology and Network State ideology closely. Our recent article, Network Ideology vs Network State Ideology, explains a crucial difference. Network ideology focuses on cooperation and shared purpose. Network State ideology aims at sovereignty, recognition, and territory.
That difference matters.
A Network State starts online and moves toward statehood. It seeks legitimacy through scale, capital, and coordination. This vision is bold. However, it risks repeating the logic of nation-states. Competition returns. Exclusion follows. Peace becomes conditional.
A Global Culture Network takes another path.
It does not seek sovereignty. It seeks connection. It does not replace states. It complements existing institutions with culture, creativity, and civic participation.
Culture as infrastructure for peace
UNESCO introduced the Culture of Peace program decades ago. In 2000, it reached the public as the International Year for a Culture of Peace. The idea was simple but powerful. Peace is not only the absence of war. Peace is a daily practice shaped by values, education, culture, and dialogue.
Over time, attention faded. In 2024, UNESCO tried to revive the program during the International Day of Peace. The impact remained limited. Wars dominated headlines. Long-term cultural work struggled to compete with urgent crises.
In 2025, something shifted.
At MONDIACULT 2025 in Barcelona, 120 Ministers of Culture and global organizations met again. They acknowledged a hard truth. The 17 Sustainable Development Goals are not enough without culture. They proposed SDG 18: A Global Goal for Culture for the period 2030–2045.
Culture was no longer decoration. Culture became infrastructure.
The Culture of Peace program re-emerged as a central pillar. Not as a slogan, but as a working framework.
From ideology to practice
The question then becomes practical. How do governments, cities, and citizens work on culture and peace together? How do people outside institutions contribute?
This is where the Global Culture Network takes shape.
RYB’s role is twofold. First, we inform. We translate global developments into accessible knowledge, especially for the cultural and creative sectors. Second, we experiment. We build projects that plug into existing frameworks instead of competing with them.
We look toward UNESCO, UN Women, and other UN bodies. At the same time, we focus strongly on cities.
Cities are different from states. Countries align with military alliances. They produce arms. They defend borders. Cities focus on daily life. They care about housing, green spaces, culture, tourism, and social cohesion.
Cities want to look open and alive. They want to connect.
This makes cities natural nodes in a Global Culture Network.
Cities as peace actors
A city does not need sovereignty to make an impact. It needs relationships.
UNESCO’s Creative Cities Network already connects more than 350 cities worldwide. These cities collaborate through music, design, literature, media arts, gastronomy, and crafts. Culture already moves between them.
Our ambition is to build on this structure.
We want to explore a new category focused on Culture of Peace within this global city network. For example, an initiative like Amsterdam Creative City for a Culture of Peace could connect cultural institutions, artists, and citizens locally, while linking globally with other cities.
This is not about creating a new state. It is about strengthening the cultural layer of existing systems.
Inside cities, the Global Culture Network connects galleries, museums, theaters, designers, educators, and community organizers. It invites participation. Anyone interested in cultivating peace through culture can contribute.
Culture becomes a shared language.
Networks instead of new nations
Network States imagine new political entities. Global Culture Networks imagine shared civic space.
The difference is subtle but decisive.
Network States ask, “Who belongs?”
Global Culture Networks ask, “Who wants to contribute?”
Network States aim for recognition.
Global Culture Networks aim for resonance.
Network States move toward sovereignty.
Global Culture Networks move toward cooperation.
Peace benefits from the second approach.
Culture lowers thresholds. Art invites dialogue. Stories create empathy. Shared experiences reduce fear. These effects scale through networks, not borders.
Impact begins locally. A neighborhood project changes how people see each other. A city exchange builds trust across cultures. A global network amplifies these signals.
This is how culture travels faster than conflict.
Looking Forward
The future of peace will not be built by adding more states to the world map. It will be built by strengthening the connections between people, cities, and cultures.
A Global Culture Network offers a realistic path forward. It aligns with UNESCO frameworks. It empowers cities. It invites citizens. It treats culture as a strategic asset for peace.
Peace does not need a new flag.
Peace needs shared spaces, shared stories, and shared responsibility.
That is the work ahead.