Dialogue of Civilizations in Europe: Dreams or Reality

Therefore I would like to thank you for the opportunity to talk about a topic that is very close to my heart since my days as Secretary General of the Council of Europe and now particular in my capacity as Chairman of the International Coordination Committee of the World Public Forum - Dialogue of Civilizations. The intercultural and interreligious dialogue has been one of my priorities when I took office as Secretary General of the Council of Europe in September 1999, you can see, this is before 9/11 although many people think that the project of dialogue of civilizations started only with the tragic events of 9/11.

We live in a globalized world with globalized opportunities but also at the same time globalized threats and challenges. Europe and its neighbours, and not only we, face similar challenges in this fast globalizing world and we need to prepare our societies to deal with them. The right answers are essential. The challenges to our future - global terrorism tries to hi-jack religion, the poverty gap is growing, financial mismanagement in one country has suddenly global impacts, the threats to environment and climate and not to forget migration flows that get out of control - require a collective regional, international and global response Facing these challenges, if we take our responsibility seriously, leaves no space for what was called by an American author "the clash of civilisations". On the contrary, civilisations are jointly challenged Terrorism is not the result of one civilisation opposing or attacking another one, no, it is an attack on all civilisations. The problem of poverty is not only a problem of poor regions or countries, no it's a problem of the prosperous countries too and keeping the economy moving concerns not only the developed countries. The threats to climate and our natural resources are threats to the future of all of us: when the polar ice will melt the Maledive Islands, a whole state, in the Indian Ocean may disappear! . Let me at this point congratulate the people of Kazakhstan for winning the competition for the Expo 2017. I am congratulating you not just because this will be an important moment when the world Europe itself contains a wide diversity of nations, cultures, religions, minorities. Europe this is 48 states, 200 languages, several religious denominations Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox Christians, Muslims, Jews, even Buddhist, Latin, Germanic, Slavic, Ottoman traditions and others. Since 2004 a Semitic language, Maltese, is one of the official languages of the European Union. There have not only been conflicts, but there has been always also an interaction not only within Europe, but with our neighbours in the East and in the South. During the time of the Roman Empire the Mediterranean was called "mare nostrum" - our sea. The Arabs, who came to Spain and ruled the major part of the peninsula as "Al Andalus" brought a very valuable legacy back to Europe, the heritage of the great Greek philosophers. On the northern branch of the silk road, through the steps of Kazakhstan, already thousands of years ago there was a vivid exchange of goods but also ideas and innovations with East Asia.

In times of rising xenophobia and intolerance we have to recall the positive experiences with the wide diversity of nations, cultures and religions in Europe and the Mediterranean. But being here in Astana, the capital of the Republic of Kazakhstan, I am fully aware of what I am calling the Commonwealth of peoples and believes, nearly 140 different ethnicities and 46 different religious denominations living peaceful together. In my lecture at the Nazarbayev Readings I am comparing your country with a dress-rehearsal for global harmony of different peoples and religions!

Turning back to Europe, I am convinced that it was exactly this diversity which helped despite all the bloody conflict and wars to create a European cultural identity, to achieve so much in sciences and arts and finally to develop step by step also a European political identity. And this very specific identity includes the obligation to share the achievements with the neighbours and to get friends with the neighbours.

Europe has learned to some extent, often after tragic historical experiences, to develop responses to today's challenges based on a joint commitment to democracy, human rights and the rule of law. The second World War, in your country also known as the great patriotic war, ended only 67 years ago. Although a will look to Astana. No, mainly because the theme of this Expo will be "Energy of the Future", the right global response to problems of today and tomorrow.

And migration flows need joint action of the countries of origin, transit and destination in a spirit that goes beyond the mentality of a besieged fortress.

But how to achieve these global responses when mankind is still so different, with different religions, cultures, traditions, views of history, different languages? How shall we respond to the existing diversity, between civilizations but more and more also within civilizations and societies as they are not anymore homogenous? What is our vision of the society of the future? Is it a society of segregated communities, marked at best by the coexistence of majorities and minorities with differentiated rights and responsibilities, loosely bound together by mutual ignorance and stereotypes? Or is it a vibrant and open society without discrimination, benefiting us all, marked by the inclusion of all residents in full respect of their human dignity? To achieve that it needs global thinking and global solidarity. Only with global thinking and global solidarity we can find the necessary common responses.

Yes, we are still sometimes divided on the responses to common challenges. Some are tempted to find convenient enemies, thereby feeding all sorts of phobias and hatred. But we should not be distracted from the pressing challenges of ensuring peace, sustainable development, human dignity and democracy, because they are the keys to any effective answer. We need each other and in a globalized world more than ever!

Looking to our common challenges and also opportunities we have much more in common than many people in our countries think. Unfortunately people too often look first at differences and what may divide us than to what may unite us.

Diversity within and between our societies should be seen as an asset, not as an obstacle. We must learn to learn from each other. Can Europe give a good example in that respect; can we demonstrate already best practices in this field? Because Europe has been since thousands of years the venue of bloody conflicts, wars which extinguished millions and millions of life, only in WW II 60 million were killed!

compatriot of mine, an Austrian female writer, Ingeborg Bachmann, once pointed out "History is teaching all the time, but it never finds pupils", I am convinced that Europe, may be for the first time in its history of tragic conflicts, learned the lessons from history. War and violence are never solutions but the source for immense suffering in particular of innocents.

Although Europe was divided through four decades along ideological gulfs and two alliances were facing each other any direct military confrontation between them was avoided. And Europe started to find its common grounds. And one common ground was the discovery of diversity being an asset, providing richness, and is not a threat or an obstacle for mutual understanding. Let me give examples from the area of culture. Shakespeare, Goethe, Dante, Tolstoi, they are all different, they are all rooted in their national tradition and heritage, but at the same time they are all European, and appreciated by many Europeans of different nationality. The same applies to composers. Verdi, Mozart, Prokofieff, they are Italian, Austrian, Russian, but enjoyed by all Europeans.

You may say, that was already the case before the two world wars and did not lead to political unity. It was certainly not an easy way to go, but the Europeans went this way. In Western Europe they started in 1950 with the Schumann Plan - nations who were enemies for centuries and fought terrible wars with millions of young soldiers killed should manage their resources for heavy industry, coal and steel together. The Community founded for that aim was the germ cell of the European Union. And on a broader scale the Council of Europe was founded even one year earlier to achieve greater unity of European nations on the ground of common values, pluralist democracy, rule of law, human rights and respect of each other!

It was particular the Council of Europe, although it was breathing with only half a lung for about four decades, never forgot that there is a larger body, that Europe has to be the common home of all Europeans. So it was the Council of Europe to welcome the new emerging democracies of Central and Eastern Europe to become a part of the family. Already the Soviet Union started relations with the Council of Europe even before the fall of the Berlin Wall and Russia joined the Council of Europe in 1996.

The seat of the Council of Europe (and also of the European Parliament of the European Union), Strasbourg, is symbolic for this development. The city of Strasbourg is located in France at the Rhine river, the border to Germany. Within one century, from 1870 to 1945, three wars were fought on this border, millions of young French and German died in these wars. Today, the bridge between Strasbourg and Kehl, the German town on the other bank of the river, is called the Europe Bridge and you can cross it without border control and using on both sides the same currency.

I do not hesitate to admit that all this is sometimes still not very easy and for sure not yet completed. In particular, certain events like terrorist attacks (but not only) provide fertile ground for nurturing extremism, intolerance and racism which take hold insidiously, like an illness which is diagnosed only after its effects have become visible - i.e. too late. Therefore we have to speak out before in due time!

Let me quote one of the famous opponents to the Nazi-Regime in Germany, a protestant clergyman, Martin Niemoeller in this regard:

"First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me".

The responses, which we learned from this experience and which are increasingly elaborated together with civil society, build on universal values reflected in fundamental texts of the United Nations which are our common heritage. So the European commitment to these global responses should include good neighborhood and a real partnership with our neighbors in facing common challenges.

I mentioned already the title of Samuel P. Huntington's book "The Clash of Civilizations" which is frequently quoted, but as I realized, very often by people who did not even read it. Time and again, I have repeated my own conviction that the current problems do not reflect a clash of civilizations but a clash of ignorance. I strongly believe that we can together afford bridging the understanding gap between different .civilizations. This is a prerequisite for starting our joint efforts to build a better world. Fundamentalism is not limited to one religion only. Sadly, we were reminded of this fact only shortly after 9/11 by terrorist attacks in Northern Ireland. I therefore pointed out in my address to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe only two weeks after 9/11 that we should pay special attention to the danger of an increase of Islamophobia and fight fundamentalism and intolerance wherever we see it.

Each of us can start at home. Therefore, when addressing the Islamic Summit in Kuala Lumpur in October 2003, I underlined that, as the then Secretary General of the Council of Europe, I represented 800 million European citizens, including 100 million who may claim to have an Islamic faith or culture. Islamic countries are not only our neighbors, but the Islamic component is an integral part of Europe's diversity. By the way, it was also the first summit of the OIC to be attended by a Russian President, Vladimir Putin, who could refer to the fact that a significant part of the Russian society belongs to the Islamic faith. Of course, I did not claim that this diversity never poses problems. Problems do arise, such as incidents of Islamophobia, and issues concerning fundamental freedoms, equality between women and men, as well as integration of migrants. But there are other pressing issues too.

Terrorist acts violate our most fundamental rights, just as they offend our deepest religious beliefs. They must be condemned and repressed with utmost vigour. But we also have to ensure that our response to terrorism upholds our values. There is the need to avoid undermining or even destroying our values on the grounds of defending them. I am very proud that in that spirit the Council of Europe issued on my initiative "Guidelines on human rights and the fight against terrorism". While stressing States' duty to protect citizens from terrorist assaults on democracy and human rights, they recall that certain rights may not be derogated from under any circumstances.

Increased attention to unsolved conflicts may be deemed an important priority in the dialogue of civilizations. We should attach particular importance to the restoration of human rights and the rule of law that should in turn facilitate any political settlement in various conflict areas around the world.

The Iraq war is - as we can daily realize, I just remind you of so many attacks on innocent people - not over. Afghanistan is still day by day the source of bad news. UN and African Union are still faced with the dramatic humanitarian situation in certain African conflict zones, currently in Mali.

As regards the Middle East, I would recall the steady support of Europe for the "road map" and that we see the return to the rule of law and the respect for the legal authorities of the Palestinians as part of the democratic and peaceful alternative to violence and terrorism. Fighting brought only suffering and no solution. There can be no military solution. Only reconciliation and mutual recognition will bring an end to this conflict. The very fragile cease fire between Israel and Hamas can only be a begin! When more than 10 million people share such a small piece of land, two nations have not only to live side by side but have also to discover that they have so much in common and in particular they share the same problems.

What can we do in this still existing sea of troubles beside keeping our optimism and sticking to our ideals?

We, our partners and neighbors and the Europeans, can jointly re-examine history teaching in order to overcome ignorance and prejudice.

In the same spirit, we should assess the way young people are made aware of religious diversity as a contribution to the intercultural and inter-religious dialogue as the alternative to the clash of ignorance. Education plays a key role in inculcating basic knowledge and promoting empathy about religious diversity as well as democratic practices. Let us engage in the development of standard curricula that should help teachers all over our globe to do precisely that. Becoming aware of the existence of other faiths and of their main features must become an indispensable part of any education in order to limit prejudice and hostility.

Let me stress another important aspect of this topic before I conclude my speech. We all are in favour of the dialogue of civilizations and the inter-faith dialogue. And there are many conferences on this issue where we are preaching to the already converted. But let me ask a question to you: who shall be the partners of this dialogue? The intergovernmental organisations and states that are organizing such conferences and sending their representatives? The high authorities of the religious denominations, Muftis and Imams, Patriarchs, Cardinals and Bishops? Of course, I welcome their participation and their support for the intercultural and interreligious dialogue. Kazakhstan has been the host and the venue of outstanding conferences, including already four congresses of leaders of world and traditional religions, I was privileged myself to be invited to and to attend those conferences. But what will be essential for a success is the strong involvement of civil society and in particular of the youth. As I pointed out before, your country is a Commonwealth of peoples and beliefs. So you own the prerequisites for the fruitful inter-cultural and inter-religious dialogue. Make your university an alma mater of dialogue, make the dialogue part of your daily life. Prepare yourself for the future, and allow me to say, prepare yourself for 2017 when so many people from around the world will come to your city. They shouldn't be only tourist and visitors, but participants in a fruitful global dialogue!

By concluding allow me to refer again to a personal experience. My great grandfather emigrated from Alsace, which was at that time German, before French and now again French, to Paris. May be he did not succeed as a specialized worker in the textile industry there, maybe he was offered a better job he went on with his family to Moscow and St. Petersburg, and after some years in Russia he proceeded to Austria - without visa, even without passport, just with his birth certificate and with his work testimonies, proving that he was an honest man, used to work for his earnings. This true story from the past is a dream for today. But dreams can come true! So I dedicated my book "The dream of Europe" to my grandchildren with the wish that they will grow up in a greater Europe without borders and dividing lines. And I sincerely hope that this wish will come true for them!

Сергей Ломов к.п.н. Директор информационного департамента Российско – Белорусского Совета

Запад и Восток Европы: взаимная опасность или искрение партнеры?

С Востока на Запад. Беларусь и Россия
Аннотация: В данной статье автор анализирует особенности взаимодействия стран Западной и Восточной Европы в контексте взаимодействия России и Беларуси. Автор отмечает ряд проблем определяющих особенности интеграции «новых государств» в новое геополитическое пространство «Большой Европы». Автор отмечает, что российские элиты прекрасно интегрировались в современные тренды мира глобальной политики и приняли западный образ жизни. Что касаемо Беларуси то ее управленческую модель модно описать в категориях управленческой модели основанной на неидеологическом технократическом подход и он диаметрально противоположен тому образу, что циркулирует в общественно-политическом дискурсе. Основной вывод автора заключается в том, что если Запад реально хочет «победить» в межцивилизационной гонке, то его выбор должен бы в пользу «мягкой силы», понимаемой не как «сила», а как «сила партнерства».

Ключевые слова: Запад, Восток, Европа, геополитика, дискурс, транзит.
И все таки история закончилась

Более 20 лет назад завершилась большая биполярная геополитическая и идеологическая игра. Непримиримые оппоненты обменялись не то что рукопожатиями, они искренне обняли друг друга и произнесли слова вечной дружбы. Это позволило ученым заявить о конце истории. Схватка на не на жизнь, а на смерть завершилась.

Тем не менее один из ключевых вопросов, определявший положение дел в прежней мировой системе, благополучно перешел и в нынешнюю: Россия, кто она? Является ли она вместе со странами СНГ другом и партнером для Запада или тайным, а может быть даже и явным оппонентом?

Лучшие интеллектуалы по обе стороны воображаемой линии идейно-политического, а в трактовке ряда экспертов, цивилизационного противоборства, продолжают биться над этой почти уже извечной загадкой.

Позволим высказать свою позиции по данному крайне актуальному вопросу.

Понимание менталитета славянских стран СНГ, что называется «из нутрии», дает возможность утверждать, что ни одно из восточноевропейских государств Содружества Независимых Государств в настоящее время ни тайно, ни тем более прямо не противопоставляет себя западному миру. И это вопрос не столько силового – геополитического или геоэкономичсекого характера – то есть относительной слабости стран СНГ, сколько сознательного выбора ими политики сотрудничества, а не конфронтации.

Возможно, для определенной части политических и академических элит к востоку от белорусского Береста это и не очевидно, но сейчас в Европе нет фундаментальных причин, по которым как прежде можно было бы вести бескомпромиссную идейную борьбу «до последнего издыхания». В этом аспекте конец истории действительно наступил.

Все остальное – это вопросы экономической конкуренции и личной борьбы политиков на региональном, национальном и глобальном уровнях в разных частях света. Но это не только естественная, но, к сожалению, и неотъемлемая характеристика социума, а значит и международной системы, которую удастся преодолеть, вероятно, не ранее достижения человечеством этапа ноосферного бытия по Вернадскому или мира господства разума по Канту.

В действиях современных элит России нет никакого посыла, как бы этого кому-то возможно не хотелось с обоих сторон «баррикад», к разрушению западного мира или искоренению западного образа жизни.

Наоборот, российские элиты прекрасно интегрировались в современные тренды мира глобальной политики и приняли западный образ жизни.

В этой ситуации места для классической идеологической вражды по примеру противостояния СССР и Запада попросту больше нет.

Россия уже немало сделал для того, чтобы стать если и неотъемлемой частью Запада, то уважаемым, равным и надежным партнером.

Тем более противоборство не надо Республики Беларусь, хотя медийные политтехнологи постоянно пытаются найти признаки таких устремлений, а порой, складывается такое впечатление, и спровоцировать их за счет формирования устойчивого антагонизма между элитами через внедрение культурно-психологических маркеров, основанных на сравнении современной Беларуси с экономическим и политическими режимом советского периода.

Ошибочные трактовки и предположения делаются как со стороны большинства политологов ЕС, так и многих представителей экспертного сообщества стран СНГ. Западные СМИ упорно дразнят Беларусь «диктатурой», либералы в новых независимых государствах – «коммунизмом». Как видится, обе стороны равно далеки от истины.

Это само по себе уже является отдельным феноменом. И его значимость велика не столько с научно-позновательных позиций, сколько в контексте практической политики. И если «недопонимание» Запада можно объяснить инерцией блокового мышления, то почему эксперты государства СНГ ошибочно трактуют политику Беларуси – загадка.

Без сомнения, ни с точки зрения классической политологии, ни ее современной «популярной интерпретации» в версии СМИ политический строй в Беларуси антидемократическим не является. В Беларуси смешенная президенско-парламентская республика. Власть президента значительна, но не столь безгранична как при чисто президентской модели (например, США) и тем более в условиях суперпрезидентской республики. Социализма в социально-экономическом плане также не больше чем в странах ЕС.

Если говорить о возможных типовых характеристиках для описания управленческой модели Беларуси, то она ближе всего к неидеологическому технократическому подходу, диаметрально противоположному тому образу, что циркулирует в общественно-политическом дискурсе.

Причинами такого понятийного разрыва является вполне конкретный политический заказ (внутренний или внешний) в сочетании с некоторыми когнитивными противоречиями, о которых пойдет речь ниже.