|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Expert Colloquy- «Dialogue serving intercultural and inter-religious communication» - Strasbourg, 7 to 9 October 2002
 Intercultural dialogue and conflict prevention project Conclusions and debates analysis The views expressed are the personal reflections of the authors Contents Analysis of the Debate
Reflection of the Rapporteur General
Working Session Conclusions
Working Session 2: Building Bridges Betweeen Religious Communities
Working Session 3: The Challenge of Cultural Diversity
Whether at the European or on a global scale, we have witnessed, throughout this past decade, the diversion of culture to justify conflicts between cultural and religious communities. The upheavals suffered by our societies have brought home the fact that all of Europe is vulnerable. In response to this challenge, the Secretary General of the Council of Europe established the implementation and promotion of intercultural and inter-religious dialogue as a prime priority of the Organisation. Basing itself on one of its founding texts, the European Cultural Convention, the Council of Europe is convinced that culture, as an instrument par excellence of knowledge and communication, is a factor that must be considered not only in the prevention of violent conflict situations, but also as indispensable to facilitate an effective post-conflict social reconciliation, in a word to ensure a better “living together”. Through its Intercultural Dialogue and Conflict Prevention Project, the Council of Europe – and more specifically the Cultural Policy and Action Department – intends not only to analyse the sources of intercultural and inter-religious conflicts and the mechanisms leading to them, in order to prevent such conflicts, but also to define cultural actions of a preventive nature, and to consider reconciliation measures to be taken in the post-conflict phase. The objective is to help policy-makers at all levels (local, regional and national), civil society and actors in the field to define a policy of dialogue integrating all expressions of cultural diversity. This project involves research activities, an analysis of good practice and support for cultural action. An Action Plan 2002 – 2003, adopted by the Steering Committee for Culture, regroups these activities under four themes: concepts and standards; co-operation networks; the intercultural dimension and flagship initiatives. The Expert Colloquy on “Dialogue serving intercultural and inter-religious communication” (Strasbourg, 7-9 October 2002) is the first event organised in the framework of this Action Plan. The Japan Foundation (Tokyo), the European Cultural Foundation (Amsterdam) and the Secretary General’s Integrated Project «Responses to violence in everyday life in a democratic society» provided important financial support to the organisation of this meeting. The Expert Colloquy ”Dialogue serving intercultural and inter-religious communication” had as its objective to engage a large range of cultural and religious actors in a collective debate around three main topics: the factors determining conflicts between cultural and religious communities, the possibility of relaunching and strengthening the dialogue between religious communities serving peace, the need to integrate the reality of cultural diversity within all dialogue. Close to 150 participants from all over Europe, Japan, Canada, USA, Egypt, Morocco, Algeria replied to the invitation of the Council of Europe. Representatives of various religions, experts in intercultural and inter-religious dialogue; experts in conflict prevention and human rights; politicians, representatives of European cultural ministries, ambassadors, consuls; representatives of international organisations, foundations and NGOs; cultural operators working on specific intercultural communication projects, exchanged their points of view. A delegation of the League of Arab States as well as a delegation of the Organisation of Islamic Conferences participated in the working sessions, organised in Round Tables.
The conclusions of the Expert Colloquy will, on the one hand, enrichen the activities carried out within the framework of the Action Plan and, on the other, inspire the reflection of the ministers of culture who, at the Ministerial Colloquy to be held in Strasbourg, on the 17 and 18 February 2003, will examine “The new role and new responsibilities of ministers of culture in initiating intercultural dialogue, with due regard for cultural diversity”. The draft Declaration on Intercultural Dialogue and Conflict Prevention submitted to the Ministers of Culture for examination, during this ministerial colloquy, is likewise, largely inspired on the results of the work of the Expert Colloquy. Jean Petaux The issue of intercultural and inter-religious communication is now a key priority for the Council of Europe, and the need for urgent action has been increasingly emphasised by the Committee of Ministers and the Secretary General. The Ministers themselves, at their 110th session in Vilnius in May 2002, therefore urged the Council of Europe to take steps to foster multicultural and inter-faith dialogue at every level. This shared determination prompted the Steering Committee for Culture, as early as 2001, to include in its programme an activity entitled “Culture and conflict prevention”, leading to an action plan for 2002-2004 entitled “Intercultural Dialogue and Conflict Prevention” (doc. CDCULT-PREV (2002)1). While adopting a very realistic stance in asserting that “cultural policy cannot solve all society’s problems”, the document submitted by the Council of Europe’s Cultural Policy and Action Department stressed that “culture, being an excellent means of communication, is a factor that must be taken into account both in the prevention of conflict situations and in post-conflict social reconciliation” (CDCULT-PREV (2002) 1). Accordingly, the action plan defined as its overall objective “to promote intercultural and inter-religious dialogue and mutual respect and understanding between the different communities and to prevent conflicts through cultural policy and cultural action”. The events of the past twenty years, in Europe and throughout the globe, have brought this issue into sharp relief. This was reflected in a document from the Secretary General of the Council of Europe to the Council of Ministers setting out priorities for 2003, which stressed the need to focus on “the political responsibility of Ministers of Culture and the role of religion in promoting intercultural dialogue”. As evidence of the importance and urgency of the debate, the Steering Committee for Culture’s action plan forms part of the Secretary General’s Integrated Project 2: “Responses to violence in everyday life in a democratic society”. Accordingly, it adopts a multidisciplinary approach involving synergy between various Council of Europe activities across the board. The expert colloquy represents the first step in the 2002-2004 action plan proposed by the Cultural Policy and Action Department and adopted by the Steering Committee for Culture on 8 April 2002. It was held at the Council of Europe from 7 to 9 October 2002, ahead of an informal meeting of Ministers of Culture due to take place on 10 and 11 December 2002. The colloquy falls under the heading of research activities, one of three project headings, the others being analysis of good practice and support for cultural action on the ground. The expert colloquy staged in October 2002 under the title “Dialogue serving intercultural and inter-religious communication” was attended by over a hundred international experts, academics and religious leaders, and political and cultural players from Europe and beyond. The keynote of this scientific event was not just dialogue, but exchange. As the colloquy’s General Rapporteur, Necil Nedimoğlu1 pointed out in his introductory address: “The subject of intercultural dialogue and conflict prevention is global, yet Europe, with its Judo-Christian-Islamic tradition, is the right platform to tackle the issue. Innovative methodologies are needed, a more inclusive and integrative approach should be found”. The Chairman of the Ministers’ Deputies, His Excellency Gérard Philipps2, reaffirmed the principle underlying the “exchange” approach in his speech to the inaugural session of the colloquy, placing the event in context. The colloquy, he said, not only provided an opportunity for high-quality exchanges between personalities from the most diverse backgrounds, but formed part of a broader project aimed at promoting the use of cultural dialogue in conflict prevention, tying in the different sectors of the Council of Europe by harnessing the wide range of skills within its ranks, and preparing the ground for the informal meeting of Culture Ministers to be held on 10 and 11 December 2002.3 This executive summary mirrors the remarks of the Chairman of the Ministers’ Deputies by focusing on the salient points emerging from the two-and-a-half days of discussions in a bid, in the first instance, to provide the Ministers of Culture meeting on 10 and 11 December 20024 with substantial material for the debate on their new role and their new responsibilities to initiate intercultural dialogue whilst respecting cultural diversity. It proposes to deal in turn with the twin aspects of words and actions, in a bid to convey the essence of the deliberations without entering into the detail of a summary record. 1. WORDS The meaning of words and the way they were used and understood were central to the discussions between all the participants in the Expert Colloquy. A number of speakers highlighted this aspect: Johan Galtung5 (speaking on the concept of conflict), Bruno Etienne6 (culture, “integrism” and/or fundamentalism), Hassan Hanafi7 and Selim Beslagič8 (cultural conflict), Mahdi Elmandjra9 (the clash of civilisations), Soheib El Hocine Bencheikh10 (dialogue), Ghislaine Glasson-Deschaumes11 (cultural marking) and France Lebon12 (cultural diversity), to name but a few. All stressed the absolute necessity of defining the words used, in order to create a formal basis for genuine exchange. Dealing with words, in the context of intercultural and inter-faith dialogue, was a matter of avoiding the pitfalls of a closed, ethnocentric and hence exclusive discourse. Efforts were therefore needed to define the main terms used in establishing such dialogue not unilaterally, but in an “integrated” manner, in the sense of making whole (in this case rendering the whole meaning). Next, we will review some of the main issues raised by participants during the colloquy. 1.1 MEANING 1.1.1 Conflict The concept of conflict, its existence and how it developed, proved problematic. For Johan Galtung, conflict and violence were often, wrongly, confused. “Although conflict may lead to violence, they are totally different conceptually. At the core of a conflict, the root of a conflict, there is always an incompatibility, a contradiction, between goals. (…) Conflict is as normal as the air around us. Talk about ‘conflict prevention’ is nonsense. Violence is what has to be prevented”. Galtung made repeated references during his contributions to this aspect, which he judged to be crucial, noting the Council of Europe’s unfortunate habit of speaking of preventing conflict instead of acknowledging the contradictions that existed. It was a mistake, he argued, to describe conflicts as destructive or constructive: what mattered was how they were resolved. Conflicts, as such, were neither destructive nor constructive; the source of problems was the incompatibility. We might conclude from the above that the dialectic dimension of conflict could not be overlooked, since it fell clearly within the Hegelian concept of “Aufhebung” (or, in other words, within the ambivalent dual concept of lifting and transcending). On that basis, it would be futile, not to say dangerous, to think of eradicating conflict, its eradication being synonymous, according to Johan Galtung, with suffocation. The fact remained, however, that the social representation of conflict, and its collective, reified dimension, were both traceable to confrontation and the desire of one group to dominate another, if not – for whatever reason - to destroy it, with both groups representing themselves as the victim. 1.1.2 Cultural conflicts, religious conflicts and conflicts of interest Participants were quick to agree on one initial point, summed up perfectly by Bruno Etienne who hoped that those involved realised that the price of a barrel of oil was not dictated by religious factors. This important assertion was echoed by Vera Boltho13 in her final report on the deliberations of working session 1, entitled “The Meaning of Cultural Conflict”: Was culture at the root of conflicts, she asked? The discussions had produced a clear “No” to that question, although some had expressed the slightly different view that, in certain very particular circumstances, cultural traditions could be a source of conflict. Masanori Naito14 couched the same point in slightly different terms: “The objective of this expert colloquy is prevention of cultural conflict. It may be contradictory; culture does not necessarily cause conflicts, for it scarcely implies power to impose changes upon others in individual and social life”. Of course, he went on, if a government forced ethnic minorities to adopt the national culture, this could be a serious source of conflict. Hassan Hanafi, called upon to give one of the two introductory speeches on the concept of conflict, got straight to the heart of the matter, saying that “conflicts are usually conflicts of interest, especially economic and political interests. However, material conflicts are embedded in and charged with ideological conflicts”. It was agreed, following a discussion on current global trends, that Islam, as the dominant religion in the peripheral regions of Africa and Asia, acted as a mouthpiece for those without a voice. However, Hassan Hanafi, in concluding his contribution, wondered whether the stereotypes cultivated both in the West and in Islam might not sow the ideological seeds for conflict. Intercultural dialogue, he argued, could dispel such antagonistic images and eradicate the causes of conflicts, fostering mutual understanding. Cultural conflicts might mask conflicts of interest, but were the latter not the source of the former? The difficulty was knowing where to begin. Naturally enough, in the ensuing discussion on the concept of inter-religious conflict, there was a divergence of opinions once the West and Islam were brought face to face. Soheib El Hocine Bencheikh felt that Professor Hanafi had attempted to portray the current conflict as a clash between Western culture on the one hand and the Orient on the other, a stance with which he did not agree. Rusmir Mahmutcehajic15 stressed that there was no such thing as ‘hardline’ or ‘moderate’ Islam. At most, one could talk about hardline and moderate interpretations, but for Muslims Islam was a single revealed religion. The discussion should therefore focus on the social application of Islam. Placing the West and Islam in opposition, far from offering a solution to the conflict, itself created an insoluble conflict. What, in any event, did people mean when they talked about Islam? Was it a geographical term or a political one? In the ensuing debate, which went beyond semantics, a female voice, that of Ghislaine Glasson-Deschaumes, sounded a note of caution and expressed a desire to clarify meanings. In her view, the term “cultural conflict” needed to be approached with care. In speaking of cultural conflict, were people not in fact referring to political conflicts which used cultural references to justify their ambitions to conquer power, territory, etc.? Lending credence to the concept of cultural conflict was a trap people were all the more likely to fall into if they saw culture as a homogeneous, self-contained whole which had some mythical purity. To put it another way, the very category of “cultural conflict” contained the seeds of absolute violence, of the destruction and annihilation of others. The collective deliberations on the concept of intercultural and inter-religious conflict were lent a fitting conclusion by the simple but memorable testimony of Selim Beslagič, mayor of Tuzla for ten years at the height of the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina, who said “What we witnessed was not a conflict between cultures or a religious war. It was a conflict between political choices, a political confrontation “ [editorial translation]. 1.1.3 Dialogue Elisabeth Parmentier16 introduced herself as a partner in dialogue, challenging the stance adopted by Soheib El Hocine Bencheikh on dialogue. The latter felt that the word dialogue was very fashionable nowadays. Over the past decade, there had been a hundred or more organisations involved in dialogue. However, they were talking about dialogue rather than engaging in it. It was always the same people involved in dialogue, professional partners in dialogue who did not even specify what kind of dialogue was involved: was it theological, or was peaceful co-existence the issue? For reasons similar to those of Soheib Bencheikh, Géza Tessényi17 preferred the term “co-operation” to “dialogue”, explaining that, whatever may have been the original meaning of the word dialogue in Greek, the term had become too loaded with connotations of unproductive discussions and of words, speeches and meetings which yielded no real results. The UN had declared 2001 the Year of Dialogue among Civilizations, but the year would be remembered chiefly for the events of 11 September. Elisabeth Parmentier went on to explain why she did not reject the notion of dialogue. Dialogue had been a new phenomenon in the twentieth century. Why was it needed now? Because dialogue between the representatives and followers of several religions stemmed from a common purpose: reconciliation. However, dialogue between religions did not come naturally: it entailed self-mastery and literally becoming a convert. Notwithstanding the originality of Elisabeth Parmentier’s notion that a U-turn was needed (‘convertere’ in Latin, meaning to turn around), the debate on the word ‘dialogue’ did not end there. For, as Bruno Etienne put it: “ Dialogue – yes, but with whom? Assuming that this barrier can be overcome, the content and the mode of dialogue must be defined. What should be talked about? Theology is definitely out of the question (…). This brings us to the ultimate twofold question: with whom should dialogue take place and who should do the talking? Clerics, whether officially recognised or self-proclaimed (where there is no magisterial institution), secular experts or practising followers of a religion? How can apologetics, proselytism and ‘waffle’ be avoided?” This gives some idea of the difficulties surrounding the notion of dialogue, not least in defining it in the first place. No one, however, denied the absolute necessity and obligation to construct dialogue. Perhaps the key was to focus first on listening, as a prerequisite for dialogue. As Walter Schwimmer18, winding up his opening address, put it so eloquently, in a light-hearted quotation from an Arab tale: “The fact that God gave us one mouth and two ears proves that listening is more important than speaking” [editorial translation]. It may have been that which made the meditation session led by Swami Maheshwarananda19 so extraordinary, as the noise of language gave way to the silence of listening, no mean feat in a colloquy on intercultural and inter-religious dialogue. It is particularly apt, therefore, in concluding this point, to recall the words of Tony Gallagher20 in his report on working session 2: “Building bridges between religious communities”, which summed up very neatly the underlying principles of dialogue by saying that everyone had a right to speak and a duty to listen. 1.1.4 Similarities and differences What should the dialogue be about, asked Bruno Etienne. Necil Nedimoğlu, in his general report opening the colloquy, spoke of the need to try to “understand the lack of understanding” that had prevailed in particular since 11 September 2001. Soheib El Hocine Bencheikh, for his part, felt that dialogue must take place on differences, as (paraphrasing Antoine de Saint-Exupéry without naming him), “it is the differences of others that enrich me; but as differences are signs of tension, the dialogue should focus on them” [editorial translation]. In a contribution echoing closely that of His Excellency Ahmed Ghazali21, who made the timely remark that, despite appearances, Europe and Islamic civilisation had more points in common than differences (quoting, amongst others, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, Maimonides and Averroes), Soheib Bencheikh added that “ we are all human beings and therefore have much more in common than we think” [editorial translation]. After Father Patrick Debois22 had emphasised the need to agree on what caused our differences, Tony Gallagher concluded by stressing that there were similarities and differences between religions of which they needed to be aware before recognising each other. However, he went on, similarities and differences were two sides of the same coin of mutual understanding. Implying that humility was required if any progress were to be made, Hassan Hanafi called upon “Westerners” to show proof of that quality by re-reading the scene in the New Testament where Jesus washes the feet of his disciples gathered for the Last Supper. The parable should be heeded not just by “Westerners” (a term which was in itself meaningless), but by everyone, in order to revive what Hassan Hanafi eloquently referred to as the “spirit of Cordoba”, based on tolerance and co-existence. That was no doubt what Bruno Etienne had in mind when he said that, in the interests of accentuating the similarities rather than remaining differences, the final report must make it much clearer that Europe’s cultural heritage was also in no small part an Islamic and Jewish heritage. Moving beyond the “similarities/differences” paradox, the tone was set by the prayer of Selim Beslagič, based on his experiences in Tuzla: “God grant me the power of tolerance, which is the first sign of strength, and deliver me from the desire for revenge, which is the first sign of weakness” [editorial translation]. At the same time, it was important not be too naïve in calling for tolerance regardless of circumstances: as Mahdi Elmandjra pointed out, tolerating intolerance was a form of intolerance, as was demanding tolerance from those whose dignity had been wounded. That sentiment was echoed with passion by Viacheslav Glazichev23, who recalled that boundless tolerance ended up being worse than intolerance itself, and by Johan Galtung who was vehement in denouncing “peace fundamentalism” and its by-products. 1.2 QUESTIONS 1.2.1 What? “What is going on?” “Is it more serious than …?” “Less important than …?”. These questions might appear strange, suggesting difficulties in apprehension on the part of a particular group of people, or the world community in its broadest sense, when faced with an event of unusual intensity. They merged into a single question: “What are we talking about?” On further reflection, it was clear that the question arose more frequently than was first apparent. Not least because of a consistent tendency, in the face of a deeply traumatic event, to compare it with similar events, events judged to be similar or even those with which parallels were drawn for the purposes of mobilising public opinion or for propaganda. The question arose in relation to the large-scale elimination of populations, the instances of “ethnic cleansing” which had occurred in various parts of the continent and the globe. It arose also in relation to acts of mass murder. Johan Galtung formulated the question clearly in his address, saying that there was much talk of 11 September 2001. But what had really happened on 11 September? There had been millions of 11 Septembers in the past. In Vietnam, for instance, there had been thousands of 11 Septembers, thousands of comparable events leading to the disappearance of tens of thousands of victims. Selim Beslagič continued in the same vein, talking about comparisons between events. Was 11 September 2001 worse than what had happened in Srebrenica in 1995? Deeming that question unanswerable, he made the fundamental assertion that, in both cases, the victim had been human dignity. In asking the question “what?” in a bid to explain conflict objectively and understand cause and effect, one should undoubtedly bear in mind the quasi-epistemological remark made by Rusmir Mahmutcehajic, that, while it was legitimate to seek explanations for the emergence of and background to particular acts of terrorism, horrific events in the past or present could not be interpreted unless there was a move away from a determinist viewpoint. A much more rounded and integrated approach was needed. The question “What are we dealing with?” did not relate just to identifying and labelling events, but also to recognising groups, designating communities and constructing categories. Bruno Etienne was quick to pinpoint this difficulty: “Defining ‘religious communities’ raises a difficult problem because the member states [of the Council of Europe] do not all recognise the same religions or cults. The term “cult” is moreover ambiguous, as in English it equates with a sect”. A further example underlining the complexity of the debate could be added, one which was particularly significant as it involved protagonists who took great care to be precise and accurate in order to avoid possible misunderstandings. In his special contribution, Bruno Etienne made the point, by way of demonstration, that none of the religions practised in Europe had originated there. It was an interesting, not to say fundamental, observation in a body such as the Council of Europe, particularly as it highlighted the importance of the Mediterranean as a religious melting-pot and emphasised what united cultures rather than what divided them. Unfortunately, however, it was inaccurate, as Elisabeth Parmentier, speaking later the same morning, was not slow to mention, arguing that Protestantism was a religion that had originated in Europe. In talking of “religions”, Bruno Etienne had confined his attention to the three major Biblical religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) without taking account of the split that had occurred within Christianity in 1520, when Rome’s condemnation of Luther had led to the Reformation. But the view of Elisabeth Parmentier, a Protestant theologian, was also valid: in her friendly reproach to Bruno Etienne, she did not mention the “Great Schism” of 1054 which had seen the Eastern Christian Church separate from Rome and adopt the “Orthodox” label, creating a branch born in Europe just as much as Protestantism was five hundred years later. Everyone, ultimately, had his or her own deeply ingrained set of references which was born of habit and formed the basis for their arguments. In the words of Pierre Bourdieu: “A point of view is inevitably a view from one given point” [editorial translation]. 1.2.2. How? The generic question as to what should be done was broken down in a variety of ways. However, while all participants could agree on the principle that action was needed to make intercultural and inter-faith dialogue a reality, it soon became apparent that the form of action (the “how”), the means to be deployed and the resources to be mobilised, were a prime consideration. Raj Isar24 endeavoured to summarise the main issues that might arise: “How to articulate and mediate a sense of separate as well as shared space for different cultural communities? How to reconcile the claims of equality, the claims of liberty and the claims of difference? How to go beyond essentialist concepts towards the recognition of multiple identities, constantly changing and increasingly constructed across different discourses, practices and positions?” The debate was not confined to how to proceed in peacetime, as demonstrated by Veton Surroi25 in a personal account culminating in a fundamental question. As someone who had always campaigned for peace, Surroi had been saved by the NATO bombs dropped on Belgrade. It was not easy to acknowledge that fact. So in order to avoid that, continued the speaker, one should perhaps ask the following question: what action could be taken to prevent war breaking out in the first place? Bruno Etienne put his finger on the crux of the problem of inter-religious dialogue, relating to the “how”, in asking how (without sinking into cultural relativism) religions could envisage integration of religious diversity in positive terms. “How can I acknowledge the religious beliefs of others, if I regard the Other solely as a target for missionary activity, a future convert to the real truth – my own?” Thus, the message was that words were as important as actions. Hardly a surprising conclusion in a colloquy on dialogue, a word encompassing many different etymologies and meanings. Like Austin, participants were aware that “saying is doing”; there was no inconsistency in considering words not solely in terms of their meaning but also in terms of what they conveyed. The meaning of a word sometimes became lost, and had to be restored. Awraham Soetendorp26did just that by saying that the term “chosen people” did not mean they had been chosen above others, but that they had been entrusted with a task. Lands did not honour human beings: it was the other way around. Therefore, if lands had to be abandoned to save a human being, so be it. *** 2. ACTIONS As the focus is henceforth on actions, it is appropriate to introduce this section with the words of Awraham Soetendorp: “I am here, in 2002, because in 1943 a Catholic woman took me into hiding. She was not afraid. She could have refused – I was lucky. I believe that history is an example of intercultural and inter-religious cooperation” [editorial translation]. While one might justifiably question the last sentence of this statement and even describe it as “tragic optimism” (echoing the beautiful title of Myriam Anissimov’s biography of the late lamented Primo Levi), the Rabbi’s reference to his own experiences as a “hidden child” surviving the Holocaust awoke powerful emotions as much through its stark simplicity as through the facts themselves. Speaking of actions in a contribution to a collective discussion was a way of recalling what it had been possible to achieve towards intercultural and inter-faith dialogue, and of formulating proposals for future projects aimed at preventing the violence engendered by intercultural and inter-religious conflict. Needless to say, both the recounting of actual experiences and the presentation of proposals arose out of the deliberations of the colloquy of 7 to 9 October 2002. 2.1 EXPERIENCES 2.1.1 Encounters and shared experiences Ray Mullan27 believed that the inhabitants of Northern Ireland actually had much in common and shared a part of their cultural heritage beyond the traditional community divide. He backed up this assertion by citing a series of shared historical events: the German bombing of Belfast in 1941, for instance, had affected the two communities indiscriminately. Earlier in the twentieth century, 1916 had been a landmark year for the whole of Ireland, North and South. In the South, of course, it had been the year of the Easter Rising, and for the two communities in the North, the year had been marked by the tragic offensive of the Somme with its record number of victims from Ulster, both Catholic and Protestant. Ray Mullan felt there was a lesson to be learnt: if properly exploited, the potential for exploring cultural traditions and debating them within and between communities could increase the appreciation and understanding of the complexity and rich diversity of one’s cultural heritage. This approach could in turn help defuse the fear of difference and the perception of cultural conflict. The idea of “defusing” was also central to the initiatives taken by Selim Beslagič, who conveyed the scale of the threat during his time as mayor of Tuzla. With thousands of Orthodox churches and mosques being destroyed, in some cases by their own members, one was bound, he said, to wonder what could be done in the face of such madness. In the specific case of the Tuzla enclave, according to Selim Beslagič, three indisputable factors had enabled the town to preserve its multicultural nature and prevent ethnic conflict: a tradition of inter-faith and intercultural relations, the traditional solidarity of the labour movement and a mutual trust between nations and in the political leaders and institutions. This key witness to an extraordinarily tragic, and potentially explosive, situation then proceeded to explain to an attentive audience at the colloquy how he and his colleagues from the town hall had quite simply knocked on every door in the town in order to talk and listen to the people and thus keep alive the trust which citizens must have in their representatives. Another tale of encounters was told by Ghislaine Glasson-Deschaumes, relating to the “caravan” of women from Transeuropéennes which had criss-crossed a war-torn and battered former Yugoslavia. Their aim had been to combat the “ethnicisation” of territory and make a public display of the political will (in the strongest sense of the term) which existed to transcend the imposed boundaries in a collective act of peace designed to underscore and translate for each other their common values. Sharing was also a theme in two initiatives involving drawing up joint calendars. Whilst these might appear at first glance to be of largely anecdotal value, they had a very real significance. They were the work of two academics, Norman Richardson28 and Bruno Etienne, facing entirely different situations. Norman Richardson, a resident of Belfast, noted that until quite recently, most communities in Europe had been able to get on with their lives without having to envisage intercultural or inter-faith encounters. Nowadays, however, even the most monocultural of groups had to contend with “otherness”. Ecumenical efforts had thus focused on a set of simple but effective projects: drawing up a joint calendar of all the holidays in each community, preparing a handbook for health professionals and establishing meeting places in Belfast airport. The idea of a joint calendar was also being developed by the “Marseille-Espérance” association, the subject of Bruno Etienne’s contribution. “[The Association] brings together representatives from some twenty Christian (Catholic, Protestant, Greek, Russian and Armenian Orthodox), Jewish, Muslim and Buddhist communities, who hold meetings once or twice a month to discuss social or cultural issues or problems with date clashes, given that all the religious celebrations and holidays are announced in advance and members of the different communities visit each other on these occasions. A multi-religious calendar is moreover issued and posted in places of worship”. It was surely no coincidence that this idea of a joint calendar should feature in two different contexts, one where there had been open conflict for decades and another where efforts were being made to ensure peaceful co-existence between dozens of communities which had clashed elsewhere. The question of time cycles cropped up again and again in relation to ritual ceremonies. Religious celebrations gave formal expression to what was sacred: “time-sharing”, in this context, was an overt step away from the dominant timetable of the religious majority and towards the multiple timetables of all the cultures living side-by-side in the same place. Time-sharing also meant sharing moments and being united with the “Other”. Diachronicity and synchronicity together provided a setting for peace. Awraham Soetendorp was also talking about calendars in citing, as an example of shared peace, the initiative in the Netherlands consisting in holding an inter-confessional meeting, known as a cultural gathering, at the opening of each parliamentary year, during which the nation’s members of parliament and the leaders of all the country’s religions gathered together in a deconsecrated church. Another original encounter worthy of mention was that described by Géza Tessényi, designed to deal with the situation in the northern English city of Bradford, which in July 2001 had been the scene of racial disturbances involving 400-500 white and Pakistani youths, in the course of which hundreds had been injured. Tessenyi describes the reconciliation experience as follows: “Yorkshire Dales, North of England, April 2002. 13 young people around 20-30 years old from Bradford (8 Asian and 5 White; 7 male and 6 female) gather for a week to be spent together in learning and working (…). The speakers and resource persons come with experience from the United Kingdom, Pakistan, France, Lebanon, Kosovo and Sierra Leone. (…) Without formal categorisation, it is clear that many of the participants have serious religious affiliation, observing regular prayers throughout the day and, in case of some of the females, following the Islamic dress-code for women. The group consists of Muslims, Christians and ‘secular’ participants. What brought such an unusual group together from a city where street riots, at least for the time being, might have stopped but intercultural or inter-religious communication is still hardly existent and communities are extremely suspicious of each other while tension remains high? The promise of a new bridge, abstract as it is, to be built together between the segregated parts of the city”. Géza Tessényi continues his account: “The participants of the seminar learned, as a start, about each others’ religion and secular values. Instead of opening new wounds on history or politics, they sought common ground and common values of Islam and Christianity. (…) They listened to comparative studies of conflicts and negative peace situations in different parts of the world”. A similar approach was adopted in another initiative cited by Elisabeth Parmentier. The Leuenberg Concord signed in 1973 had fully reconciled the churches born of the Reformation in Europe after centuries of divisions and mutual ostracism. As Elisabeth Parmentier put it: “The Concord is a major document, introducing a radical understanding and a practice committed to overcoming schisms”. She examined the various steps to be taken if churches were to enter into communion with one another: - identify the shared values that could provide a basis for coming together;
All these actions demonstrated that sharing and encounters formed the basis for a new order in which violent expression of conflict had no place. The same objective, albeit in another form, was shared by the attempts at dialogue based on art in all its dimensions. 2.1. 2 Art in all its forms The ARS-AEVI (modern art) project presented by Amila Ramovic29 had been launched at a forum of artists and intellectuals in Sarajevo in July 1992, three months into the siege of the city, and had continued to expand ever since. According to its promoters, the concept was based on the idea of putting together a collection forming an open Museum of Modern Art in Sarajevo. The initiative had sprung from the conviction that artists were more keenly aware than most of the injustices perpetrated in Sarajevo. Enthusiastic and optimistic creative artists (sculptors, painters, etc.) had wished to contribute to making the capital of Bosnia and Herzegovina once more an open, free and beautiful city. Sarajevo had called upon them to construct a space that would demonstrate the triumph of art and the spirit over the forces of evil and destruction. Since the launching of the initiative, the collection of the ARS-AEVI Museum had been built up with donations from numerous artists of international standing. A number of wings of this very special museum were now under construction, the first of which had been designed by the great modern architect Renzo Piano. As Amila Ramovic put it with feeling, “The aim is to bring the great minds of the world to Sarajevo while at the same time devising a means of moving in from the periphery to the centre” [editorial translation].
A further example of the role of the arts in restoring peace, relating largely but not exclusively to the performing arts, was provided by Mette Newth32. This leading specialist made clear her vision from the outset, saying that art by its very nature was a form of conflict, but could also be used to prevent conflict. That had been the thinking behind the project carried out in Bergen during one half of the year 2000, aimed at analysing conflict between persons from different ethnic, cultural and religious backgrounds using artistic methods and approaches. Art teachers and students had been invited to participate, alongside professional artists from Pristina, Belgrade and Oslo. The project, funded by the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, had generated new artistic projects and productions. Mette Newth identified a number of factors which, in her view, had made the experiment possible. One distinctive factor had been the role of Norway as an “impartial observer”, suggesting that an objective third party was needed to enable feelings to be aired in a context of mutual respect, based on the premise that human rights transcended cultural tradition. Art also formed part of the cultural heritage. Respecting the art of other communities, and ensuring they respected one’s own, could be conducive to greater harmony. Calin Rus33, referring to the particular and highly symbolic situation of the Banat region in Romania, stressed the importance of good relations between the Orthodox bishop and the Chief Rabbi on the ground in creating a good relationship between the Orthodox and Jewish communities. With regard to the region’s heritage, he recalled how the Bishop had wished to see all the property confiscated from the Catholic Church under Communism returned to it. All these actions had combined to keep the Banat region free of intercultural conflict. On the contrary, constructive relationships had been established between the different communities which had lived alongside one another for three hundred years. The reasons for that state of affairs had not yet been fully examined. Some, of course, related to historical circumstances. But the situation was partly attributable also to the way in which the intellectual elite, the structures of civil society and religious leaders had managed to work out a modus vivendi based on mutual respect and co-operation which had become a distinctive feature of the region’s identity. 2.2 PROPOSALS 2.2.1 Taming memories Very many intercultural and inter-religious conflicts were caused by fallout from the past. There were two pitfalls to be avoided: first, collective amnesia, which made peoples susceptible to a repeat of past tragedies through a failure to learn the lessons of history, and second, the kind of mnemonic obsession which constantly raked over past conflicts, from one generation to the next. That was where the expression “taming memories” took on its full meaning. This cautious approach to the subjective nature of individual and collective memories consisted in not allowing unwelcome memories to intrude brutally on the present. It endeavoured also not to instrumentalise memories, by ensuring that they remained firmly in their proper place (forgetting the past was not only undesirable but might result in violence if memories were repressed and resurfaced when least expected). Ghislaine Glasson-Deschaumes, drawing on her experiences with Transeuropéennes, spoke of the need to prevent the “militarisation” of memories by deploying the kind of political skills developed in Tuzla which had allowed the town to escape ethnic cleansing. Jan Kerkhofs34, pondering the power of memory, pinpointed one important principle: in seeking to promote dialogue between religions, it was vital to take the long view. In support of this assertion he recalled the history of Christianity, pointing out that, while the Christian churches had for many centuries had a difficult, even hostile, relationship with Judaism and Islam, the situation had changed radically, in principle at least, with the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) and the Nostra Aetate declaration on non-Christian religions. This reference to the most important event for centuries in the history of Catholicism came forty years to the day after the opening of Vatican II. Géza Tessényi broached a fundamental aspect based on his own experiences in Bradford. Speaking about the programme of the seminar in the Yorkshire Dales, he said that “The idea of not addressing the painful events, recent or acute, invited the criticism of superficiality, ‘not getting real’, sweeping problems under the carpet (…). But on the eve of the January 24, 2002 inter-religious prayer of Assisi, a prominent Muslim [said]:”Where there is peace, no truth, where there is truth, no peace.” He came from Lebanon, after 17 years of pointless and devastating civil war and 10 years, ever since, of negative peace. He preferred peace to truth”. Géza Tessényi explained his view of how memories should be managed sensitively in order to avoid becoming trapped in obsession with the past: “Wars and conflicts are fought on differently interpreted justice. A new debate on justice might lead back to war. There can hardly be anything more harmful than reopening old wounds without being certain that those wounds will be safely healed at the end of the day”. Reading his paper brought to mind another document, 404 years old: the Edict of Nantes, promulgated in France in 1598 by Henry IV and designed to put an end to the so-called Religious Wars, among the most harrowing conflicts ever witnessed in France. Under the terms of this surprisingly modern royal edict, past events were deemed not to have occurred and anyone seeking to relive the past, by whatever means, was to be judged guilty of violence and punished accordingly. Taming memories also meant rebuilding what had been destroyed, whether it was a question of restoring the honour of a community or healing the trauma it had suffered at the hands of another group seeking to wipe out every trace not just of its culture but of its very existence as a group of human beings. That was the thrust of the proposal from Tsunemaro Otani35 calling for the reconstruction of the giant Buddhas at Bamiyan in Afghanistan. He said it troubled him that the modern world saw these paintings and sculptures merely as works of art. They had been built as an act of devotion, and the issue was not simply one of art or culture, but a religious one. They had been destroyed as works of art and as works of faith. Rebuilding Bamiyan would restore Buddhism to its place there. He concluded therefore that, by acknowledging the construction of the site as a pious act by the ancient Afghans, the restoration work would, he hoped, foster a spirit of mutual respect and understanding between Muslims and Buddhists. Taming memories, finally, entailed retaining from the history of civilisations the features which lent them their originality and richness. Hassan Hanafi made an extremely telling point in that regard, saying that all those present, not just those from the Middle East, were in some sense Bedouins, seeking grace when going to fetch water. If they could do that again, they would rediscover the spirit of Cordoba and Grenada. 2.2.2 Developing education For Gabriella Szabo-Pap36, the primary victims of conflicts in Europe were the least-educated. Particular attention needed to be focused on those who formed part of a dual minority, both linguistic and religious. They were the first to suffer in inter-religious conflicts but also sometimes, out of ignorance, the first to perpetrate such crimes, being illiterate or semi-literate. She therefore proposed the publication of an inexpensive handbook of good practice in several European languages, including lesser-used languages, in order to disseminate positive experiences. The idea was immediately taken up by Odile Chenal37, who stressed the importance of multilingualism in co-habitation between peoples from different cultural backgrounds, based on her own experiences in Switzerland. For his part, Johan Galtung judged it an absolute necessity to provide journalists in all countries with more rigorous training. Surprised by the media treatment of the events of 11 September, he remarked that journalists should look at what questions needed to be asked rather than confining their attentions to the manifestations and consequences of violence. Raj Isar also mentioned the importance of training journalists, the active mediators of society. For instance, teaching modules on cultural diversity should be organised for the media and journalists. Still on the subject of improved education, Norman Richardson and James Barnett38 each focused, in his own words, on religious teaching. Norman Richardson judged it vital to make a distinction between encouraging faith and religious teaching; state schools needed to accord greater priority than at present to teaching about religious cultures. Unfortunately, there was a tendency to confuse religious education and the teaching of belief; instead, a “safe space” needed to be created in which as many people as possible could learn about different religious cultures. James Barnett referred to the 2001 report from the French philosopher Régis Debray to the French Education Minister; the report made interesting reading as, without undermining the principle of laity, it sought to reduce the level of mutual ignorance, providing a good working platform. Another would be to ensure that the Council of Europe provided a meeting place, a “neutral” framework in which the leaders of the different religions in Europe could engage in dialogue and search for ways of disseminating their respective religious cultures whilst respecting those of others. “The teaching of compassion” was not just an empty phrase, as articulated by Awraham Soetendorp. He backed it up with an original and highly progressive proposal: that the leading theological colleges, seminaries and faith-based universities should open their doors to students of other religions on a reciprocal basis. Ajsa Hadzibegovic39, too, wanted to see greater efforts addressed at young people as well as an increased focus on informal religious education outside school, in order to give the term “education” the broadest possible interpretation, encompassing all means of disseminating culture instead of being equated simply with formal instruction. The point concerning young people was taken up by Thérèse Mangot40, who, though not a member of any religious group, felt that religions had much to gain from engaging in dialogue with each other, not least in order to sever the link between conflict and religion that existed in the minds of young people. If the religious establishments could tease out people’s muddled thinking on religion, it would be a positive move. For that to be achieved, according to Olivia Fuchs41, dialogue between religions would need to be open also to people who were not overtly religious or did not openly follow any religion. The key for many participants was pluralist education. Raj Isar made an impassioned plea on the subject of education, proposing the encouragement and development of reasoned critique in the social sciences and humanities, with particular emphasis on teacher training and on revising the body of knowledge and school textbooks to reflect a “polyphonic” rather than a “homophonic” approach to exploring the anthropological, cultural, economic, political, religious, scientific and social dimensions of European history in the context of world history. The proposal was welcomed by Cézar Birzea42, who also deplored the fact that religious teaching was invariably conducted in a monotheistic fashion; instead, dialogue should take the place of monologue and there should be a move beyond dialogue towards fostering interaction. It was not hard to detect a common theme in the contributions on education, centred on the encouragement and development of diversity.
2.2.3 Defending and promoting diversity In a very dense and highly structured special contribution, France Lebon43 gave a precise definition of the concept of diversity and its various aspects. By way of preamble, she pointed out that what had changed in Europe was “the context in which [diversity] is now developing and acquiring a positive and dynamic value – a value it has not always had in the past”. According to Lebon, European thought – both the Greek philosophers and the Christian tradition – had been constructed around non-acknowledgement of cultural diversity, coming to prefer “the single to the multiple, unity to diversity, the universal to the particular, stasis to mobility, the eternal and immutable to change and growth”. From the eighteenth century onwards considerable tension had developed between political liberalism on the one hand and the invention of the nation-state on the other. On the one hand, political liberalism had a natural leaning towards cosmopolitanism and towards opening the public space, while the nation-state, which later became the social state, the welfare state, tended to close the public space once more. It was hardly surprising, therefore, that “cultural diversity has today become an issue at a time when the nation-state is in crisis, when globalised economic and financial forces are combining to weaken it, and it is having to come to terms with a whole range of cultures”. However, “culturalising” everything was not the answer. France Lebon demonstrated that most clearly in the conclusion to her contribution, having first highlighted the need to understand the “diversity of diversity” and not ignore the rise of individualism, to take account of the changing vision of democracy and to tackle the dizzying heights of globalisation and communication: “Education, social, economic, health, housing and employment policies are all just as concerned by cultural diversity in the population as cultural policy, and must guarantee access to and effective enjoyment of related rights. (…) We must denounce the tendency to culturalise social and economic problems. Confusing cultural differences and social and economic difficulties leads to social stigmatisation. The difficulties behind the well-known “immigration” problem are often social and economic difficulties. Stressing the value of cultural diversity does not make it a decisive value in terms of which everything else can be explained. Only by the convergent action of all these policies is it possible to build a truly intercultural society”. Diana Khadem44, in a striking metaphor, recalled that while conflict could be interpreted as a lack of unity, the Council of Europe should move on to a more rounded vision, something like the human body, in which every part had a vital role to play. Diversity was a reality, and should be viewed somewhat like a garden, with its different clumps of flowers. Unity in a garden should not in any sense be equated with uniformity. Following the address by Vjeran Katunaric45, rapporteur for working session 3: “The challenge of cultural diversity”, Mouna Samir Kamel46, speaking in the closing debate, outlined his organisation’s concerns where diversity was concerned. Diversity of expression and cultural diversity needed to be encouraged. The role of the arts in shaping identity and forging social bonds was vital in his organisation’s view, but the arts also provided a powerful tool for demonstrating and placing the spotlight on the diversity of cultures and creativity within different cultures. Vjeran Katunaric, summarising the lessons gleaned from the discussions, stressed that diversity was an ongoing challenge with which each generation must come to grips. It was vital for any discussion on diversity to adhere to an intellectual code of intercultural ethics. A civilised framework was needed within which ways could be found of living with disagreement. 2.2.4 Building structures and using symbols Necil Nedimoğlu made a humorous reference to the limitations of structures, some of which were cumbersome to the point of absurdity. Setting up committees of all kinds was all very well, but did anyone know the difference between a horse and a camel? The answer was simple: a camel was a horse created by a committee. Bearing in mind that note of caution, Awraham Soetendorp formulated a proposal consisting in setting up a “permanent round table” responsible for monitoring all events and recording all initiatives relating to intercultural and inter-religious dialogue, so that everyone was kept informed of what was going on. Bruno Etienne among others endorsed the proposal, while calling for the round table to broadcast its proceedings as widely as possible. In parallel with the round table, Awraham Soetendorp proposed a second institutional structure, in the form of a Council of European spiritual leaders. The symbolic dimension was crucial in any discussion on religion. Perhaps, by combining a few proposals – Awraham Soetendorp’s idea of a joint pilgrimage to places with a sacred significance for one of the spiritual traditions and Hassan Hanafi’s proposal to rediscover the “spirit of Cordoba”– a fresh dimension might be lent to the discussions. The idea would be to stage a major media event each year under the auspices of the Council of Europe, bringing together all the available know-how in Cordoba or Grenada, places with a deep symbolic significance in terms of encounters between different religions in European history. The annual event would run over several days and consist of talks and discussions, involving a wide range of intellectuals and academics as well as “social practitioners” (politicians, campaigners, journalists, etc.) with the aim of demonstrating how humankind’s progress owed as much, for instance, to Judaism (Maimonides) as it did to Islam (Averroes, Avicenna), to Christianity as to the spirit of the Enlightenment, to the civilisations of the Far East as to pre-Columbian America or African primitive art. It would not content itself with looking backwards, but would set out to explore how to ensure sustainable development of intercultural and inter-religious dialogue in the future. Eventually it would become a “Forum of Cultures” in the broadest sense of the word “culture” (philosophy, science, technology, art, identities, customs, lifestyles, beliefs, and so on). The event would take place in a “spirit of laity”, i.e. of tolerance. For, as Mickael Ben David47 put it, “laity should not be viewed in opposition to religion; laity is a space where religion can be expressed” [editorial translation]. The point was reinforced by Soheib El Hocine Bensheikh’s assertion that it was thanks to laity that past adversaries could get together. Laity should liberate religions from all political manipulation, simply by restoring religion to its original status, as a prayer to God and a link between people practised in a spirit of devotion and not out of fear of some secular law. The aim, as set out by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe in opening the expert colloquy, in a reference to the publication “In from the Margins”, was to place culture at the centre of governance but also to view culture as an opportunity for development, exchange and peace-building, and not as a weapon of propaganda, hatred or a desire to destroy others simply for being “other”. Jean PETAUX
Reflections of the Rapporteur General48 Necil Nedimoğlu The Council of Europe organized an Expert Colloquy on "Dialogue serving intercultural and inter-religious communication" in Strasbourg on 7-9 October 2002. The Colloquy, supported by the Japan Foundation and the European Cultural Foundation, brought together more than 150 experts: representatives of the major religions, researchers, men and women with experience in the field, as well as a number of ambassadors, members of the Steering Committee for Culture and several representatives of other Council of Europe areas of activity. The participants from all over Europe, Japan, Canada, the USA, Morocco and Egypt were joined by delegations from the Organization of the Islamic Conference and from the League of Arab States. I. The dialogue serving intercultural and inter-religious communication has gained a certain urgency and has been somewhat catapulted onto the world scene after the tragedy of September 11, 2001. The global problem that we are now faced with, summarized in the words of HRH Prince Hasan bin Tallal of Jordan as : “The new millennium echoes with the familiar cries of hatred, anger and violence. My greatest fear is that if we continue to depend on the rule of force, on power, as a deterrent, we will eventually be unable to disable violence. We must become more sensitized to the concept of consequences: the consequences of poverty, illiteracy, oppression, lack of opportunity, despair and anger, which can all lead to the contemplation of violence." "If the world cannot grow beyond the new 'tribalism' of 'regionality' or unilateralism that has developed apace over the last year, we are going to face a very uncertain future. However, if we can search for commonality through a dialogue of universal values, and establish a code of ethical conduct, we could perhaps achieve the security that safeguards human dignity and enables the fulfillment of human needs through solidarity, ridding society of its erroneous need for individuals who seek to terrorize us.” "We must therefore learn to work together globally, recognizing our common ground.” According to some scholarly work, there are in the world “about 10.000 cultures, a number slightly higher than the more than 6.000 identified languages”. To quote from the text of Prof. Dr. M. Mlaitza of Bucharest, Romania delivered at the 2002 Annual Conference of Club of Rome held in Ankara, Turkey, in October 2002: “ The discrepancy between the number of cultures (10.000) and that of states (only 200) confronts us with the idea, hardly acceptable in some places, that all states without exception are multicultural. (…) One fundamental remark is that cultures are not integrative. You cannot blend languages, customs, human identities, or religious beliefs. In the European integration process, which is widely extended to the social or economic domains, there is only one provision regarding cultures: the requirement that they be known, respected and open to communication. It has also become imperative in today’s world that there is an urgent need to increase the interaction of societies, independently of the cultures to which they belong. This approach would result in increasing possibilities of exploring in the domain of conflict prevention and the practice of negotiations. In addition to dialogue, interaction cultivates human solidarity resulting in a high improvement in living conditions and also as an immediate effect in the strengthening of democracy, respect for human rights and the increase of solidarity among all.” II. This brings us to the questions of why Council of Europe should take the lead in this dialogue. The first question to be answered is why the colloquy was a Council of Europe initiative and where does it fit in the global effort towards what the UN has labeled “dialogue among civilizations”? Firstly, dialogue presupposes the recognition of the equal dignity of all human beings and of the duty to respect human rights as enshrined in the Universal Declaration and, as far as the wider Europe is concerned, in the European Convention of Human Rights. As there is no peace without human rights, there can be no genuine dialogue without human rights, the latter being best protected, through a commitment to democracy and the rule of law. The promotion of these fundamental values in a context of collective responsibility is the Council of Europe main mission in a Europe of soon 45 member countries and 800 millions people. Secondly, there is a need to build on the most recent experience in particular in Southern-Eastern Europe, namely that intercultural dialogue, including the religious dimension, was a key factor in both conflict prevention and post-conflict reconciliation and nation building. Diversity is a tremendous asset, provided that it can be linked through the sharing of common values and goals. Yet, it should be probably recognized that not enough have been done to prepare citizens of Europe for diversity and openness: they must be made aware of diversity, including religious diversity, and they must be educated to become mature citizen, open to dialogue and compromise. Thirdly, help developing a process in which knowledge would be constantly enriched and that would lead to very practical conclusions. The European social, cultural and economic space, which already houses people from so many different cultures, can and should serve as a multinational 'laboratory' for intercultural dialogue. Intercultural relations within Europe itself indeed illustrate both the challenges and the possible solutions to them. Europe with its Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition is the right platform to tackle the issue of inter-religious, intercultural dialogue and conflict prevention. To this end, innovative methodologies are needed, more inclusive and integrative approach should be found, and, Council of Europe is the natural choice to take the lead in the intercultural and inter-religious communication. Therefore, dialogue must: - be a permanent on-going process,
III. Now, the question of how to concretize and which approaches to take. On a practical level, throughout the debates, four main elements emerged: the role of culture, here culture meaning in the daily usage not in the socio-anthropological sense; the role of education; the media; and last but not least, the role and responsibilities of Council of Europe. The outcome of the debates projected as a guidance for further activities in the area of intercultural and inter-religious communication within the Council of Europe, namely through the collection and publication of a handbook of good practices and the elaboration of guidelines for policy-makers at all levels, civil society by cultural players. The latter include writers, artists, film-makers, performers, mediators, academics, cultural leaders and staff of cultural centres. The approaches can be categorized under three dimensions: a) the cultural including the educational, dimension, b) the social dimension, c) the information and communication dimension. The following ‘points’ should be seen as directions for ways in which a program of action might be constructed. A. The cultural dimension in the educational sector Speakers at the colloquy emphasized the impact of “compassionate education” stressing the intercultural competences, underlined the importance of formal education as well as non-formal education where differences should be explained and thought. They further pointed out that peace education should be part of the curriculum. Also, made a strong point to look carefully at resources for schools, as one does with military academies and police academies. Last, but not least, adult education deserves a constant effort to be nurtured from cradle to grave. To this end, certain approaches were highlighted: - Encourage and develop cooperation between the cultural and educational sectors to promote critical reasoning in the humanities and the social sciences, with a particular emphasis on teacher training and the revision of curricula and textbooks that are based on a 'polyphonic' - as opposed to a 'homophonic' - exploration of the anthropological, cultural, economic, political, religious, scientific and social dimensions of European History in the context of World History. - Encourage all possible initiatives within a broad range of cultural and educational institutions that promote true knowledge and understanding of cultural variety. In this regard it appears particularly important to locate religious traditions within the broader context of cultural traditions and secure the active participation of people from each cultural tradition in the educational effort. - Promote public encounters and debates in cultural sites between students, parents, teachers, and local elected officials with regard to cultural diversity and difference, together with the participation of representatives of different cultural communities. - Promote co-operation between the cultural sector and university and community networks so as to promote public debate on themes such as democracy, human rights, gender equity, secularism and religious identity and facilitate comparative research on languages and cultures that focuses on emerging hybrid patterns and models. B. The cultural approach in the social sector - Encourage the training of journalist and dissemination of information at every level, that promotes recognition of cultural diversity in society and in the area of information and communication. - Encourage partnerships that focus on civil society actors through framework programs that aim at reducing social inequalities, promoting employment and discouraging identitarian closure on the part of immigrant communities, with a special focus on women and young people. - Promote facilities for cultural expression on the part of immigrant cultures beyond their own closed circles and seek means to give them voice in contemporary creative movements. - Establish meeting platforms in a range of sites which have symbolic significance for different cultural groups and promote events based on principles of intercultural dialogue that are not dependent on market forces alone. - Provide technologically fully-equipped facilities for artistic creation to minority cultural groups. - Promote a range of services based on traditional know-how from non-European cultures in fields such as health care (with regard to infants and the elderly in particular), and the transmission of different forms of cultural expression. C. The cultural contribution to the information and communication dimension In the field of culture, it is hard to put a list of interactions and possible projects but two important areas of work should be emphasized, linking existing networks, strengthening role of spiritual leaders, and finding means for them to communicate and cooperate regularly. The cultural sector should in particular: - Encourage the provision of accurate information about all the actors involved in intercultural dialogue, in particular by enabling departments and schools of journalism to develop teaching modules on cultural diversity. - Organise seminars for journalists on leading cultural issues, included contested topics, that explore the sensibilities of different cultural groups. - Encourage the discussion of such issues in the media, particularly at the level of local radio and television. - Envisage facilities that provide all cultural groups with the communications technology and tools for self-expression. - Encourage the preparation and dissemination at local level of information that promotes recognition of cultural diversity and hence of pluralistic values and that also shares the lessons and conclusions resulting from the various dialogue initiatives carried out. IV. Finally, the role and the future work of the Council of Europe. The Council of Europe because of its size of membership of and the 800 million Europeans it represents, is the ideal European platform. As a starting point, Council of Europe should be the place to conduct proper analysis of: religious and cultural conflicts; cultural conflict; and socio-economic conflicts. The Council should not be only a watchdog agency, but an institution where relevant information would be gathered and disseminated to all. Here the emphasis is all. The meeting has shown that on regional, multilateral levels in different strata of the public at large, there are numerous projects, activities, publications, etc. that strive to achieve a true, genuine intercultural and inter-religious dialogue. At the same time the same meeting has shown that even experts and academicians that are working in the field are sometimes not aware that similar activities or perhaps inspirational work undertaken in other places, in other and different formats. This leads us to the fact that information is essential: the gathering and disseminating of information through one centre, one base, is practical, economical and imperative. Information is meaningful only if it is available and disseminated to all the public in numerous languages and different level of sophistication. The Council of Europe should have a supporting role in all areas, namely, in culture, education and media. This requires constant data gathering and management. The Council of Europe should link up with existing networks. The watch-dog agency role should be strengthened by a more active role of giving guidance, identifying new areas of work to be done. The Council of Europe should set up an ongoing Round Table which should be a flexible, out-reaching and comprehensive body. In sum, the Ministers of Culture meetings in 2003 should be utilized to give to the Council of Europe the proper mandate and provide the necessary resources to be the main platform for intercultural and inter-religious dialogue in Europe. Working session 1: The meaning of cultural conflict Conclusions by Vera Boltho49, Rainer Nolte50 and Géza Tessényi51 The Colloquy had a clearly positive title (dialogue, service, communication), whereas this session was devoted to the meaning of cultural conflict. Therefore, it is of no surprise that the debate in this working session presented a great variety of views and opinions, often contradictory. This report is structured around five main themes of the discussion: 1. The language of conflict
* * * 1. The relevance of the language we use to explain conflict While most speakers and participants used the term conflict in a generally negative sense, that is, a phenomenon to be prevented or resolved, the keynote speaker Johan Galtung warned that “conflict is a complex human phenomenon and should by no means be confused with violence”. Violence is to be prevented, not conflict. If conflict is confused with violence then basic, potentially fatal clashes of goals will not be detected until the first act of violence occurs, meaning that nothing will be done before there is trouble. Also, when no more violence occurs, peace is often declared, confusing that complex state with the ceasefire – neither peace nor war. Governments and the UN Security Council often fall into this trap. There was another kind of distinction during the session between the negative and positive aspects of conflict. Negatively, it was understood as armed or violent conflicts leading to the destruction of the other, the desire for revenge, creating conditions for ‘victory’ and ‘defeat’, the concept of winner and loser, the guilty and liable. (Some participants called this latter the ‘lawyers’ culture’. Others would disagree, as it is the ‘lawyers’ culture’ – rather called the rule of law - which creates the normative and operative infrastructure for the non-violent settlement of individual, social and international conflicts.) The positive perception of conflict was ‘creativity’ within which the Yin and Yang appear through the unity in differences and similarities (Cassandra and Pollyana). One can recall here another concept known as Unity in Diversity. The title of the session, The meaning of cultural conflict, also sparked some debate. (This debate will also be reflected upon below under the origins of conflict: culture.) A temptation in the post-September 11 world in particular was to see the new global conflict as a clash between cultures or, in Huntington’s words, clash of civilizations (and the remaking of the world order). Ghislaine Glasson-Deschaumes proposed to treat the term ‘cultural conflict’ with caution. “When we talk about cultural conflicts, are we not actually thinking of political conflicts that draw on cultural references in defence of planned conquests (of power, territory, etc)? Is focusing on ‘cultural conflict’ not a trap that is all the easier to fall into since we regard culture as being identical in content to itself, essentially homogeneous and a fiction of purity? Is the concept of conflicts between cultures not what we should fear most of all, as it brings with it the fantasy of eradicating the other?...Is it possible to propose a working alternative and talk about disputes between cultures, within each culture, and have the will to tackle the issue of negotiating these disputes?” Ray Mullan also felt necessary to emphasise that “culture is often hijacked and distorted for political ends”. In contrast, Johan Galtung felt that it was a mistake to state that culture is some kind of camouflage over politics, economics and military interests. 2. Perceived origins of the conflict: global perspectives and deep culture Some participants recalled that religion is often considered to be at the origin of conflict. A distinction was made between what is a soft and what is a hard trend in religion. The hard trend is often fundamentalism which is not something that we are just experiencing now in a very dramatic way, but it was also said that fundamentalism has existed in all religions, at all times. Therefore, no-one is fundamentalist-proof. Fundamentalism is strongest where there is a paranoiac persecution and/or superiority complex. Some thought that this is the case with the three main monotheistic religions. At the root of the conflict there is often dualism – this word came back very often in the debate. Fundamentalism is on one side of this dualism, monopolistic market expansion, or globalisation, is on the other. It was also mentioned that globalisation is felt by those who are on the losing end of it as a one-way ‘imperialistic’ movement. An interesting observation was made that religious people and institutions tend to play down the role of religion in violent conflicts while secular actors rather over-emphasise the role of religion at the origin of violent conflicts. Ignorance was felt to be often at the origin of cultural conflict when it comes to other traditions, to other ways of life. Rusmir Mahmutcehajic pointed out that the issue of religion can not be neglected or separated from its presence and embracement on the one hand and from its modern perspectives on the other. Ignorance of otherness supports fear, intolerance and hatred. At the root of conflict there are very often stereotypes – this word was often repeated. Victims of conflict also undergo a process of stereotyping. This is more likely or frequent – as is the case with Islam, it was said – when a civilisation is very strongly marked by religion. It was also said that the West is less marked by one single religion; there are more religions and there is also a greater separation between public and private life, religion being considered part of the latter. It is easier then to feel like a victim in a conflict when there are strong stereotypes. No distinction was made between the soft and hard aspects of Islam. In the present conflict, the victim of the announced war - the Islamic world - feels at the periphery and at risk of fragmentation. The Muslim world (though far from a monolithic entity) feels almost in the situation of the necessary victim. According to some, there is a chronological disparity between the Western civilisation which is at the end of Modern times and Islam which is experiencing the end of its Renaissance. Hassan Hanafi, the other main speaker of the session, saw at the global level and in a truly global perspective the origin of today’s conflict in the dichotomy between the centre and the periphery, between the “Islam and the West or the West and the Rest”. Islam as the major religion in the periphery played the role of the vehicle of protest. Hanafi listed mutual stereotypes created by westerners about Islam and Muslims about the West. In his view, material conflicts were embedded in and charged with ideological conflicts. Constantin Von Barloewen recalled that “we need genuinely to understand the logic behind the thinking and action of the world’s cultures so we can act responsibly in the economic and political sectors. Human beings belong not only to individual states but also and, above all, to cultures and religions.” Lack of equal respect for human rights was also mentioned in the context of origin of conflict, alongside the lesser acceptance of collective rights as opposed to individual human rights. In the context of conflict situations, there are double standards, within and outside the West. The opinion was also expressed that if and when traditions were strongly linked to minorities such as immigrant communities, this, at the micro-level, may create conflicts. This thought was not shared by many others. The question was naturally raised: is culture at the origin of conflict? Several participants rejected this possibility: “culture is not at the origin of conflicts”; “conflicts are political with a cultural camouflage”; “culture is misused, if not even abused for other ends”. Johan Galtung made a distinction between surface culture and deep culture. Deep culture can be detected in unspoken words, something which is hiding underneath or behind a cultural surface. “Deep cultures are of course hypothetical, like deep personality for persons. The test is their predictive/explanatory potential. If we can establish a profile for the deep culture of a nation and make precise predictions about conflict behaviour, then we have the key.” This would indeed mean conflict forecasting, should nations have a monolithic culture (deep or surface) and should we be able in society to make precise predictions of behaviour. Both assumptions need to be tested before we can feel the ‘key’ in our pocket. Johan Galtung, nevertheless, described a case study in his paper Rethinking Conflict: the Cultural Approach. Contradicting national cultural identities were brought to the attention by Ray Mullan, introducing the Northern Ireland experience. “The political conflict between Irish Nationalism and Ulster Unionism reflects a historically-rooted division between communities over cultural identity, between ‘Irishness’ and ‘Britishness’… the supposed traditional cultural differences between ‘Protestant’ and ‘Catholic’ in Northern Ireland ignores the degree to which cultural influences on each side have historically interacted with and drawn from each other.” 3. Mechanisms and means of prevention or resolution of conflicts Selim Beslagic and Calin Rus demonstrated through local experiences from South-eastern Europe how local or regional communities have been able to prevent violent conflict and to maintain their peaceful multicultural traditions in the middle of bloody ethnic conflicts during the 1990s. The example from the city of Tuzla carries the message of maintained inter-religious and intercultural relations, of solidarity and of mutual confidence between different ethnic groups and institutions. The Banat region’s lasting peace shows the value of the sustained efforts for peace and co-existence by the local intellectual elite, civil society actors and religious leaders. On both the prevention and the resolution side, dialogue was a key word: intercultural and inter-religious dialogue. From the point of view of the Secretariat, the two go together and probably inter-cultural dialogue is the wider category. Dialogue, like conflict, can be positive and negative. The positive aspect of a dialogue is when people speak, when people listen – 90% listening, 10% speaking recommended -, when people are able to respect and when people are able to tolerate. This latter word – tolerance – had also two connotations: one positive and one negative. Tolerance may be the minimum standard and too weak a word, too weak an attitude, too weak an approach, while for others tolerance is the beginning of mutual understanding. Often, dialogue leads back to the status quo which might be perceived by one side as unjust or oppressive and something that is to be changed. Partners in dialogue are hardly ever of the same weight, and the stronger and wealthier can speak from the position of force. To impose the position of the stronger partner in dialogue, however, is not in the long-term interest of even the stronger side, as it will not reach lasting peace. Change of perspective and change of roles can lead to a better appreciation of the other’s position. There was little discussion during the session about the difference between multicultural and intercultural. However, on ‘inter-culturalism’, it was noted that it is not a given, it has to be acquired – e.g. through reading literature of other cultures – but it is only part of the set of competences in conflict resolution. An additional (and obligatory) part is the dealing with conflict through peace education. Compromise as a widely accepted form of conflict resolution has its own limits because it often avoids the clarifying step of making oneself aware of existing basic contradictions between cultures. Transcending contradictions and transcending conflict would be the essential element in the development of a ‘culture of peaceful conflict resolution’. One interesting example from Hawai’i is worth detailing in this report. The traditional Polynesian ho’o ponopono method for “setting right” conflicts is quoted from Johan Galtung’s paper. The method is restorative justice rather than the western concept of punitive justice. The main considerations of this method are these: - The "bad/wrong" act committed is bad not only in its effect on the victim but in terms of what it says about the whole community. - What has to be restored is not only the victim but the community as a whole. Had the community been wholesome the bad act would not have happened. - What went wrong in the community was usually not any bad act of commission but the good act they failed to do, the acts of omission. - Everybody in the community shares the responsibility for all. - There has to be a burden on the perpetrator, but so as to restore, attach, not detach him from the community. - There have to be acts of restitution and apologies to the victim; both for the bad acts committed and the good acts omitted. - The perpetrator is not seen as (inherently) "evil"; the bad act is rejected, the perpetrator is accepted (but watched). Whereas the example here to demonstrate the case was a little Hawaiian boy stealing 10 dollars from the home of a rich man, it is highly challenging to bring the above considerations to the international level and to imagine the international community in the spirit of the Charter of the United Nations as a genuine community, rather than just as a community in name or as a rhetoric. It is perhaps even more challenging, in the post-September 11 world, how this international community could address conflicts where the main actors are not exclusively sovereign states and intergovernmental organisations any more, but also private actors, like civil society (local and global), multinational business, private international terrorist networks with elements of state support. Is this the beginning of a new international community (terrorists excluded? anyone, please, with a definition of who a terrorist is?); or is this a chaos of global conflicts of interests in which the UN of Governments is decreasingly important in playing a significant role in the settlement of conflicts and disputes? Can we do the ho’o ponopono method to restore peace and some order in such an uneasy and not-so natural community? 4. Agents and actors for conflict resolution It was said that there are millions of alternatives to ‘dual confrontation’ available and leading to dialogue. Many examples of reconciliation were brought forward, some took years, some took centuries. The role in violent conflict prevention and resolution of politicians, religious leaders and “creative minds” - such as professionals with creativity and serendipity for finding unusual solutions for conflict situations – was emphasised. Civil society was mentioned in this context as a new actor, with powerful possibilities. The word creativity came back often. Some thought that dialogue between leaders of the conflict may result in compromises. However, it was not considered by some participants to be a creative solution, because the compromise achieved in this way probably left everyone dissatisfied. Some thought that dialogue between diplomats is not very useful as diplomats are strong in process but not necessarily in content. Diplomats can usefully be complemented by dialogue experts. Two provocative comments did not receive much echo in the debate: can we use non-democratic measures to stop politicians who are criminals? Perhaps somewhat linked to this question, there was also a comment made that “the tolerance of intolerance is intolerance”. Lastly, but perhaps one of the most important agents of resolution and prevention of violent conflicts, as the Tuzla example demonstrated, were thought to be ordinary local people, neighbours from different communities. The expertise gained in intercultural dialogue and peace building based on the involvement and ownership by the most affected people might be the best hope for just and therefore lasting solutions. 5. Proposals/best practices and points of consensus It was said explicitly and implicitly that the Council of Europe, with its broad and varied membership and with its outreach to a broad range of cultures, is probably the best platform in Europe to continue this exercise. Intercultural bridges have to be built. In this, education has an important role: both formal education – school education, university education – and informal or adult education. But bridges have to be also cultural and much can be done through arts, theatre, literature and languages. There was a specific proposal for better knowledge of otherness through literature, and a forum could be developed to bring people together in order to increase knowledge of each other. It was also suggested that there should be a permanent round-table at the Council of Europe to follow-up this colloquy; that there should be a catalogue of best practices, and that there should be a declaration – this was an original statement – on how to stop politicians from misusing culture and from dividing communities for political ends. Early-warning systems should be instituted to prevent conflicts in places of emerging tension, inner cities, minority areas, etc. It was also proposed several times to give more prominence to women in conflict resolution. The translation into various languages and the dissemination of the report of the Colloquy was also encouraged. Finally, some points of consensus (even though a former British Prime Minister famously found that consensus was an attempt to please people who hold no particular views about anything.) Difference and diversity are enriching and necessary. Issues of diversity were elaborated in more details during the third session of the Colloquy. We have to find and agree on common societal values, on a shared humanity which some would call a ‘global ethic’, as a general reference. Grass-roots civil society activities are necessary to complement and balance actions by politicians. The many important statements of the session showed that there was a strong and genuine will to find common ground through culture (including education, youth, media, etc.) and through religions, to build bridges of dialogue and peace. And use them, in both ways. Working Session 2: Building Bridges between Religious Communities Conclusions by Tony Gallagher52 Introduction During our session on October 8, 2002 we heard a rich variety of perspectives and views. The morning was long, but as Awraham Soetendorp said towards the end, we dined richly and were nourished. In this short report I cannot hope to give full value to the richness of our discussion, but I would like to offer some thoughts on what I felt were the main themes to emerge from the discussion. The underlying issue which seemed to me to run right through the discussion dealt with the form and the potential of dialogue between those of different religious communities and none. I should say that I found aspects of this discussion to be poignant: in Northern Ireland the peace process was built on dialogue, but in the last few days looks to be on the verge of collapse. My feeling is that the central theme that emerged through the discussion was that we should seek to use dialogue between religions to try to find ways to challenge the arrogance of certainty. So what are the elements that lead me towards this conclusion? The first element: what is the role of religion in conflict? The role of religion in conflict was raised by a number of people. The suggestion was that violent conflicts often have the appearance of a religious character, but that this is often (perhaps always) a cover for some other, more material (and, by inference, real) basis of division, whether this is social, economic, political, or whatever. To that extent the claim is that these are not ‘really’ religious conflicts, or that a focus on religion somehow disguises the true purpose or intent of the protagonists. However, we should perhaps remember that violent conflict, prejudice and intolerance have a number of dimensions, including cognitive, behavioural and affective dimensions. Religion has particular consequences for the affective domain, as religious labels and identities have extraordinary motivational power, encouraging people to engage in all sorts of actions: we heard both positive and negative examples, of cases where religion had motivated people to carry out the most inspiring acts, and cases where religion had motivated people to carry out the most appalling acts. Thus, in an analytic sense, religion may be a camouflage for what is ‘really’ going on, and may not be the root cause of a violent conflict, but violent conflicts develop their own character and momentum, and the affective power of religious differences can contribute to that momentum. I am reminded that in Northern Ireland many people have been killed simply and purely because they are a Protestant or a Catholic – other aspects of difference are assumed to follow this simple categorisation, but the fact of religious affiliation alone is sufficient to cause one person to die and another to kill. We should also recall the observation also of Leo Kuper (Kuper, L (1989) The prevention of genocide: cultural and structural indicators of genocidal threat, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 12 (2), 157-173), who suggested that the most common characteristic of genocide is that the victims and perpetrators are from different religious communities. Religion may not be the singular cause of violent conflict, but nor is it a mere epiphenomenon. Violent conflict is complex, it cannot be reduced to single components, and it is reinforced by its own developing legacy of death and destruction. Whatever the reasons for a violent conflict to erupt, once it has erupted then new insults are added to the reasons for sustaining the conflict. Hence the challenge Johan Galtung offers us, to try to find ways to transcend the assumptions that often act to exacerbate difference and violence. The second element lies in the nature of dialogue. A part of our discussion focused on the nature of dialogue (or interactivity or engagement – some preferred terms other than dialogue) and the methodologies we need to employ to engage in meaningful dialogue. I felt that this should be linked to our earlier discussion when someone raised the linkage between rights and duties. Perhaps dialogue needs to be characterised by two principles: - First, that everyone has the right to be heard, to have a voice.
If these principles are accepted, then the practical task is to find ways to create the safe spaces within which dialogue on these principles can take place. The third element lies in the role of religious organisations in promoting dialogue. A number of people talked about the role of religious institutions. Perhaps we should ask that, if rights and duties apply to individuals, so too these twin principles should be applied to religious organisations as well. If so, then religious organisations need to make clear their commitment to positive dialogue, and to recognise that, at times, this commitment is mitigated by a defensive orientation that is sometimes informed by institutional interests and a desire to maintain institutional control. Throughout our discussion we heard many examples of dialogic processes between religious organisations and were offered practical examples of ways in which interactivity between religious organisations can be enhanced to promote even better understanding. There is also an issue regarding the role of religious organisations in relation to schools and education, whether this is through their attitude towards ownership of schools, the desire to maintain separate schools, or where they set limits to the religious education curriculum in schools. This is an issue that I will return to below. The fourth element concerned the extended discussion on whether the dialogue should focus on similarities or differences. The main claims for a focus on similarities were that: - First, this provides the basis for acknowledging our essential one-ness, emphasising our unity and providing a basis for social integration. - Second, it might be akin to the social psychological concept of superordinate goals, that is, goals which are in the common interest, but which require collective action to be achieved. - And third, a focus on similarities may avoid the problem that some specific aspects of religious belief are, or at least appear to be, incompatible. On the other hand, the main claims for a focus on difference included the following: - First, an examination of contemporary differences may reveal shared roots and a shared heritage. - Second, there is a legacy of violent conflict and persecution between religious communities – we cannot ignore that legacy, not least because it can provide the basis for a discourse of hate and revenge in situations where relationships between communities break down. - Third, there are actual differences between faith communities, but the condition of recognition requires that we are aware of these differences. In a process of being heard and listening, we can become aware of different ways of thinking and different historical trajectories. Difference and diversity should be a strength and resource, which challenges us to be prepared to think differently about the things we hold dear. But perhaps the most important point is that this should not be seen as an ‘either–or’ situation, but rather a ‘both-and’ situation. To focus only on similarity or difference may also mean that we fail to reach Johan Galtung’s condition of transcendence. A focus on difference alone runs the risk of driving us in the direction of fundamentalism and essentialism. On the other hand, if we focus only on similarity then we run the risk of pretending that no conflict exists. And remember, the problem is not conflict, but in the way we deal with conflict. Perhaps in order to identify transcendent solutions we do not have to focus solely on the common or the different, but see them as two sides of the same coin, both of which need to be explored in order to more fully understand the history and future of our social relationships. Indeed, it may be that a fuller awareness of similarities and differences helps us to challenge essentialist claims by those who seek to promote hate and intolerance through the promotion of a discourse of irreconcilable difference. The fifth element concerns the nature of the relationship between the state and religion. The questions that were posed in the discussion concerned whether religion should exist in the public or private sphere, and the extent to which the state should provide institutional support for one religion, or many religions, or, alternatively, maintain an avowedly secular emphasis, with religion placed firmly in the private sphere. This question relates to a broader question on state policy and the extent to which we wish to privilege assimilationist or pluralist approaches. There is a tension between the priority of social integration and the priority of diversity. We need to consider the consequences of these approaches and their programmatic implications. This question has a particular resonance in regard to education, an issue that emerged on a number of occasions during the discussion. This emerged in a number of ways as various alternatives were posed for consideration: - First, should we promote common school systems, prioritising the role of schools as a mechanism of social integration, even if they attempt to incorporate some recognition of difference within the curriculum? - A second possibility concerns the constraints or limits that might be imposed on religious instruction: should it be permitted in school, or left as a private obligation for families or faith communities? If it is to have a place in school, then should religious instruction be available during the normal school day or outside normal school hours? - Third, should religious groups be permitted to organise and maintain separate schools? And, if so, what are the wider social responsibilities to be applied to those schools? And even if this principle is accepted, are there some situations where the extent of community division is such that there is a higher responsibility on religious authorities to forgo this right? This was the suggestion put forward by Norman Richardson for the situation in Northern Ireland. - Fourth, should we encourage the development of common religious education programmes? In the discussion Cézar Birzea reminded us of the different models that operate in regard to the provision of religious education in schools. Across our different countries there are different ways of addressing this issue and the determination of the most appropriate course is probably closely linked to context. Perhaps then, what we need is greater clarity and discussion on the consequences of the different approaches in different contexts? In this part of the discussion a related, but different, theme emerged on the issue of adult and continuing education, outside the compulsory domain. Sometimes this domain of education allows for more freedom due to its voluntaristic nature. Thus, for example, there is no doubt that education in the voluntary sector in Northern Ireland is characterised by more creativity and innovation in methodologies and approaches, and in a greater willingness to engage in issues of diversity and conflict at all. The sixth and final element is linked more directly to the idea of providing a challenge to the arrogance of certainty. The problems caused by fundamentalism relate to the truth-claims of religion and the imposition of these truths on others. This is mirrored by the consequences of the imposition of truth-claims by political dogma. Masanori Naito was critical of that aspect of the enlightenment model of the secularised nation-state which lead to the model being exported and imposed on non-European countries as part of a self-declared civilising mission. Perhaps we should be careful, however, that while condemning the negative consequences of enlightenment thinking in one context, we do not lose sight of its positive impact in other contexts. Let us recall that the enlightenment developed as the application of reason against the obscurantism of religion, at a time when religious and political authority was conjoined to legitimise the absolutist state. To that extent, and at that time, the enlightenment had a progressive purpose, as it offered the basis for a challenge to authority and called for progressive political developments. This was why the rallying cry of the enlightenment was ‘on the word of no-one’ – truth had to be worked out, not simply received.
But, in response to the negative consequences of colonialism, must we retreat to a position which sees the entire tradition as illegitimate, or to a relativism that proclaims all perspectives to be equally valid? The Council of Europe is not indifferent to alternative political models: pluralistic democracy is approved because it is based, not only on seeking to create conditions under which citizens can participate in political activity, but also because it sets constraints on the activities of the rulers. For all its flaws and imperfections, and even more so the flaws and imperfections of some of the leaders people chose to elect, there is no better, actually-existing, alternative. In the same vein, certain outcomes are more desirable than others and certain actions are more worthy of condemnation than others. But in the religious domain we need to find ways of encouraging the right of people to express religion, while constraining the actions of those who would use religion to promote division and violence. Perhaps also the delineation of that which is more desirable is a constant and developing task. During our discussion, someone asked: what is the purpose of dialogue? The conclusion I draw from our discussion is that it is not towards a particular end-state, but that it is about establishing a process, based on the principles of pluralistic democracy, to provide us with opportunities to challenge the arrogance of certainty, in others, but perhaps even more importantly, in ourselves. Working Session 3 “The Challenge of Cultural Diversity” Conclusions by Vjeran Katunaric53 Introduction Going in and out of the Babel Tower - entering into a multitude of languages and beliefs or abandoning it in favour of one’s own culture or a few similar and allied - is a permanent dilemma of human communicational endeavour. Is cultural diversity an asset or a liability? Does it represent one truth with a thousand facets or a thousand truths without any common denominator, except the claim for recognition? Even if such a claim for the minimum is the case, it represents, nevertheless, the request for communication and furthering of the process of mutual understanding between different speakers and believers. To be recognised in a dialogue – which starts with acquaintance and ends up hopefully with re-approach and with enhancement of the commonality – is a long and yet uncertain process. Hence, cultural diversity is a condition that must be preserved, but it alone does not predict any communicational outcome. Cultural diversity is also a project of a successful communication and co-operation, in which all cultures-parties have preserved some of their essential differences. But some of the differences have been readapted as a commonly shared cultural treasure and a basis of understanding of humanity or a grand multicultural region of the world such as Europe or Europe and its ever growing number of neighbours. Condition and project are two different things, indeed. The condition of diversity is the matter of generatio equivoca, something that we inherited from the past generations, a substance, a given, that should be redesigned or recreated as a form comfortable enough for the new generations, for everyone, in fact, who is willing to participate in its building up. Regardless of how we understand this holistic task - the “unity in diversity” - whether as a living art form, a lotus-flower, a dialectical process, a cyclic movement, or an ever revising compromise, as it emerged by convergence among diversity speakers in this session, namely, as a “learning to live with disagreements”: no more no less. Even our small contributions have added to creating a form of diversity: many speakers of different cultures, perspectives and discourses from around the world, have been mindful in explaining both ends of their part of the dialogue, their agreements and disagreements. The following presentation is divided topically into four clusters: historical, that reminds us of Europe's multicultural knitting; concepts, i.e., the ideas and conceptual tools serving as methodological compasses in diversity journeys; cases that illustrate, encourage or curb the diversity expectations; and, finally, policy issues, including ideas and recommendations aiming to achieve good practice in the handling of diversity. The historical heritage of diversity and the future hope European cultural craddle is diverse, made up of a co-production of Greeks, Romans, Celts, Vikings, Turks, Arabs, Jews, Gypsies... The self-awareness, the European “We”, was restricted or antagonised for many times, both from within and outside. Where in reality are the frontiers of Europe? Despite many challenges to the European cultural diversity – from the abstract rationality of Enlightenment, through the engineering homogeneity of nationalism, to the current crisis of the European policy of immigration, several speakers (notably France Lebon), who believe optimistically that the public forum and democracy itself are plural and intercultural. Otherwise democracy might be degenerated into something else, into a dictatorship of majority from within, and into a Fortress from outside. If so, the question is then (as Hassan Hanafi asked) – is Europe an inspiring universalistic idea – this time non-colonial, indeed – or is it just a bounded territory, a continent, where another false universality ends up with borders and passports? Certainly, this issue is not naive nor irrelevant. It will probably be discussed many times in the future, at least in the Council of Europe, the institution that one can see as a foreground of a non-territorial spirit of Europe. Its mission is not based on the agenda and not limited to the confines of the Schengen-treaty, but to act as a permanent Euro-World forum. This colloquy alone has taken the form of a Europe with others and others with Europe. Does it invoke a European Weltgeist, a Minerva’s owl that takes-off not in the evening of the past anymore, but in the morning of a different tomorrow, and is heading far away from the historical Europe and from the European Union-Europe, to some future where only the sphere of the globe becomes clearly visible, without being ruptured by bristled borders? Frankly, the speakers were not so optimistic. Nevertheless, traces of hope for a larger, yet historically inexperienced, magnitude of European diversity and pluralism might have been noticed in the air of this rendezvous of speakers of diversity. Conceptual formations A bunch of fresh and thoughtful ideas came to the fore, although the time was too short for their elaboration. Just to list some of them: - Fundamentally, we are faced with a “diversity of diversity” (France Lebon citing Tony Bennett’s booklet on cultural diversity). Apart from historical cultures of nations and minorities, new and basically non-territorial cultural identities and styles are created, for example by immigrants, about which the host communities are not fully aware yet. These new cultural facts become, willy-nilly, the part of the multicultural contents of the whole community. - Conflict is a prerequisite of humankind and is not a problem as such. Violence is the problem (a position shared by both Kai Brand Jacobsen and Johan Galtung). This exposes the basic non-violent nature of conflict as much as it considers “violent conflict”, “armed conflict” and similar notions as contradictions in term. Although such a remark elicits some semantic and logical implications as well - as it contests the long standardised vocabulary of conflict approaches - it was not further debated in the session. - There is a need for an “algorithm of diversity”, Mahdi Elmandrja points out. The growing diversity explodes, or implodes, at our own expense. An example is taken from the immensely growing field of information on particular cultural notions. Yet, we are surrounded by systems or structures whose solutions of rising complexities can not be and usually are not competent nor satisfactory enough in dealing with such complexities. Still, diversity is unavoidably our way of life and we should not succumb to temptations of reductionism, amid the challenge of growing complexity. - Cultural diversity is rarely the problem and is rarely solution to the problem, asserts Raj Isar. What we need, actually, is a “intercultural de-ontology”, a cross-cultural ethic for a non-hierarchical communicative action. - Exclusion and forced inclusion are both unacceptable in a democratic society, Martin Ramirez put in, for they invalidate dialogue. - For Rusmir Mahmutcehajic individual and collective rights are still clashing in Europe, and it is questionable whether they can be reconciled within the real existing models of political governance. - We need a “civilised framework of disagreement” (Géza Tessényi) or “learn to live with disagreement” (Mette Newth). This seems to be the central and the most agreeable position for many speakers in this and the two other sessions. It also logically fits into conceptual reform of conflict, i.e., conflict without violence being the prerequisite of every encounter between cultures and peoples. This can be taken as a strong message sent by connoisseurs of conflict and violence to the Council of Europe’s policy-making projects, aimed to establish early warning signals before violent conflicts outbursts. Cases illustrating hopes and fears of diversity The major case illustrating intercultural dialogue was presented by Géza Tessényi. He describes the outcomes of a project aimed at expanding mutual understanding and co-operation between Pakistani and British youth in Bradford, UK. In the chapter “Lessons to Learn?” of his paper, he extended his scrutiny and critical remarks to comparatively similar situations and programmes undertaken elsewhere, including Bosnia and Herzegovina, and concludes that the “mutual absence of violence” – another point of convergence with the reformed concept of conflict – may be taken as a minimal, yet common denominator of the efforts for establishing a successful intercultural (leadership) programme. Géza Tessényi also pointed to some inadequacies of both governmental and UN flagship programmes, that were supposed to meet the need for dialogue between cultures and civilisations. The case of the Netherland’s new policy of immigration and integration was discussed in a series of remarks and replicas that followed the introductory notes of Ambassador Johannes Landman. He presented the actual policy of Netherlands as a continuity with the former Social Democratic policy, whereas some discussants warned about this is rather an instance of profound change, in fact a revision of that policy legacy. The art project in Oslo presented by Mette Newth, which involves artists from Belgrade and Prishtina as well, was aimed at transforming real conflicts and frustrations into artistic expression. Art is defined as a playground of conflict, of protagonists and antagonists, and at the same time as a discipline, a symbolic containment that sublimates the destructive consequences of conflict spill-overs. It includes the critical self-reflection of what has been done by the artistic in vitro, in comparison with the cultural and political in vivo. This procedure may contribute the knowledge needed to avoid violent outbursts of disagreements, to acknowledge what has already happened but realise it should not be repeated. This may even be used as a particular method of providing early signals for the prevention of violence. Arts for peace against the art of war. Amila Ramovic presented Ars Aevi to the participants; a long term multicultural project in Sarajevo (Bosnia-Herzegovina), which brings together authors and donators from around the world. Currently, it gathers curators, artists and ministries of culture from the countries neighbouring former Yugoslavia as well, which is an encouraging sign. It is a signal coming from the opposite direction than that of political and armed conflict. Thus it manifests the need for a creativity which re-establishes diversity, which builds upon it, which recovers life-forms that were destroyed in the name of hatred against the culture of the other, but probably also against the very meaning of the culture itself. Grounding a policy of cultural diversity Many policy issues have been raised and policy ideas and recommendations proposed, mainly pleading for the largest possible scope of diversity maintenance, but still sustainable in terms of “learning to live with disagreements”. This form can be secured, according to Kai Brand-Jacobsen, by the ethical-political principles of independence, non-exploitation, well-being to all beings and struggling for peace everywhere: by enabling thousands and thousands creators and masters of dialogue, by bringing representative quotas for women to the natural 50%, and last, but not least, by the Council of Europe which is recommended to bring a resolution banning the production or proliferation the weapons of mass destruction. Education seem to be the best place to teach and learn cultural diversity. This primarily concerns the interpretations of history, which cannot be the only tool. As Raj Isar pointed out, history must be interpreted in a polyphonic way – and there is no neutral view of history, as Soheib Bencheikh put in. Also, history must be thought and learned in situ, at the spot, there where people enjoy or suffer its deeds. Media is another powerful place of cultural diversity information processing and learning. Mette Newth remarked that process of learning about cultural diversity must reach adults, for they constitute the mainstream opinion. This learning must be defined both in terms of rights and duties. Citizen have the right and the duty to know about others and about differences. Geza Tesseny conveyed briefly “auditur et altera pars”. It must become habitual for us to listen to those who dislike or disagree with our assumptions the most, for they must be a part of the spectrum of dialogue. Dialogue is incomplete and its results diminished, unless those who stay on the verge of acceptance are retrieved into the field of discourse. Perhaps, the real new beginning of Europe’s learning about the Other is the recognition or realisation that Islam is diverse in itself. Soheib Bencheikh demonstrated that the westernised part of the Muslim population is still part of the Muslim world, and it is necessary to understand that the same thing applies to Muslims elsewhere, i.e., that Muslims who accept some aspects of the Western culture are not “traitors” to Islam. Finally, Hassan Hanafi warned against the double face of Europe, that it mainly behaves pluralistically and democratically at home, but not so abroad. There, it rather shows a “monolithic” face. This rapporteur takes this message as the motto or even conclusion of the session. Indeed, we may plead for the better face of Europe to be extended far beyond its present cultural and geopolitical boundaries of self-determination. It is the universalistic core of the idea of Europe which seems to be most acceptable to all of the others who want to be either good European neighbours or her future citizens or, who knows, member-countries. MONDAY 7 OCTOBER 2002 09.00 Registration of Participants 10.30 OPENING SESSION Addresses : Mr Walter SCHWIMMER
Mr Hidekazu YAMAGUCHI
Ambassador Gérard PHILIPPS
11.15 Coffee break 11.4 OPENING SESSION (second part) Chair : Mr José-Maria BALLESTER Presentation of the Action Plan of the Intercultural Dialogue and Conflict Prevention Project
Introduction to the Colloquy by General Rapporteur
12.15 General debate 13.00 Lunch break 14.30 WORKING SESSION 1 : «THE MEANING OF CULTURAL CONFLICT» Chair : Mrs Naima BALIC
Rapporteur : Mr Rainer NOLTE Introductory statements : . Professor Johan GALTUNG
15.00 Special contributions : . Mr Selim BESLAGIC
16.00 Coffee break 16.30-18.00 General debate 18.30 Reception TUESDAY 8 OCTOBER 2002 09.30 WORKING SESSION 2 : « BUILDING BRIDGES BETWEEN RELIGIOUS COMMUNITIES » Chair : Ambassador Gérard PHILIPPS
Rapporteur : Professor Tony GALLAGHER Introductory statements :
10.00 Special contributions : . Mr Soheib El Hocine BENCHEIKH
11.15 Coffee break 11.30-13.00 General debate 13.00 Lunch break 14.30 WORKING SESSION 3 :« THE CHALLENGE OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY » Chair : Ambassador Johannes C. LANDMAN
Rapporteur : Professor Vjeran KATUNARIC Introductory statements : . Mrs France LEBON
15.00 Special contributions : . Professor Kai BRAND-JACOBSEN
16.00 Coffee break 16.30-18.00 General debate WEDNESDAY 9 OCTOBER 2002 09.30 PRESENTATION OF CONCLUSIONS Chair: Ambassador Lana GOGOBERIDZE
Presentation of conclusions : . General Rapporteur
. Rapporteur of Working Session 1
. Rapporteur of Working Session 2
. Rapporteur of Working Session 3
Discussion 11.00 Coffee break 11.30 CLOSING SESSION The Way Forward
12.00 END OF THE COLLOQUY Mr. Dr. Aly AYMAN (E)
Mrs Sylvie BACH (F)
Ms Naima BALIĆ (E)
Mr James BARNETT (E)
Mr. Marios BEGZOS (E)
Mrs Elisabeth BEHR-SIGEL (F)
Mr Soheib El Hocine BENCHEIKH (F)
Mr Mickael BEN DAVID (F)
Mr Selim BEŠLAGIĆ (E)
Mr Goran BEXELL (E)
Ms Manjeet BIRK (E)
Dr Cézar BîRZEA (E) M. Louis BLOCH (F)
Mr. Jean Fred BOURQUIN (F) apologies
Ms Odile CHENAL (F)
Ms Penny CHERNS (E)
Mr Serge CWAJGENBAUM (F) apologies
Père Patrick DESBOIS (F)
Professor Silvo DEVETAK (E)
Mr Gérard DOREL (F) apologies
Mrs Janine ELKOUBY (F) apologies
Professor Mahdi ELMANDJRA (E)
Professor Bruno ETIENNE (F)
Mrs Anne-Marie FRANCHI (F) apologies
Professeur Franck FREGOSI (F)
Ms Olivia FUCHS (E)
Professor Tony GALLAGHER (E)
Professor Johan GALTUNG (E)
Mrs Ghislaine GLASSON DESCHAUMES (F)
Professor Viacheslav GLAZICHEV (E)
Chanoine Alexander GORDON (E)
Dr Maria HADJIPAVLOU (E) apologies
Ms Ajsa HADZIBEGOVIC (E)
Ms Karine HAKOBYAN (E)
Dr. Hassan HANAFI (E)
Mr. Florian HAUG (E)
Mrs Margareta HAUSCHILD (F)
Mrs Yuki IMURA (F) Mr Yudhishthir Raj ISAR (E/F)
Mr Nobuhiro ITO (F)
Mme Clothilde JACOB (F)
Mrs Brigitte KAHN (F)
Professor Vjeran KATUNARIC (E)
Père Jan KERKHOFS sj (F)
Ms Diana KHADEM (E)
Prof. Dr. Ekkehart KRIPPENDORFF (E)
Dr Renate LAVICKA (E)
Mrs France LEBON (F)
Mr Philippe LEVALLOIS (F)
Mahamandaleshwar Paramhans Swami MAHESHWARANANDA (E)
Professor Rusmir MAHMUTĆEHAJIĆ (E)
Mrs Thérèse MANGOT (F)
Professeur Jean-Bernard MARIE (F)
Mr. Carlos MARTÍN-RAMÍREZ (E)
Professor Raymond MENGUS (F)
Dr Rossen MILEV (E)
Mrs Barbara MOTZNEY (F)
Mr Alain MOUCHOUX (F) Mr Ray MULLAN (E)
Professor Dr Masanori NAITO (E) Professor Radmila NAKARADA (E) apologies
Mr Necil NEDİMOĞLU (E)
Ms Mette NEWTH (E)
Mr Rainer NOLTE (E)
Chôjun Tzunemaro OTANI (F)
Mrs Elisabeth PARMENTIER (F)
Professor Igor PELLICCIARI (E)
Mr Jean PETAUX (F)
Mr Graham PHAUP (E)
Mr Colin PRESCOD (E)
Mr Jadranko PRLIC (E) apologies
S. E. M. Abolfazl RAHNAMA (E)
Professeur Tariq RAMADAN (F) apologies
Ms. Amila RAMOVIC (E)
S. E. l’Évêque Emmanuel de RÉGHION (F) apologies
Dr Norman RICHARDSON (E)
Professor Raül ROMEVA (E)
M. Gilbert ROOS (F)
Frau Dr Ursula RÖPER (E)
M. Francis ROSENSTIEL (F)
Mr. Calin RUS (E)
Dr Frank SCHILLING (E)
Mr Abdellatif SETTI (F)
Rabbi Awraham SOETENDORP (E)
Mr Veton SURROI (E)
Mr Géza TĒSSENYI (E)
Professor Constantin VON BARLOEWEN (E/F)
Professor Olga VORKUNOVA (E)
Professor Patrick WATIER (F)
Mr Raymond WEBER (F)
Mr Hidekazu YAMAGUCHI (F)
Delegation from the League of Arab States 36, rue Fortuny, F – 75017 PARIS, Web : www.leagueofarabstates.org Ms Samia BIBARS (F)
Mr Mohamed Hassan CHABOU (F)
Mr Dr Nassif HITTI (F)
Mrs Mouna Samir KAMEL (F)
Delegation from the Organisation of Islamique Conferences PO Box: 178, Jeddah-21411, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia M. l’Ambassadeur Ahmed GHAZALI
M. l’Ambassadeur Atta AL MANANE
M. Mohamed BENADELJALIL
M. Ali BELARBI
Committee of Minsters of the Council of Europe M. l’Ambassadeur Gérard PHILIPPS (F)
Ambassador Lana GOGOBERIDZE (F)
Ambassador Johannes C. LANDMAN (E)
* * * Mr Ognyan CHAMPOEV
Dr. Jadranka CIPOT STOJANOVIC
Ms Jasna DERVIS (F)
Monsignor Paul Richard GALLAGHER (E)
Ambassador Dr Igor GAON (E)
Ms Karitas H. GUNNARSDÓTTIR (E)
M. l'Ambassadeur Neven MADEY (E)
Mr Michel PEETERMANS (F)
Mrs Növber VEÇHÏ (F)
Ambassador Dr. WEGENER
Participants from the Steering Committee for Culture Mrs Roberta ALBEROTANZA (F)
Ms Vesna ČOPIČ (E)
Ms Daiva DAPSIENE (E)
Ms Antoaneta A. HANSTEEN (E)
Ms Saadat KHALAFOVA (E)
Mrs Zoé KAZAZAKI (F)
Mrs Božena KRÍŽIKOVÁ (F)
Ms Sevda MAMEDALIYEVA (E)
Mr Alf MODVAR (E)
Ms Eleni NIKITA (E)
Mrs Viktória PÁLÓCZI-HORVÁTH (E+F)
Ms Pirkko RAINESALO (E)
Ms Gabrielle SZABÓ-PAP (E)
Ms Antra TORGANE (E)
Ms Oksana VASSYLIEVA (E)
Mr Peter VAN ZAANE (E)
Mme Carolle VON INS (F)
COUNCIL OF EUROPE E-mail address: first name.name@coe.int Secretariat General Mr Walter SCHWIMMER
Private Office of the Secretary General Ms Elda MORENO Directorate General of Political Affairs (DGAP) Mr Marc SCHEUER
Ms Fifi BENABOUD
Ms Juta GÜTZKOW
Mme Claudia LUCIANI Mr Max GILBERT Mme Paula LUCIANO-PALMIERI Integrated Project 2 : Responses to Violence in everyday Life in a Democratic Society Mr Jean-Pierre TITZ
Mr Lauri SIVONEN
Integrated Project 1: Making democratic institutions work Mr Michael REMMERT
Secretariat of the Parliamentary Assembly Mr C. GRAYSON
Office of the Human Rights Commissioner Mr Alexandre GUESSEL Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe Mr Ulrich BOHNER, directeur exécutif adjoint du Congrès Directorate General of Human Rights (DG II) European Commission against Racism and Intolerance Ms Isil GACHET
Ms Heike KLEMPA
Equality Division Mrs Ólöf ÓLAFSDÓTTIR-ERGÜN
Ms Karen PALISSER
Directorate General of Social Cohesion (DG III) Mrs Gabriella BATTAINI-DRAGONI apologies
Directorate General of Education, Culture and Heritage, Youth and Sport (DGIV) Mr Bendik RUGAAS
Directorate of Education and Higher Education Mr Gabriele MAZZA apologies
Mr James WIMBERLEY
Mrs Ólöf ÓLAFSDÓTTIR-ERGÜN Ms Alison CARDWELL Ms Carole REICH Directorate of Youth and Sport
Mr Michael INGLEDOW
Directorate of Culture and Heritage – Organiser of the Expert Colloquy Mr José-Maria BALLESTER
Mme Vera BOLTHO
Mr Domenico RONCONI
Ms Kathrin MERKLE
Ms Madalena GROSSMAN
Intercultural Dialogue and Conflict Prevention Project Mrs Simone BERNHARDT
Assistants Ms Camille DESERT
Translators Mr Jean SLAVIK
| ||
Note Note |
Note Note |
Note Note |
Note Note |
Note Note |
Note Note |
Note Note |
Note Note |
Note Note |
Note Note |
Note Note |
Note Note |
Note Note |
Note Note |
Note Note |
Note Note |
Note Note |
Note Note |
Note Note |
Note Note |
Note Note |
Note Note |
Note Note |
Note Note |
Note Note |
Note Note |
Note Note |
Note Note |
Note Note |
Note Note |
Note Note |
Note Note |
Note Note |
Note Note |
Note Note |
Note Note |
Note Note |
Note Note |
Note Note |
Note Note |
Note Note |
Note Note |
Note Note |
Note Note |
Note Note |
Note Note |
Note Note |
Note Note |
Note Note |
Note Note |
Note Note |
Note Note |
Note Note |