Coexistence of Religions – Values and
Tolerance
7th Annual North South Europe Economic
Forum (ANSEEF), Oslo, 28 September 2006
Excellencies, ladies and
gentlemen,
It is indeed a pleasure for me to
welcome you all to Norway and to Oslo. On behalf of Prime Minister
Stoltenberg, the patron of this event, it is an honour for me to
represent the Norwegian Government here today – and I am delighted
that Oslo has been chosen as venue.
I would like to extend a warm
thank-you to the Chair, Dr Gramke, to the director and staff of the
Institute for European Affairs (INEA), to the founder of the annual
conference, Dr Tara, to the Norwegian Institute of International
Affairs (NUPI) for organising it, and to the generous sponsors for
making it possible.
It should come as no surprise that
a Norwegian Foreign Minister applauds the choice of Oslo as venue
for this conference.
But let me argue my case: tomorrow
the main topic will focus on politics and economics, with an
emphasis on the High North – which is in fact the key strategic
priority of the Norwegian Government.
The beautiful surroundings we are
in right now – high above Oslo – are around the 60
th> parallel. To most Europeans we are already well
on the way to the North. But the High North is defined as north of
the 70
th> parallel – considerably further north of most
European horizons.
It is an area of Northern Europe
where important developments pertaining to energy, management of
living resources, industry, the environment and climate change are
unfolding. It is a region full of opportunities and challenges. For
Norway, both as a coastal state with jurisdiction over waters six
times the size of its mainland area, and as neigbour to Russia. And
for the rest of Europe depending as it does – as we all do – on
vital renewable and non-renewable resources that are found in
plenty in the High North.
But then there is another important
theme on our agenda, and it is this that has inspired my
intervention today – the coexistence of religions and the
importance of values and tolerance in the age of globalisation.
This issue is a relevant one in every setting in today’s
interconnected world. I have been foreign minister now for nearly a
year, and I see how this issue is emerging and re-emerging on the
agenda week after week. Indeed, it may be prove to be the most
important issue of our time, the test of our resolve to secure
global peace and cooperation.
*****
The coexistence of religions is a
fundamental challenge in European countries, and in countries all
over the world.
But we should bear in mind that the
positive aspects of coexistence, the mutual, fruitful enrichment of
society that continues to take place across religious and ethnic
dividing lines rarely reach the headlines.
But these positive aspects exist.
They are happening every day. Seen in a global context, successful
coexistence may be the rule rather than the exception.
The media, however, seizes upon the
incidents of tension, intolerance, and even discrimination and
violence. And these are real. They are many and they are worrying.
And they are close to us, and we need to deal with them.
Many politicians and researchers in
the 20
th> century thought that modernisation and
globalisation would cause religion to fade away, and society to
become more and more secular.
This does not seem to be the
case.
We see a growing interest in and
involvement in religion. We see that religion is becoming
increasingly important in the political sphere.
What people believe in has become
politics. How people practice their religion has become politics.
And in some regimes, politics equals religion.
Globalisation means that people
from different cultures and religions meet, that different
traditions and values are exposed to each other, often in real
time, often with brutal effects.
But let us not forget that it is
not religions that meet. It is people. People with a faith, a
dedication and a vision that is inspired or legitimised by
religion.
It is not, therefore – at the
outset – religion that is the problem. It is intolerance, exclusion
of others, discrimination, prejudice and xenophobia that we must
stand up to.
And I belong to those who see the
concept of “the clash of civilisations” as a misconception. As Dr
Tara alluded to, the greatest challenges are rather to be found
within civilisations, in the conflicts between different groups of
the same religion.
All religions are potential bearers
of peace, reconciliation and reflection. We need to find more ways
of utilising this potential.
As Rev. Cannon Dr Trond Bakkevig
wrote in a recent article: ”Dialogue between religions is
absolutely necessary to enable religions to see themselves from
others’ perspectives. Religious dialogue promotes a healthy
examination of one’s own beliefs, and makes it easier to work
together for peace and justice.”
And equally important – it is us
human beings who are responsible for bringing about hatred, fear
and violence.
We know this. The recent shots
fired at the Jewish synagogue here in Oslo have shocked us deeply.
We count now on the police to investigate the incident and ensure
that the perpetrators are brought to justice. And we must count on
the overwhelming majority to denounce terror, violence and
hatred.
This is our message to the Jewish
community – and to all religious communities: your safety is our
safety – Oslo is our common city – a city of inclusion. The attack
is deplorable and totally unacceptable. And it demonstrates how
important it is for us to fight extremism and violence.
The challenge goes further. With
renewed tension in the Middle East we need to highlight more
clearly that the politics of Israel and the religion of Judaism are
two separate issues. Jews around the world must not be held
responsible for the situation in the Middle East.
Similarly, we cannot hold Muslims
responsible for the acts performed by radical Islamists.
Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia are two faces of intolerance that
our democratic society must fight to the end.
It is a challenging task to raise
awareness of this complex and multifaceted issue, and to find ways
of engaging people in meaningful discussions.
*****
Focusing on the European
experience, we have to acknowledge that some citizens still see
their societies as ethnically and culturally one-dimensional. I
believe some in Norway do.
This makes the integration of
religious and cultural minorities more complicated.
We see that some groups, even
political parties, have demanded that minorities adopt all the
values and traditions of the majority. Minorities are held
collectively responsible for the opinions and actions of a few
individuals. And, what we now see more frequently, is that groups
are often defined according to religious beliefs.
Thus every Muslim is expected to
condemn the violent acts of the Islamist extremists. And every Jew
is held responsible for the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land.
Both approaches are wrong; both approaches put people in boxes.
It is easy for stereotypes to arise
also in multifaith and multicultural societies. Stereotypes are
simplifications of reality. And they become dangerous when they
take the form of unfounded, hostile, black-and-white images.
We must make everybody feel that
they belong and – at the same time – that they are able to preserve
their religious and cultural identity.
If we fail to give all our citizens
the same opportunities, we will see an increase in social
inequality and injustice. We need to bring every individual in our
communities on board and make them feel that they have a stake in
society.
Many Muslim communities in Europe,
Norway included, are at the lower end of the socio-economic scale
with lower living standards, less participation in higher education
and greater hurdles to access the labour market.
At the same time, cultural ties
within these communities are also making the barriers to
integration higher rather than lower.
There is more bonding inside these
communities than bridging with other communities.
These are structural challenges and
we need to address them. This is a complex task and goes beyond the
focus of my address.
But one thing I am certain of:
finding more successful approaches to integration is the most
pressing challenge for our societies.
Looking beyond our own societies,
we see how the process of globalisation can easily lead to greater
polarisation.
In the rhetoric of the war on
terror, and other battles and struggles, of the perceived “clash of
civilisations”, it is the extremes that dominate. We are being
divided into “civilisations”, into “us and them”, “the good and the
evil”, “those who are with us and those who are against us”,
“friends and enemies”.
So, what opportunities do we have
for peaceful coexistence?
I believe the key tool in our
globalised world is dialogue. Dialogue based on a firm
understanding of values, human rights and mutual obligations.
Some say that dialogue and
compromise are signs of weakness.
I strongly disagree. I believe that
dialogue and compromise are essential if we are to meet the
challenges of the 21st century.
Opening a dialogue does not mean
giving up conflicting principles or values. It is a way of managing
fundamental differences. Dialogue can be seen as a value – as a
success – in its own right. And dialogue and engagement are ancient
tools of diplomacy – ancient and at the same time modern. Those who
believe solely in military intervention are just ancient – and not
modern at all.
Earlier this year – as we all know
– emotions ran high following the publication of cartoons of the
Prophet Mohammed. The episode challenged us to reflect on the
following questions.
How do we exercise freedom of
expression – a key human right – while respecting the diversity of
our multicultural world?
Can we accept restrictions or
limitations on a fundamental human right?
What are the long-term consequences
of being insensitive to the culture, faith and emotions of
others?
And what does tolerance really
mean? Can my reaction to what I perceive as your intolerance come
across as intolerant itself?
These questions apply to all of us:
representatives of governments, of the media, and people who
identify themselves within or outside a religion. For many people
in my country, it was a big surprise that Muslims reacted so
strongly to the cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed. And vice versa,
many Muslims could not understand how anyone could commit such an
outrageous act as to print the cartoons.
Quickly the debate turned towards
the dangerous dichotomy of “us and them” – “we and the others”.
We learned that we did not need to
apply a global perspective to grasp this polarisation. We did not
need to go to the Middle East or even half as far to meet
reactions.
The reactions were unfolding in the
midst of our own society.
Norwegians of the Muslim faith –
many of them born in Norway, educated in Norway – stood up and said
that they too felt deeply insulted. In our own language, with
reference to our own cultural code, they explained their inner
feelings.
That made us ask: How do we handle
this? Should we print the images? And if not, why not? And either
way – what is really at stake here?
At the height of the controversy
following the publication of the cartoons, we discovered that we
already had an important channel of dialogue. Two religious
organisations – the Islamic Council in Norway and the Church
Council of Ecumenical and International Relations – sat down
together to address the issue.
The dialogue had a considerable
impact.
First, it enhanced respect across
potentially tense and divisive lines.
Second, it seized the middle
ground.
And third, it challenged the
dominance of the extremes.
The purpose of the dialogue was not
to agree, since it makes little sense to seek to agree on the value
of one faith versus another. But the two organisations identified
some common principles which they could both agreed on the
“bridges” leading to common ground and a joint platform. They
sought to find out how to manage differences, how to be sensitive
to the deeply held beliefs of others. They published a common
statement that highlighted the importance of religious feelings and
underlined that freedom of expression is a fundamental right – but
one that must be exercised with respect and wisdom.
The basis for this wisdom is found
in many of Europe’s schools and intellectuals. For example, the
philosopher Jürgen Habermas, has given us important insights into
how we can make democracy function in a multicultural and
multireligious society.
Habermas warns against
underestimating the importance of religion in a democracy. He
encourages people to be tolerant and to respect the integrity of
religious people.
At the same time, Habermas makes it
clear that everybody must be able to participate in the public
debate on an equal basis, regardless of their religious or secular
standpoint. This makes it possible to agree upon common principles
that are universal and binding.
Both religious leaders and ordinary
members of religious communities must be encouraged to take part in
the democratic debate. We must create and strengthen arenas for
this debate, at both the formal and the informal level. And for
this to happen – in any given country or community – it is vital
that we all speak the same language, that we have channels of
communication.
Then, there are those who believe
that we should have more restrictions on what can be expressed. I
am not convinced.
Blasphemy laws are still in force
in many countries, including in Norway. But my country’s blasphemy
laws have not been invoked since the 1930s, and to be frank, they
do not seem to be an appropriate way to approach the cultural and
religious issues of the 21
st> century. They were originally drawn up to protect
the religious establishment – the church in the case of Norway –
more than religious individuals.
Besides, blasphemy laws can easily
be misused to silence critical questions about religion and
authority. As we know from history, such laws have been used in
Europe to persecute individuals with dissenting beliefs.
There can be no real freedom of
religion without freedom of expression. They are interdependent,
and it is therefore wrong at the outset to present them as
conflicting rights.
We do, however, have to ask
ourselves: Is it reasonable to refrain from expressing certain
views out of consideration for religious sensitivities? How can we
ensure good, ethical journalism that upholds freedom of expression
while respecting religion and beliefs?
The right to freedom of expression
can only be restricted in connection with expressions that
encourage acts of violence or discrimination against individuals
who practice a particular religion.
Defamation of a religion might be
offensive to its followers, but it is not in itself a violation of
either national law or human rights. People must accept that their
religion’s values and doctrine may be criticised and
questioned.
What we must strive for in Europe
is a pluralist and tolerant environment for religious discussion.
This would give everyone the opportunity to counter criticisms and
engage in debate on values and ideas.
The media, obviously – as you will
be discussing later on – also have a key role to play. They have a
vital function as watchdog in any democratic society. The media
should enjoy freedom of expression and editorial freedom.
However, the media also share the
responsibility for fostering mutual understanding and respect in
our societies.
Presenting stereotypes in the form
of hostile images is counterproductive to our efforts to create
pluralist and tolerant societies.
It is important that the media –
together with civil society and governments – present a balanced
picture of reality. Governments and the media have different
responsibilities and duties. In a democratic society, we meet both
as common stakeholders and as opponents.
Governments have to state – and
re-state – the value of freedom of expression. And they must be
ready to fulfil their obligations to protect this right – not least
by ensuring safe working conditions for editors, journalists, and
photographers.
In short, we have the
responsibility to guarantee a free press. I believe our
responsibility also entails ensuring that everyone has the
opportunity to exercise freedom of expression.
But governments also have other key
responsibilities that are imposed by international law or national
regulations. We have a duty to protect all human rights in a fair
and equal manner.
We face this challenge both in
politics and in journalism. Few issues are one-dimensional. All
people, but especially those who are weak and vulnerable, have the
right to be protected, and not be subjected to harassment or
discrimination.
To a certain extent, such
protection can be secured by law. But not completely. Some of this
responsibility falls to us as individuals, and the messengers, the
media. Each and every one of us must endeavour to act with
sensitivity and wisdom.
It is a positive sign that these
topics are now on the global agenda for exchange and debate.
Three weeks ago Norway co-hosted a
Global Inter-Media Dialogue together with Indonesia, in Bali. The
idea was to invite media representatives to discuss tolerance and
freedom of expression. Almost 80 journalists took part. The
conference proved to be a success, first of all because the media
representatives found the meeting necessary, useful and
inspiring.
The preparations were challenging
and highlighted the importance of engaging moderate forces in
dialogue. Norway and Indonesia plan to continue the cooperation,
and hope to co-host a follow up meeting in Norway next year.
****
Dear friends,
Europe – both in north and south –
is regarded as a stable continent.
But its history is far from
harmonious - and it is easy to forget that the Europe we live in
today, where many different states, cultures and languages interact
quite peacefully and benefit from one another, is in fact a major
achievement – and a fairly recent achievement.
The European continent is well
organised, it is safe and secure – and it is a continent of
interdependency.
In this context, the European Union
has played, and continues to play, a vital role in defining and
developing common ground on which all Europeans can participate and
prosper. Two and a half years ago, the EU grew dramatically with
the addition of more than 100 million people from Central and
Eastern Europe. Thanks to the EU – and to some extent thanks to
NATO – this transition has been managed with care and
inclusion.
Norway is not a member of the EU,
but we are ardent Europeans. Through our participation in the
European Economic Area (EEA), we are an integral part of the
Internal Market, of the enlarged EU. And we contribute to and
benefit from social and economic harmonisation across the
union.
Through the EEA and Norwegian
Financial Mechanisms we have taken on a particular responsibility
for enhancing solidarity, opportunity and cooperation in Europe.
These mechanisms make available 1.17 billion euro over a five-year
period to support projects in a wide variety of sectors.
The aim is to reduce social and
economic disparities in Europe and to support new EU member states
in their efforts to participate fully in the Internal Market.
Tomorrow – as I said – your focus
will be on the High North of Europe, an emerging and fascinating
region, a region of great promise.
There is an extensive Northern
European cooperation covering a broad geographic area: from the
European Arctic and sub-Arctic to the southern shores of the Baltic
Sea, including the countries in its vicinity; from the north-west
of Russia in the east, to Iceland and Greenland in the west.
The EU’s Northern Dimension, in
which Norway, Iceland and Russia are partners, is an important
political framework in this respect. This framework will change in
2007, when the Northern Dimension becomes a common endeavour, and
the EU countries and the Northern Dimension countries become
partners on an equal footing.
The broad geographic perspective of
the Northern Dimension – as well as the visionary regional project
of the Euro-Arctic Barents Cooperation launched in 1993 – reflect
the importance of seeing the challenges and opportunities in this
vast area in an overall European – well, even global – context. For
Norway it is important that cross-border issues related to the
environment, nuclear safety, natural resources, social welfare and
health care are included as priority sectors.
*****
To conclude – dear friends – it is
interesting to note that foreign policy today extends from the
management of natural resources in northern waters – to the
management of religious diversity, faith and cultural pluralism in
a globalised world. It is all about vital resources and basic
values.
Once again we are reminded that
foreign policy is not about taking the path of least resistance; it
is about striving to reach high ideals, paving the way for freedom,
human rights, democracy and justice – and for global
understanding.
