Building Bridges between the Muslim
World and the West
Address to the Oxford Centre for Islamic
Studies 2 December 2004
Check against delivery
Professor Nizami,
Dear friends,
I would like to start by thanking
Professor Nizami for the invitation to speak here today. We are
both members of the World Economic Forum’s Council of 100 Leaders,
which has launched the West-Islamic World Dialogue. The dialogue is
committed to building bridges between the Muslim world and the West
by providing a meeting place and a channel for inter-cultural and
cross-political understanding.
At a meeting of the C-100 group
Professor Nizami asked me to present my views on these issues from
the point of view of a Norwegian politician.
The reasons why we should build
bridges between the two worlds – the West and the Muslim worlds –
are obvious. There is no lack of screaming headlines, of
sensational media reports highlighting real and imagined conflicts
between representatives of these two worlds. The issue is high on
the international agenda.
Our societies have become more
ethnically and culturally mixed than ever before. But at same time
the friction and
clashes between and within our societies are more serious
and far-reaching than ever before.
Violence and terror have always
been employed by unscrupulous leaders or groups for religious,
cultural or political ends. Today, it is most often extremist
Islamic organisations that use these weapons. In my view, the
growth of radical Islamism – as a political extremist movement – is
one of the greatest obstacles to improved relations between the
Western and the Muslim worlds. According to Osama bin Laden and
other leaders, al Qaeda is motivated by a tradition of
jihad to defend the faith against non-believers. They see
themselves as engaged in a holy, world-wide struggle against a
corrupt and oppressive enemy, the West.
Nothing can justify the use of
terror. No cause, however worthy, can excuse the killing of
innocent people. In our globalised age, home affairs and foreign
affairs can rarely be separated, threats know no borders, security
is indivisible. International terrorism is a threat to the security
of all of us.
September 11
th> was a political earthquake that shook a whole
world. The aftershocks are still with us. The attack on the Twin
Towers, the terrorist acts in Madrid and the violence in the
streets of Amsterdam have dealt a severe blow to the relations
between the Muslim world and the West.
The attacks seem to confirm our
worst fears that radical Muslims want to target our societies and
values. Thus in the West some people now have the idea that the
Muslim world is “after us” –
and vice versa. This idea is one of the main causes of
suspicion, exclusion and racism – all of them widening the gap
between the Western and Muslim worlds.
On the
other hand, in my discussions with Muslim leaders, when
they mention for instance the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,
Afghanistan or Iraq, it strikes me that many of them feel that the
Western world is out to control, harm or attack
them.
Many Muslims and Westerners
do have different perspectives on the world. As a result,
they tend to interpret events differently. Cultural stereotypes add
to this problem. The ordinary Muslim tends to regard the West as
corrupt, decadent and immoral, driven by an urge for power and
control. The people of the West tend to regard the Islamic world as
autocratic, violent and fundamentalist, lacking in civil liberties.
A Norwegian television debate the other night, for example, raised
the question: “Are Muslims a threat to Western values?”
Anxiety and
fear create
hatred. Fuelled by hatred, we start thinking in terms of
black and white, we start classifying people and countries as
‘good’ or ‘evil’, we divide the world into ‘us’ and ‘them’. We stop
searching for common ground.
This situation calls for
political leadership in both the Muslim and the Western
world.
Together we need to combat the
misapprehension that Islam and terrorism are political twins. We
should strive for a better understanding of Islam and the Muslim
world among ourselves and focus on what we share – rather than
where we diverge.
We need to examine how we – Western
societies – can enhance our co-operation with the Muslim world –
how we can work together with Muslim countries to address their
challenges.
We must develop efficient means for
dealing also with the underlying conditions that foster extremism.
At a conference hosted by Norway on the root causes of terrorism in
New York last September the following factors were identified as
contributing to the growth of terrorism: lack of democracy, human
rights and the rule of law, economic disparities, non-integration
of opposition groups, extreme ideologies, and a tradition of
political violence, dictatorship or occupation.
Samuel P. Huntington has described
the divide between the Western and the Muslim worlds as a “clash of
civilisations”. This is a description – and an attitude – I do not
share. It completely overlooks the ties that exist between the
Muslim world and the West.
It is, of course, not necessary to
point to this fact at the Centre, but we should remember that
Christianity and Islam build on the same religious tradition – a
tradition that originated in the Middle East. We should remember
that the Middle East has been a meeting place for religions, for
trade and for political thinkers for centuries. We should remember
that the Muslim world has made many significant contributions to
our own culture. Where would the West be without the insights into
philosophy, mathematics and science we have gained from Arab
civilisation?
Our common intellectual heritage –
our common values – are closely interwoven – this cannot be
described as a clash of civilisations.
However, the divide
is there. And we have to recognise that there
are certain substantial differences between the two
civilisations. – For example, in relation to
women’s rights and women’s role in society.
But my main point is that what I
would call a “clash of perceptions” – or perhaps even more
precisely: a clash between two stereotypes –
amplifies those differences that do exist.
We must therefore challenge these
stereotypes. Muslim intellectuals have cautioned against regarding
“the other world” as a single, monolithic object. I very much agree
with them.
But this
diversity is seen – by some – as a threat to their way of
life.
The murder of Theo van Gogh by a
radical Islamist is the most recent demonstration of the collision
between
different perceptions of fundamental values. The murder
has been linked to van Gogh’s controversial film about Islamic
culture. It raised an outcry, but also a backlash. Now it is
Muslims who are being targeted in mosques and schools in the
Netherlands. Like the Dutch Prime Minister, I believe it is totally
unacceptable to express one’s opinion in the form of murder or any
other form of violence. Such acts only serve to aggravate
confrontation and xenophobia.
In the Norwegian debate following
the murder of van Gogh an Islamic leader has stated that he
understands the killer’s motive. I believe this highlights the need
for strengthened dialogue with Muslim communities – among other
things to explain the importance of freedom of expression as a
basic human right deeply rooted in Western societies.
There is now an urgent need to
search for common ground that will unite instead of dividing. But
if the West is to succeed in gaining the confidence of the Muslim
world, we have to act decisively at several different levels.
We can only succeed if the majority
of the Muslim world takes part in the process – and only if we are
able to engage the
moderate forces of Islam – that is the organisations,
groups and leaders that reject the use of violence as a political
weapon. This is a point I want to emphasise; our fight against
international terrorism will not be successful unless the Western
world establishes alliances with the vast majority of moderate
Muslims. And the Western world will never be able to create such
alliances unless we – the West – show respect for Islam.
I would like to make
three main points in connection with
dialogues.
Firstly, it seems to me that much of the West-Islamic
confrontation derives from the idea that the two cultures have
different sets of values. – Or at least from the idea that
the two cultures put different emphasis on the
same set of values.
Again, we must admit that
there are differences. This is a fact we cannot ignore. We
have to acknowledge – and respect – these dissimilarities.
Based on this recognition we need
to search also for the common ground there also is. In fact both
the Western and Muslim cultures are based on
values we all share. Human dignity, the sacredness of
life, the pursuit of peace, tolerance.
Only by respecting the fundamental
value of the individual – of every man and woman – can we create a
vibrant society. I believe such societies are based on – and foster
– free, independent, creative and responsible individuals.
We are united by our belief in
universal human rights. This belief is a global instrument
for mutual understanding. The fundamental freedoms that are
inalienable rights, that form the basis of democracies, also
contribute to viable, and not least to
prosperous societies.
Thus, the belief in universal human
rights represents common ground – a joint platform. But we all know
there are in fact regimes whose human rights policies are totally
unacceptable. These repressive regimes do not seem to recognize the
value of the individual human being. They do not allow religious
practices outside those of the official religion, their law is in
conflict with women’s rights, they allow children to be exploited
and they persecute minorities for their views. Those regimes do not
respect the set of values laid down by the universal human rights.
– Which makes it more difficult to build bridges.
If the belief in universal human
rights is to function as a tool for dialogue between the Western
and Muslim worlds it has to be respected and protected.
A vibrant society is characterised
by
tolerance and pluralism. Democratic systems exhibit a high
degree of tolerance of the views of minorities. Each citizen – each
group – has the right to speak out, to be heard and participate,
without being rejected or oppressed. The task of every political
system is to represent the views and opinions of all its members –
and to form its policies in the name of respect, tolerance and
pluralism. And not only this – governing bodies should always
strive to allow the individual as much freedom of choice – room for
manoeuvre – as possible. Without the
free exchange of information, opinions and ideas, debate
on the future development of our societies will not be inclusive –
and it will not be productive. Without
freedom of expression, there can be no real criticism.
Education, freedom of expression, free media and political
pluralism through political parties and interest groups are all
essential elements in any process of democracy building.
In this connection I feel I should
mention last year’s UNDP report on the situation in the Arab world.
The report called attention to the need for further
democratisation and for
improving the status of women in Arab countries.
But my point here is that in all
the efforts to promote cultural and political dialogue between the
Muslim and Western worlds the point of departure must be that
“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and
rights.”
Secondly, many values are rooted in
religious belief. Religion plays a significant role in
many societies. Religion can be a source of conflict – or a vehicle
for understanding. People talk about the steady growth of
secularisation – but I am not so sure about this. Faith will always
be an important part of many people’s lives.
Religion is high on the
international political agenda. September 11
th >gave the world the impression that religion is a
major source of conflict. The idea of Islam as a force against
peace and stability became prevalent in many parts of society.
But often religious differences are
not in fact the underlying cause of a conflict. They are frequently
misused for political purposes by extremists and populist
movements. These exploit our fear of “the other” – a fear that is
usually based on ignorance and misunderstanding. One could say that
they hijack religion, and use it to stir up unrest and promote
destabilisation. Combating this type of propaganda is a major
challenge. But it is a challenge we have to deal with.
One way of combating this use of
religion is to turn it around – to use religion as a means of
fostering deeper understanding. Faith can bring together – instead
of dividing.
By discussing similarities and
differences in an inter-religious dialogue, we can identify shared
values like respect for what is sacred, for human dignity and for
reconciliation.
By focusing on what unites us, we
can bring about a
dialogue of civilisations – to use an expression
introduced by Arab intellectuals.
More harmonious relations between
religions will not in themselves solve conflicts. But they can pave
the way for, peaceful, durable political solutions to
conflicts.
As a contribution to this dialogue
Norway is arranging an international conference on the role of
religion in peacemaking and reconciliation next February. The
purpose of the conference is to identify areas where religion can
play a role in conflict resolution – and to make concrete
suggestions for how to anchor peace and reconciliation more deeply
in religious beliefs and practices.
Building bridges between the Muslim
and Western worlds is also about building bridges
within our own societies. It is easy for us to forget this
idea in Norway – which is still a fairly homogenous society with a
Muslim population of about 100,000. Most western countries,
however, have much larger Muslim populations, and the Middle East
has Christian populations. Muslims in Europe and the Americas, and
Christians in the Middle East, can play a vital role in bridging
gaps within their own societies.
In Norway we have had an organised
dialogue going between different religious communities for the last
10-15 years. The dialogue has resulted in much greater trust
between religious leaders and in a number of joint projects such as
seminars and dialogue groups. The Norwegian media have also started
to show much more interest in religious issues and in the relations
between different faiths. One of the lessons the inter-religious
dialogue in Norway has taught us is that disagreement on
controversial issues such as family life, sexuality and relations
between the sexes often does not run along the religious divide,
but cuts across it.
Thirdly, a dialogue between religions must be combined
with a broad
political dialogue and a focus on
global economic co-operation. Because we must not neglect
to address the political, social and economic conditions that
foster the spread of extremism and conflict.
Poverty, injustice and lack of
political freedom generate frustration and hopelessness. Denying
people their civil liberties causes resentment. Slow economic
growth combined with demographic pressure results in high
unemployment. Large social disparities together with suppression of
dissent force public debate under ground. Any or all of these
situations are fertile breeding ground for extremism – in both the
Western and Moslem worlds.
To deal with this challenge we must
put
human dignity and
human rights at the centre of our societies. And the only
effective way to do this is for the Western and the Muslim worlds
to join forces. They must engage in a dialogue on reform and
economic development – a dialogue that takes account of the link
between good governance, a low level of corruption, political
stability and economic performance. We already have a good starting
point for dialogue here. Documents such as the UNDP Arab Human
Development Report, the Alexandria Declaration and the Tunis
Declaration of the League of Arab States give guidelines for how to
promote democracy, good governance, and social and economic reforms
in the Middle East. I’ll return to these questions later.
I have mentioned the importance of
global economic co-operation. The Western and Muslim worlds belong,
of course, to the same
global economy.
Globalisation is an inevitable part of our modern world.
It offers both opportunities and challenges. Globalisation can lead
to development and prosperity – since international trade is an
important engine of economic growth. But the forces of
globalisation can also result in significant economic disparities
and thus fuel instability and insecurity. Not all groups, regions
and countries are enjoying the social and economic benefits of this
process. This is an important point to remember when discussing the
gaps between the West and Moslem world – it enables us to see where
bridge-building is most urgently needed.
I believe that a sound foundation
for growth and welfare for all countries can only be built through
a system of fair trade rules developed through international
co-operation. A successful Doha Round of the World Trade
Organization can lift hundreds of millions of people out of
poverty.
Several Arab countries have now
entered into free trade agreements, but they still face
difficulties in exporting their goods. The most important obstacles
are no longer customs duties, but standards that they are unable to
meet. Many Arab economies are in great need of modernisation. The
recent reforms initiated by the Egyptian government are a positive
step in this regard.
Real economic development is only
possible in a democracy – a society where ordinary people have the
opportunity to fulfil their potential and make a contribution to
the development of their country.
Inclusive, open, pluralist
societies have economic accountability and transparent financial
management. These are vital to economic growth and also to a more
equitable distribution of wealth. Both these factors are essential
for long-term political stability in a society. Thus inclusive,
democratic societies fare better in the global economy. They are
essential to a market economy.
Democracy presupposes participation
– by everyone. It
rejects violence as a way of solving problems. It
maintains the structures that protect societies from a return to
violent conflict. It offers alternative channels for the expression
of dissent and difference. Thus democracy and respect for human
rights and the rule of law provide a peaceful means of resolving
conflicts of interest and settling disputes.
My point here is that
democratic institutions are an instrument for dialogue
between countries, societies, cultures and individuals – between
the Western and Muslim worlds. A closer political dialogue
should not be conducted at government level alone. It should
include civil society, the media, research institutions and other
important actors in society. This will ensure a public debate that
reflects a wide variety of views.
I would like to stress how
important it is that we hear the voices of
moderate Muslims in this debate – that they are given the
opportunity to put their ideas across and thus counter the spread
of radical forms of Islamism that promote violence. Moderate views
will
challenge the stereotypes on both sides.
In the Western world we tend to
assume that all Muslim countries and societies are alike. We tend
not to see the differences and variations between them in terms of
tradition, religious practices or current political system and
governance. Fixed ideas like this get in the way of communication.
It is vital
that we do not generalise. As you all know, the Islamic
world presents a varied and extremely complex picture.
Indonesia, for example, is the largest Muslim nation and
the fourth most populous country in the world. In September Susilo
Bambang Yudhoyono won Indonesia's first ever direct presidential
elections. I was impressed by the conduct of these elections – at
the local as well as at the parliamentary and presidential level.
They could be described as the first peaceful transition of power
in Indonesia's history.
I am also encouraged by Indonesian
initiative to support the moderate forces of Islam - as opposed to
the violent, militant attitudes that too often reach the headlines.
About 86 per cent of the 225 million inhabitants of Indonesia are
Muslim. The two most dominant Muslim organisations [Nadlathul Ulama
and Muhammadiyah] have 40 and 30 million members respectively. Both
are opposed to the introduction of Sharia law.
Even though the great majority of
Indonesian Muslims are moderate, there are groups inclined to
violence. The Bali bombings killed over 200 people. This action
confirmed the status of Jemaha Islamiyah as a militant Islamic
network. The Indonesian government has acted decisively against the
group, and Ba'asyir stands accused of being the leader of Jemaha
Islamiyah. Further, the president has wowed to tackle the problems
of extremism and and terrorism.
I am encouraged by the way the
Indonesian government has faced up to religious fanaticism and the
terrorist challenge, both through its own efforts and by
co-operating with other countries. Indonesia is crucial to the
stability of Southeast Asia. The country also acts a spokesperson
for developing nations in global institutions.
In
Afghanistan free democratic elections are an instrument
for increased stability and for a government’s true basis, its
legitimacy. Next week President Karzai will be formally inaugurated
as Afghanistan’s elected president. Indeed, the election is a
milestone in the democratic process in Afghanistan. The election
process was a success, it was surprisingly free of violence and
terrorist attacks, and the voter turnout was high. This was very
encouraging. It shows that the people of Afghanistan have a strong
desire for democracy and peace and that our efforts to assist them
along this path are bearing fruit.
In Africa, the conflict in
Sudan between the Islamic government in Khartoum and the
rebels in the South has been one of the world’s longest running
civil wars. It has left over two million people dead and four
million on the run. Hopefully, the talks under way in Kenya will
bring it to an end before long.
The conflict in the South has been
described as a conflict between an expanding Islamic state and
Christian and African cultures. Southern Sudan is depicted as a
”fault line” between these cultures. The example of Darfur,
however, shows that the conflicts are not only between Islamic and
other groups, but just as much between a strong centre and
marginalised regions throughout the country.
Thus the Sudan conflict is not so
much about religion as about issues of government. It is yet
another example of religion being used to legitimise a struggle for
power and economic control.
I have discussed the importance of
inter-religious dialogue, cultural and political dialogue – and of
economic reform. But mutual respect, understanding and tolerance do
not emerge or develop in a vacuum. Fortunately, there are a number
of concrete multilateral processes and initiatives that are already
going on between Western and Muslim countries. They are motivated
by a common desire to address major social, political, economic and
security issues and provide a sound framework for constructive
co-operation.
- First,
the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership, whose broad and
ambitious agenda seeks
to promote free trade and economic co-operation, aid and
development, peace and stability, and dialogue across cultures and
religions.
- Second
, the G-8 Partnership for Progress and a Common Future,
which is a forum for co-operation on economic development and
political reform. Norway was especially pleased that the G8
countries explicitly mentioned the need to focus on support for the
Palestinian Area.
- Third,
the Middle East Partnership Initiative, which aims to
strengthen co-operation between the Arab world and the United
States on economic issues, political development, education and
gender equality.
- Fourth
, the Council of 100 Leaders, of which Professor Nizami
and I are both members. Under the auspices of the World Economic
Forum the Council seeks to promote projects and partnerships that
strengthen intercultural relations.
- Fifth,
the MENA Initiative on Governance and Investment for
Development, which aims to strengthen economic, social and
human development in the Middle East by promoting investment and
good governance. It is a partnership between the OECD and
UNDP.
- Sixth,
the Istanbul Co-operation Initiative under the auspices of
NATO. At the NATO summit in Istanbul in June it was decided to
adopt the Istanbul Co-operation Initiative with selected countries
in
the broader Middle East in connection with NATO’s
Mediterranean Dialogue on security policy issues, which is between
NATO and Egypt, Israel, Mauritania, Morocco, Tunisia and Jordan..
Norway firmly supports NATO's decisions on these processes. We are
seeking to make the dialogue as inclusive as possible, with an
emphasis on local ownership.
- Seventh, these initiatives are also in line with the
Tunis Declaration by the League of Arab States, which
emphasises the need for modernisation and reform, particularly in
the political, economic and education fields, and to improve
women’s participation in society.
- And finally,
the International Ministerial Meeting on Iraq in Sharm
el-Sheikh last week brought together political leaders from
Western and Middle East countries to find a common approach to the
challenges of
Iraq, and to identify ways of contributing to
reconstruction and stability. These leaders’ acknowledgement of the
necessity of working together is most encouraging.
All these initiatives are important
political instruments for greater co-operation and dialogue between
the Middle East and the West. Unfortunately, there are still
conflict areas and situations where the bridges of Western-Muslim
dialogue are either very few or very fragile.
The
Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a major source of mistrust
and confrontation between the Muslim world and the West. The
conflict is deeply symbolic – many countries, groups and
individuals are identifying themselves with one or other of the
parties. The Palestinians’ struggle is the struggle of the whole
Arab world. Each side is feeding on its prejudices about the other
. A peaceful settlement to this conflict is the single
issue that would contribute most to improving Muslim-Western
relations.
The death of President Yasser
Arafat marks the end of an era. Together with the Knesset’s
approval of Prime Minister Sharon’s disengagement plan, this has
created a new situation. Strengthened US engagement at this
juncture could be decisive, and I was encouraged by the report of
the meeting between President Bush and Prime Minister Blair on 12
November.
It is now crucial that the
Palestinian and Israeli leaders, the Quartet, and other
international actors do their utmost to build a foundation for the
resumption of the peace process. Not only in words, but also in
terms of concrete actions. There should be no delay in following
the Road Map for Peace, which contains all the steps necessary to
reach a political solution and establish a Palestinian state.
Israeli withdrawal must not result
in a “Gaza first, Gaza last” solution. The disengagement plan could
be an opportunity. But Israeli disengagement from Gaza and the four
settlements on the West Bank, must be made in accordance with the
Road Map, UN resolutions and the two-state solution. The withdrawal
must also be carried out in a way that contributes to sustainable
economic development in Gaza. In my capacity as chair of the Ad Hoc
Liaison Committee for Assistance to the Palestinians, and in close
co-operation with the Palestinian and Israeli governments and the
members of the Quartet, I have taken the initiative for a meeting
to identify what is needed to stabilise the Palestinian economy.
Unless the economy improves it will not be possible to strengthen
the political processes.
One of the challenges for the donor
community is to make sure that the conditions for Israeli
withdrawal are conducive to normalisation and steady growth in the
Palestinian economy. This will put heavy demands on Israel. The
donor community cannot continue forever to pick up the bills caused
by the Israeli occupation.
At the same time, the Palestinian
Authority bears the major share of responsibility for achieving
sound political and economic development. The new Palestinian
leadership must continue the governance reform in accordance with
the Road Map, and it must halt the Palestinian attacks on Israel
and Israelis. Prime Minister Qureia’s dialogue with Hamas is a
vital element in this process and must be encouraged by the
international community.
Furthermore, the political
situation must be stabilised. I am impressed by the way the PA has
handled the situation since President Arafat’s death. In the coming
months the Palestinian leadership will need the full backing of the
international community.
While a lot of attention has been
directed towards Gaza, the situation continues to deteriorate on
the West Bank and East Jerusalem. I am particularly worried about
the construction of the separation barrier on Palestinian land. I
am also deeply concerned about the continued construction
activities inside the Israeli settlements on the West Bank. These
are in conflict with international law and create facts on the
ground that will threaten a peaceful solution.
We know what the solution should
be: two viable states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in
peace and security. Let us hope that the coming months will
strengthen the prospects for an end to this international
conflict.
Like the situation in the
Palestinian Area, the future development of
Iraq will have a decisive impact on relations between the
Muslim world and the West. There is no doubt that the war has
seriously affected these relations. We must not underestimate the
effect of the worldwide television images from the Abu Ghraib
prison and more recently from the mosques in Fallujah.
The basis for Norway’s Iraq policy
is Security Council resolution 1546, which outlines the framework
for international involvement in Iraq. The aim of this involvement
is to prepare for a democratically elected government and to ensure
full Iraqi control of the country and its resources. The only way
to achieve this is to re-establish stability.
No matter what we may think about
the justification or the lawfulness of the invasion of Iraq, the UN
resolution imposes a responsibility on the entire international
community for the development of Iraq. This will require
close co-operation with the Iraqi authorities.
The Security Council has given its
full support to the Interim Government. The transfer of power last
June and the holding of the National Congress last August were
important steps towards a democratic government. The next milestone
will be the parliamentary elections at the end of January. The road
to long-term stability goes through democratic political
processes.
Iraq needs international support
for its reconstruction and stabilisation efforts. Standards of
living have fallen dramatically after years of misgovernment and
war. Norway is allocating almost 8 million dollars to Iraq for the
period 2003-2006. The 80 per cent debt relief being granted to Iraq
through the Paris Club will make a positive contribution to
reconstruction.
But reconstruction will not be
possible unless we first succeed in stabilising the country. Norway
therefore supports NATO’s decisions to train Iraqi security forces.
As a NATO country we will be contributing by sending instructors to
NATO’s new training centre outside Baghdad and by training Iraqi
officers in Norway. We are also providing training for a number of
Iraqi police officers.
A democratic Iraq
is possible. It is in our
common interest to make sure that the Iraqi people are now
able to elect their leaders in a secure environment.
I would like to conclude by
emphasising that the Muslim and the Western worlds have a
common history and
share basic values. Our
differences – as we perceive them – have been caused
mainly by the misuse of religion to fuel conflict, economic and
social disparities, and concrete political conflicts like the
Israeli-Palestinian one.
We cannot afford to let these
problems and confrontations continue sowing dissension and creating
tension between the two worlds – and within Western and Muslim
societies. We must focus on what Christianity and Islam have in
common, not what divides them. We must address the issues of
economic development and political reforms in the wider Middle
East. We must strive to establish an independent Palestinian state,
and we must join forces in order to stabilise, make safe,
reconstruct and democratise Iraq.
All these challenges require an
active dialogue on many levels, and in many forums – religious,
cultural and political. Building bridges doesn’t mean assimilation
or integration. Building bridges means establishing channels for
contact, for talks, for the exchange of ideas. We must resist the
“with us or against us” rhetoric, and start speaking more about
joint interests, common ground and shared solutions. We will only
succeed if we
challenge the stereotypes and practice
tolerance.
Thank you for your
attention.
