Doha, Qatar, 26 February 2006 -
Statement by the Secretary-General at the opening session of the
Second Meeting of the High-level Group for the Alliance of
Civilizations
Your Highness, [Abdallah al-Thani, Prime Minister of Qatar]
Excellencies,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
First let me thank Your Highness for hosting this meeting and
providing an environment conducive to its very important task
I am very grateful to you all for being here today.
When we set up the Alliance of Civilizations last year, we said
that it was “intended to respond to the need for a committed effort
by the international community – both at the institutional and civil
society levels – to bridge divides and overcome prejudice,
misconceptions and polarization”. We should all be grateful to the
Prime Ministers of Spain and Turkey for being prescient in
anticipating a vital issue in today's world.
We also said that the Alliance would “aim to address emerging
threats emanating from hostile perceptions that foment violence”;
and we specifically mentioned “the sense of a widening gap and lack
of mutual understanding between Islamic and Western societies”.
The passions aroused by the recent publication of insulting
cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, and the reaction to it, show only
too clearly that such threats are real, and that the need for a
committed effort by the international community is acute.
Of course, the Alliance was not launched to deal with immediate
crises like this. But the intensity of feeling that we have
witnessed in the last few weeks comes from a deep reservoir of
mistrust and resentment, which was there long before the offensive
cartoons were first printed. In fact, this present crisis can be
considered an expression of a much deeper and longer-standing
crisis, which is precisely the one that the Alliance was intended to
address.
At the heart of this crisis is a trend towards extremism in many
societies. We should beware of overemphasizing it, because extremism
in one group is almost always fed by the perception of extremism in
another group. Few people think of themselves as extremists, but
many can be pushed towards an extreme point of view, almost without
noticing it, when they feel that the behaviour or language of others
is extreme.
So let us always remember that those who shout loudest, or act in
the most provocative ways, are not necessarily typical of the group
on whose behalf they claim to speak. I think one can safely say that
most non-Muslims in western societies have no desire to offend the
Muslim community, and that most Muslims, even when offended, do not
believe that violence or destruction is the right way to react.
Let us also remember that neither “Islamic” nor “Western”
societies are homogeneous or monolithic. In fact, there is a great
deal of overlap between the two.
In past centuries one could speak of clearly distinct Islamic and
Western (or Christian) civilizations, but many modern societies
embody the heritage of both those civilizations, and many
individuals today see no contradiction between their Muslim religion
and their membership of Western societies.
In truth, the present conflicts and misunderstandings probably
have more to do with proximity than with distance. The offensive
caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad were first published in a
European country which has recently acquired a significant Muslim
population, and is not yet sure how to adjust to it. And some of the
strongest reactions – perhaps especially the more violent ones –
have been seen in Muslim countries where many people feel themselves
the victims of excessive Western influence or interference.
Whether or not those who published the caricatures were
deliberately seeking to provoke, there is no doubt that some of the
violent reactions have encouraged extremist groups within European
societies, whose agenda is to demonize Muslim immigrants, or even
expel them.
Similarly, the republication of the cartoons, and the support for
them voiced by some leaders in Europe, have strengthened those in
the Muslim world who see Europe, or the West as a whole, as
irredeemably hostile to Islam, and encourage Muslims always to see
themselves as victims.
So misperception feeds extremism, and extremism appears to
validate misperception. That is the vicious circle we have to break.
That, as I see it, is the purpose of the Alliance.
It is important that we all realize that the problem is not with
the faith but with a small group of the faithful – the extremists
who tend to abuse and misinterpret the faith to support their cause,
whether they derive it from the Koran, the Torah or the Gospel. We
must not allow these extreme views to overshadow those of the
majority and the mainstream. We must appeal to the majority to speak
up and denounce those who disrespect values and principles of
solidarity that are present in all great religions.
If they fail to do so, the essential dialogue between cultures
and societies will be reduced to an angry exchange between the
fringes, with each side assuming that extremists speak for the other
side as a whole and – in turn – allowing its own extremists to frame
its response.
Yesterday we had a meeting of leaders from concerned
international organizations – the Organization of the Islamic
Conference, the League of Arab States, as well as the United Nations
– and the foreign ministers of some concerned countries – Spain,
Turkey, and our hosts here in Qatar.
We all agreed that everyone is entitled to freedom of worship and
freedom of opinion and expression, as defined in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights. But we also agreed that these rights
carry with them an inherent responsibility, and should not be used
to degrade, humiliate or insult any group or individual. On the
contrary, we should all exercise great sensitivity when dealing with
symbols and traditions that are sacred to other people.
We also agreed on the need for dialogue on these issues between
people of different beliefs or traditions, and on the need to work
together to overcome intolerance and exclusivism.
But we also realised that that is much easier said than done. We
had to ask ourselves an uncomfortable question: how effective are
our voices of moderation and reconciliation, when it comes to
countering the narratives of hatred and mistrust?
The sad truth is that these narratives, however deceptive, can be
very compelling. Incidents like a caricature of the Prophet, or a
death threat to the artist who drew it, make far more impact on the
popular imagination than pious statements issued by foreign
ministers and secretaries-general.
And this is where we look to you, the High-Level Group, for help.
Lofty ideas alone are not enough. We need to develop a language that
will carry them. We need to develop sobering, but equally compelling
counter-narratives of our own. We need to engage in dialogue not
only scholars, or diplomats or politicians, but also artists,
entertainers, sports champions – people who command respect and
attention right across society, and especially among young people,
because it is very important to reach young people before their
ideas and attitudes have fully crystallised.
I very much hope that you can come up with specific, concrete
suggestions for ways of carrying this dialogue forward so that it
can really catch the popular imagination; so that we are not just a
nice group of people agreeing with each other, but people with a
message that can echo round the world.
That message must say that free speech involves listening as well
as talking.
It must tell people of all faiths that it is too late in our
common history to go back to wars of religion, and urge them to ask
themselves whether they want their children to grow up in a world of
hate.
It must say – but in better, more compelling language than I can
find – that diversity is a precious asset, not a threat.
It must be a divine message – heard not in the earthquake, nor in
the fire, nor yet in the rushing mighty wind, but in the still,
small voice of calm.
Thank you very
much. |