View previous stories
	How to prevent a clash of civilizations by Hans Kung, Cem Ozdemir International Herald Tribune Germany   Tubingen, Germany. March 3, 2006   How to prevent a clash of civilizations, by Hans Kung. (International Herald Tribune)   Has the controversy over the Danish cartoons finally proved Samuel Huntington"s theory of the "clash of civilizations" to be right? No, for civilizations are not players on the stage of world politics, nor do they wage wars; in many places, people of different cultures are living quite peacefully together.   World politics is a matter for states and their leaders, as it always has been. But they could make a mistaken theory come true through mistaken policies. A war of civilizations and religions must be prevented. The question is how.   De-escalation through dialogue. But are Muslims interested in serious dialogue?   Such a dialogue is taking place, between individuals, groups and faith communities in many places and at different levels all over the world.   As for the broad political scene, it was the former president of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Mohammad Khatami, who as early as 1998 proposed to the UN General Assembly that the year 2001 should be a "Year of Dialogue among Civilizations." The fearful events of Sept. 11, 2001, for which neither Iran nor Iraq were responsible, tragically confirmed the urgency of this initiative.   The General Assembly session of Nov. 8-9, 2001 was devoted to dialogue among civilizations. However, the U.S. delegate was notable for his absence from this session. The public was virtually excluded from the debate for "security reasons." The media took hardly any notice of it. So we can turn the question round: does the West want a serious dialogue with Muslims at all?   Western self-criticism is called for. But isn"t it the Muslims who primarily have cause for self-criticism?   More and more Muslims today are recognizing the difficult situation of the Muslim world and are engaging in self-criticism. Since the publication of three Arab Human Development Reports in recent years, commissioned by the United Nations and the Arab League and produced by around 50 Arab academics, no one can deny that the Arab world in particular is heading for a social, political and economic crisis.   But the West shares the responsibility for this situation. It should honestly reflect on itself instead of always pointing the finger at "Islam." In many cases Western states and companies have notoriously played a part in failed developments and abuses. We in the West have every reason for a self-examination which must go below the surface of current events.   Relaxing tension by recognizing deeper-seated causes. But wasn"t the indignation of Muslims over the cartoons organized, and isn"t every means being used by Muslim fundamentalists to stir up popular anger?   It is true that for radical Islamist organizations and individual governments the cartoons were a welcome confirmation of their caricature of a violent and immoral West. They are like the pictures of torture from Abu Ghraib, where human rights have been deliberately violated and Muslims deliberately shamed, and can be used to exploit popular anger.   But it is also true that this popular anger could not have been exploited had the West not created such a political tinder box that it took only a spark for the frustration and fury that has built up all over the Islamic world to explode. Every day, Muslims from Morocco to Indonesia see and hear about cruel military actions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine and Chechnya.   Press freedom in a responsible press. But mustn"t the freedom of opinion and press freedoms be upheld at all costs?   Without free media there can be no democracy. But freedom of expression may not be abused in such a way that it deliberately violates central religious feelings and produces stereotypical hostile images - formerly of Jews, now of Muslims. Press freedom entails being responsible.   If it is not permissible to defame individuals and to violate their dignity, then one should also deal tactfully in the media with the great religious figures of humankind, whether it be the Prophet Muhammad, the Buddha or Jesus Christ.   A solution to the Palestine problem: central to easing the tension. But mustn"t Hamas first recognize the right of Israel to exist, renounce all violence and subscribe to international agreements arrived at so far?   The Palestinians can likewise demand that first Israel must withdraw from all occupied territories in accordance with UN resolution 242, refrain from attacks by the Israeli army and comply with all the UN resolutions which it has ignored.   However, that will not get us very far. More than 50 years of what in practice has been a partisan policy of "mediation" by the United States in favor of Israel has made the Palestinians, whose situation has constantly deteriorated, doubt whether the U.S. really is an honest broker for peace.   The Middle East conflict is not at root a terrorist problem but a territorial conflict. A beginning has been made with the Israeli evacuation from the Gaza Strip. Peace calls for concessions on both sides, but above all from the stronger. And today Israel, with U.S. support, is the strongest military power in the Middle East.   The vast majority of the Palestinian people voted for Hamas out of deep frustration at the corrupt and inefficient PLO regime, Israeli intransigence and American partisanship.   It is a tragic fallacy to treat the new Palestinian government as a terrorist organization and attempt to force the Palestinians back into a wretched situation by harassment and by illegally withholding the income from taxes and duties that is due them.   Strengthening Muslim forces for reform. But surely violent attacks on people by radical Islamists and the occupation of foreign embassies and cultural institutes are quite unacceptable?   Indeed such violence must be firmly resisted. Tirades by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran against Israel are to be condemned by both Muslims and non-Muslims. But the vast majority of the Iranian people voted for Ahmadinejad out of disillusionment with the previous regime of mullahs and in the hope that poverty and the lack of prospects would be overcome.   The United States fatally dismissed the reformist president, Khatami, as being the representative of an "axis of evil." So he did not have the courage at an early stage to bring the power of the overwhelming electoral vote to bear against the reactionary mullahs and their revolutionary guards. Here the U.S. played into the hands of the fundamentalist extremist Ahmadinejad.   Preventive dialogue instead of preventive war. In view of the Muhammad cartoons and the photographs of torture from Abu Ghraib, it is all the more important that we in the West should not only propagate shared values such as freedom and equality and great achievements such as democracy, human rights and tolerance, but fill them with life through an ethic of humanity, reverence for all life, solidarity, truthfulness and partnership.   On the whole the Muslims in the European Union and the United States have reacted with restraint to these painful events and have attempted to have a moderating influence on their fellow believers in Muslim countries.   I do not want the good relations between Muslims and non-Muslims to come to harm, but to become deeper, even if that has to be through shared negative experiences.   One possible way to prevent a clash of civilizations at local and regional levels would be to set up interfaith councils in as many cities as possible. Such councils have functioned well in Britain for years.   Composed of official representatives of the resident faith communities, they could tackle issues which directly affect relations between faith communities. In crisis situations they could act as mediators and prevent dangerous developments.   (The Rev. Hans Kung, a Catholic theologian, is an adviser to the United Nations as president of the Global Ethic Foundation).   Posted February 2006   The Clash of Caricatures, by Cem Özdemir. (Foreign Policy)   The reactions to the negative depictions of the prophet Muhammad in the European press have fanned the flames of dangerous stereotyping. The European right and Islamist fundamentalists use the controversy to promote cartoonish depictions of each other that fuel their political agendas. Instead of deepening the divide, Europe’s leaders should reach out to moderate Muslims for practical ways to heal the wounds.   The publication of cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten and the ensuing violent protests in the Middle East are proof to many Europeans that a “clash of civilizations” between Islam and the West is upon us—a clear-cut case of where the freedom of the press rubs against unreasonable fundamentalism. Politicians of all stripes throughout Europe, including myself, agree that the freedom to express one’s opinion is among the founding principles of democracy, and that there should be no limitations on this inalienable right. However, deferring to democratic freedoms is not sufficient means to solve this escalating conflict.    Basic rights are one thing, but the responsibilities that come with them are another. On that front, Jyllands-Posten’s explanation for publishing the drawings—a critique of the media’s supposed self-censorship of Islamic issues in Denmark—is disingenuous. The newspaper, in fact, is known to support the Danish right-wing political party Dansk Folkeparti. And it speaks volumes that in 2003 the paper was not willing to print caricatures of Jesus because it would have insulted its readers. Jyllands-Posten had only one intention in mind when it published the cartoons: provocation. And it worked.   However, what is currently happening in parts of the Muslim world is hardly a spontaneous popular uprising spurred by provocation. The reaction is too orchestrated and too dated; after all, the cartoons were first published last September. For Islamic fundamentalists, the issue is not really about their religious beliefs being insulted. Rather, it is about power and political interests, not a “clash of civilizations.” Portraying the “Islamophobic” West as the enemy conveniently distracts attention away from other internal problems, just as does the ever-convenient anti-Israel, anti-Semitic rhetoric espoused by radical imams. If Israel, or the West, is to blame for everything, then the radicals do not carry any responsibility for failures in their own communities. It is also hard to take the fundamentalists’ complaints of religious disrespect seriously, considering that they applaud cartoons that portray Israel and Jews in the worst possible light.   So, then, what can be done to diffuse such tensions? Some have suggested that there is a need for new press regulations, such as the voluntary media code of conduct suggested by European Union (EU) Justice Commissioner Franco Frattini. That is not necessary. The ones we have already suffice. We do, however, need a broad, public debate about the limits of good taste and respect for religious convictions. That must include European politicians—and journalists—recognizing the sensibilities of Europe’s multicultural societies.   A close dialogue with Europe’s religious minorities can act as an early warning system inside and outside our borders. This vehicle for intercultural mediation is used far too infrequently. Shortly after the initial publication of the cartoons, the ambassadors of several Muslim countries requested a meeting with Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen. Rasmussen, noting the anger of his own Muslims, should have accepted the meeting instead of only referring to the freedom of the press’s infallibility. A meeting wouldn’t in any way have threatened the freedom of expression and press rights. Indeed, the prime minister could have used the occasion to explain why he couldn’t censor Jyllands-Posten, even though he found the images offensive.   The European politicians who focus on violent overreactions abroad should note the peaceful reactions of the estimated 15 million Muslims here in Europe. After all, embassies are being attacked in Damascus, not Berlin. I am thinking in particular of certain German politicians who, since 9/11, have viewed Muslims primarily as a security risk and keep coming up with new ways to raise the bar on naturalization. In my home state of Baden-Württemberg this year, the conservative government introduced a new “citizenship questionnaire” to test the loyalty of Muslim applicants. Among the queries: “Do you think that forced marriages are consistent with human dignity?” and “Some people accuse the Jews of being responsible for all that’s bad in the world and even go so far as to blame them for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in New York. What do you think of such accusations?”   Instead of humiliating Muslims and showing prejudice against Islam, a better approach is to strengthen the hand of moderate Muslims. Beyond soft diplomacy, the best way would be to support Turkey in its bid to join the EU. Many would regard such a step to be imprudent. But as a democratic and Muslim country, Turkey can play a special role. The Turks too have reacted in a level-headed manner to the current controversy. The Turkish government has made it clear that it sees no contradiction between the freedom of opinion and the respect of religious values. Turkey may still have a lot of catching up to do when it comes to freedom of expression, but it is already proving to the world—and particularly to Europeans—that Islam and free speech are not mutually exclusive. By bringing Turkey into closer dialogue, Europe can bridge the divide between the Western and Muslim worlds.   (Cem Özdemir was the first German of Turkish descent elected to the German Bundestag and is now a Green member of the European Parliament).
	Italian PM attacks Italy"s last bastion of Independent Television by Peter Popham The Independent / UK Italy   Feb 2006   With the general election less than a month away, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi has taken aim at one of the last remaining bastions of objectivity on the Italian airwaves.   The media billionaire, who directly or indirectly controls nearly all the nation"s television output, described a painstakingly neutral political programme as "scandalous".   Mr Berlusconi has already outdone himself in his familiar role as loose canon, likening himself to Churchill, Napoleon and Jesus Christ. But his most alarming remark came last week when he declared that a political discussion programme called Ballarò, shown weekly on RAI"s Channel 3, was in effect propaganda for the centre-left opposition and "picks a studio audience totally composed of left-wingers".   When the programme"s producers insisted their audience was balanced, Mr Berlusconi shot back: "That programme is a weapon of war with tailor-made reports." It was incredible, he added, that the board of RAI, the state broadcaster, "tolerated" it.   His broadside sent shivers down the spines of Italy"s journalists because four years ago, after winning the last election and becoming prime minister, Mr Berlusconi responded to criticism by two of RAI"s most respected and senior journalists, Enzo Biagi and Michele Santoro, by having them sacked.   Yesterday the compere of Ballarò, Giovanni Floris, chose The Independent to respond to Mr Berlusconi"s comments. He denied he was preparing for the worst. "During the past four years of programmes I haven"t feared the future and I don"t fear it now.   "When Berlusconi got rid of Santoro and Biagi that was a blow against the freedom of two senior journalists to practice their profession. But it was also a boomerang for the government because it was much criticised, and the judges came out against it. So they couldn"t do it again."   In addition to owning three private Mediaset TV channels, Mr Berlusconi also indirectly controls RAI - giving him, in the run-up to a general election, what appears to be a devastating advantage over his opponents.   However his ability to turn the Italian TV schedule into a seamless political broadcast has been cut back since the formal start of campaigning last week. Rules, which he tried furiously to have scrapped, dictate that the main parties get equal air time.   RAI"s Channel 3, unlike the other RAI channels, has always been aligned with the left. But Floris denied that, as host of Channel 3"s top political programme, he was rooting for the centre-left opposition. Ballarò, he said, has always striven not to take sides. "We have tackled the government, the opposition and big business," he said. "We don"t make it easy for anybody.   "We won"t become Berlusconi"s political enemies just because he considers us to be such. We are not opposed to him. We are not in favour of him either. We will do our work as journalists."
	View more stories