[Elizabeth Yell: This text is the transcript of a lecture and discussion at Cairo University held on May 7, 2006.
Prof. van Agt, Prime Minister of The Netherlands (1977-1982) was visiting Egypt upon the invitation of the Center for
Intercultural Dialogue and Translation from May 5-9, 2006. I have tried to follow the recording as closely as possible
but in places where the words were unclear or the tapes were switched I have had to shorten the text. The section
following the lecture featuring questions from the public had to be shortened. The questions in English are all
presented but some of the questions in Arabic were difficult to understand and so were their translations. They have
thus been omitted from this report].
Prof. van Agt was welcomed by Dr. Zākī
Shafā‘ī and Dr. Nadia Mustafá of the Faculty of Political and Economical Science. They spoke
about the importance of Prof. van Agt’s topic ’Cultures between Clash and Reconciliation: The Role of the Media and
Academia,’ since both of these institutions play a role in creating understanding. The Danish cartoons were mentioned
as an example of how media can do the opposite.
Prof. van Agt:
Thank you very much for your most
friendly introduction. I feel slightly embarrassed, since you raised expectations so high that I feel really burdened
now as to whether I will be able to meet those expectations or not, but I’ll try my best. First of all, you
disappointed me when you mentioned the cartoons since so much has already been said about these Danish cartoons.
Nonetheless, it is a starting point for some deep consideration and information about Europe, with a focus on my own
country in Western Europe, The Netherlands.
The Danes and many others have argued that publishing those
cartoons was simply a matter of using the freedom of expression that is granted to the Danes and the Dutch and other
Europeans by their countries’ constitutions. I should add that although our constitutions grant the freedom of
expression as a basic right, it is not a right without limits. So, let me be clear on this. In spite of what has been
contended by some in the West, in no Western country, as far as I know, is there any right to offend. There is no
right to insult. That is just nonsense. I think it is important to start this way; there is no right to offend and
there is no right to insult. Freedom of expression is not without restrictions in Western Europe and the same goes for
the United States.
There is no public censorship, governments do not have the slightest power to prevent
publications, to block them from them being made public, but publications can be sanctioned, such as sanctions of
criminal law being imposed afterwards. That is the legal position.
How did public opinion in my country and in
surrounding countries react to this crisis? Public opinion, not surprisingly, was, and is, clearly divided. It is
certainly not true that all Dutchmen or all Western Europeans unanimously are of the view that freedom of expression
is the freedom to say whatever they want, to publish whatever they want to publish, and to hell with those who
disagree! That is certainly not the unanimous view. On the contrary, there are many, many indeed, who are extremely
unhappy about what has happened and who seriously criticise the irresponsible behaviour of these journalists.
I
don’t say that to flatter you, in trying to be seen as a ’nice guy’ this morning, I’m just telling you what is
happening in Western Europe.
As I said, there are some who argue that these cartoons should not be criticised,
but others, and quite a number of them, who not only hold the view, but express in public that the only right attitude
is: ‘Mind your words’ and ‘Observe self-restraint’. They hold an attitude of respect, not only because the law could
come down on them if they go beyond the limits of the law, but as a matter of principle, out of respect for others,
their faith, and their deepest convictions.
Now certainly some reactions in the Islamic world were so vehement
and so violent that they made it much more difficult for the wise people among us to make our voices heard. In other
words, there was of course, a certain loss of sympathy with Muslims – and apologies for the generalizing words I’m
using now – because of the extraordinary character of the demonstrations, and the violence that accompanied those
protests. Also, people found it remarkable that quite some time elapsed between the publication of the cartoons in
September 2005 and the demonstrations so much later. So it was supposed that there were political motives on the part
of some of those organizing the demonstrations.
Now let’s try and identify if there are ideological factors at
work in European societies and if so, can we identify those ideological factors? Let me first of all tell you
something. It will not give you consolation, but you should know that the publications in our countries, like those
carrying the Danish cartoons, do not solely target Islām. I think it is very important to say, and for you to accept,
that these kinds of publications do not exclusively target Islām or Muslims. Time and again, in our countries,
publications appear ridiculing the Christian faith as well. Please keep that in mind! The tenets of the Christian
faith, the rituals of its ceremonies and even its values are often ridiculed. It sometimes occurs that Jesus Christ
himself is presented or described or talked about in a ridiculing fashion, in a derogatory way. When I talk about
ridiculing the tenets or doctrines of Christianity, let me give an example. Sanctity of marriage is an important
doctrine in Christianity, so Christians are very often ridiculed for being opposed to legalizing same-sex marriage.
Christians are often ridiculed for opposing the legalization of abortion, the legalization of euthanasia, and even
their opposition to the manipulation of human life, such as artificial fertilization. Everything related to the
sanctity of life is not something we ourselves possess, but is given to us by God.
Let me add here that you
hardly ever find such ridiculing of the Jewish faith, rituals and traditions. Why is that? That’s simple! You will
easily understand. That is because most people in Europe are deeply, profoundly ashamed of the anti-Semitism that was
dominant in the minds of Europeans over so many decades. It started in the nineteenth century and finally culminated
in the Holocaust 1940-1945. As a result of these sorts of feelings and historical circumstances, people are very
cautious about criticizing things Jewish.
Now for something that goes a bit deeper, but which is connected to
the foregoing arguments. That is the cultural revolution we went through at the end of the sixties. In Germany,
France, and also in my tiny country, we still live in the aftermath of that cultural revolution. What was the cultural
revolution about? It was about discrediting and brushing aside any authority. It was a rebellion against authority.
Not just political authority, but any authority;religious authority, authority in the family, especially the
authority of our fathers, of course, the a
authority of teachers and so on. A rebellion against authority.
There was a rebellion against traditional values and it resulted in what I call – not everyone would agree – a high
degree of moral disorientation in our countries. Disorientation. Think, just for example, how many degrading images
of sexual perversity appear on TV screens in our countries. Watch the sometimes really provocative demonstrations,
public events, most notably, the annual demonstration in Amsterdam set up by homosexuals. That kind of thing would
have been inconceivable before the cultural revolution at the end of the sixties. So, to summarize these things, what
emerged was the new paradigm of almost unrestricted freedom and freedom without responsibility. All that is the
background of the Danish cartoons, just one expression of freedom without responsibility. Many things like this are
happening.
Many here will ask if there is an aversion to Islām? The first thing to be taken into account here
is what I call disgust of all religion, not just Islām. There is certainly insufficient knowledge about Islām.
Insufficient knowledge, that is a euphemism. Sometimes there is no knowledge at all, and sometimes there is distorted
knowledge. There are distorted views. Radicalism and fundamentalism within the Islamic world are often easily
considered to be representing Islām. You should know that the image living in the minds of all too many Europeans and
Americans is the image that is created or at least fostered by the utterings of the most radical people and movements
within Islām. People think that is Islām.
There is another point that I should make here. Why is there an
aversion to Islām? I will give you two examples of why there is this aversion. Firstly, gender equality, for sure,
gender equality is now top on the list of things that have to be achieved in our countries. We have progressed very
far already, but we should go further and obtain full gender equality. Anything or anyone opposing that is bad. Now
Islam is thought of as not being supportive enough of full gender equality. That makes people believe Islām is bad.
Got it? That’s an important point. Gender equality. There is a lot of talk about abuse and the physical harassment of
women and so on and so forth, women not being allowed to choose their own marriage partner, and all those sorts of
things. Men are allowed to choose, women are not. So that is against the doctrine of gender equality.
Let me
in passing just tell you that in Holland, the city of cities is Amsterdam and the administrators of Amsterdam are
extremely important. The mayor of Amsterdam is of Jewish descent, the deputy mayor is of Moroccan descent and Muslim.
Don’t think Muslims are not welcome or are hated or rejected by society. No! A Moroccan Muslim, of course he now has
Dutch citizenship, is deputy mayor of the capital of the country.
Now a few observations about history. Very
few people in Europe know about the Golden Age of the Arab empire, and notably the situation of peace and
reconciliation that existed for a long time in Spain, in Cordoba. Jews, Christians, Muslims living together in perfect
peace. An example for people living today. Who knows about that, except a few intellectuals? Europeans don’t know
about the Crusades. As much as they know about it, they think it was something positive. When I went to school I was
taught that the Crusaders were courageous people with a sacred purpose, people who should be admired by later
generations.
Let’s make a jump to more recent history. Who in the Western world knows about the colonization of
North Africa and the Middle East by the British and French. Who is aware that the bad feelings that still linger in
the Arab world are related to what happened up to 1945 or at least up to 1918. Who is aware? People should be aware of
Palestine. This is what is happening today.
Even here, guilty feelings in Western European countries are
active, working on the minds of people. The Holocaust happened in Europe, and people in the occupied countries did not
do anywhere near enough to limit the disaster. So they all feel very guilty about what happened. Then, subconsciously,
semiconsciously, guilt becomes a complex. There is also the thinking of the promised land in some Christian circles,
that some people are God’s favourites, that they are just returning to their promised land. These two factors, the
guilt complex related to the Holocaust, not only in Germany, but all over Europe, as well as distorted interpretations
of the Bible, do a lot of bad. And then one more point here, and that is that people are poorly informed.
Not
that long ago I found an article in an American newspaper that was headlined as follows: ‘Palestinians are not only
out-gunned, but also out-messaged.’ And that is very, very true. The information that circulates in Western Europe,
and even more I think in America, is very, very biased. This is attributable to the fantastic Israeli propaganda
machinery. Technically speaking, one can only have the greatest admiration for this propaganda machine. Views are
very distorted about what is happening in Palestine. There is much talk about suicide bombers and there is much less
talk about all the violence perpetrated by the Israeli army against the Palestinian population. Who in Western Europe
knows that there are so many more Palestinian victims than victims of the suicide bombers? Who knows that? Very few
people.
Now, once again in order to try and provoke discussion with you, I will tell you what I am leaving out
of my speech. If I had time, I would have made some observations of the lack of definition in today’s world The lack
of definition, especially the lack of a definition of ’terrorism’ affects everything. What is terrorism? Everyone
talks about terrorism, but a definition is lacking and that is very bad for two reasons, which I will only mention if
you ask me at the end.
Neither the Arab world nor the West is monolithic. It is a simplification to talk about
the Arab world or the West. As regards the West, it is clear that the gap between Europe and the United States is
widening. You witnessed the beginnings of that widening in a shocking way when the Americans decided to invade Iraq.
Europe split, important countries in Europe disagreed and stayed away from that illegal action. France did, Germany
did, and quite a few others. Not my country, most importantly.
Now to conclude, a few remarks on the Center for
Arab West Understanding, otherwise my friend Cornelis Hulsman will never again invite me to come to Egypt, because it
is his interest to promote his center, his initiative. CAWU aims at creating understanding between the Arab world and
the West by providing information and documentation and advocating respect for different opinions and beliefs. Of
course there are many differences of opinion in the Arab world and within the West. Sometimes distorted reporting or
wrong reporting is intentional and has political motives, but quite often it is just a matter of misunderstanding on
both sides. The situation is exaggerated because most Westerners do not know Arabic and we have little background in
the cultures and traditions of this region. In this climate there is an urgent need for this center, a center that is
neither purely Egyptian, nor Western, neither religious or non-religious, that builds a bridge between
cultures.
CAWU is an Egyptian non-governmental organization in the making. It aims at promoting intercultural
and interreligious understanding by providing independent, accurate and contextualized information on subjects
relating to Arab-West, and Muslim-Christian understanding. CAWU is independent, it is not political, it is not in the
least political, it is independent. CAWU presents many different views and acts as a forum for the exchange of views,
not advocating any particular political or religious view. CAWU publishes a weekly electronic journal, Arab-West
Report, giving a complete overview of opinion in the Egyptian media translated into English concerning subjects
related to Arab-West and Muslim-Christian understanding. Arab-West Report provides journalists and academics
and even the general public with accurate and unbiased opinion taken from Arab media. Eventually the center will have
an Arabic documentation center, thus allowing Arabic speaking researchers, journalists, students and the general
public easy access to material and media critique of articles both from original Arabic sources and Western media. The
center is Egypt-based, thus showing the Western public that the desire for dialogue and mutual understanding is
clearly present in Egypt and that Egypt is thus a land of peace. The center is now building a unique electronic
library, making translations from Arab media reports, and that is of the greatest importance for intercultural
understanding. It is absolutely necessary that people get good information about what others are thinking and how
others’ culture is developing. CAWU also has influence on academia and has been linked up with one of the universities
in my country, with CEDEJ [Ed: Centre d’Etudes et de Documentation Economique, Juridique et Sociale], and there are
also promising discussions with Cairo University’s Program for the Dialogue of Civilizations. Wonderful. This is,
therefore, the best moment for you to start asking questions.
Discussion:
Response Dr. al-Sayyed
Yassin.: First of all I’d like to thank you for inviting me to participate in this session and to hear Prof. van Agt.
I’d like to state from the beginning that I prefer the statement, ’the dialogue of countries’ instead of ’the dialogue
of civilizations’ for the simple reason that from the point of view of so many scholars in the world, we are one
civilization, characterized by science and technology, whereas there are a lot of cultures in the world.
What
characterizes one culture from another? This is an important question. That is a very basic concept. Culture analysis,
vision de monde, the attitude towards persons, society, and man. There are differences in each culture, in each world
outlook. This leads us to the concept of cultural necessity. Each culture has its own cultural necessities and these
should be respected. Each culture should also interact, benefit from other cultures. Here is the difference between
Arab Muslim culture and the West. The West’s cultural development, as has been mentioned by our guest, has had its own
history since the sixties. And this culture is different from our own, for example the difference in the position of
women in our Arab Muslim society. The Western idea of this position is more correct objectively but the West is blind
to accepting our own cultural necessities. Prof. van Agt has mentioned the problem of homosexuality and the rights of
homosexuals and we know that the development in the West concerning this very specific point legally accepts that a
man can marry a man and a woman a woman. From my cultural and Muslim point of view, the West is trying to impose this
upon us in the name of human rights. This is hypocrisy and we see that as an act of aggression upon our own culture.
Each country has its own rights. You can see that the relationship between two men or two women is an example of the
difference between cultures.
Suppose that we have a cultural dialogue between Arabs and Muslims and Western
academics. What are the rules...? From my point of view we have four: First of all self-criticism. No cultural
dialogue [Ed: is valid] without self-criticism. Each should begin by criticizing his own culture. It is very important
and it has been done in a brilliant way by our guest. We need to criticize the manipulation of the media and the
attempts to exaggerate what the Palestinians are doing without mentioning what the Israeli military has done to the
Palestinians. This is very important.
The second function is what I call ’discourse analysis.’ The ... capacity
to deconstruct the discourse of the other. For example, I can deconstruct Western discourse by using the methodology
of knowledge. What is the origin of this discourse, what is the structure of this discourse. Vice versa, the Western
academic should have the capability to deconstruct Islamic discourse. The participation of academics in enlightening
the general public and intellectual global society is very important.
Now suppose we have this cultural
dialogue between a group of Muslim and Western intellectuals. What should be done in light of what I have mentioned?
First on the Arab side. The Arab side should practice self-criticism of their own culture. We should criticize the
recent dominance of extreme religious ideas and our failure to propose ways to face these extremists, which has led to
the dominance of extremist cultural and religious ideas which form the basis of terrorism. We have seen in al-
Jamā‘ah al-Islāmīyah in Egypt how they twist the interpretation of the sacred text of
Islam. This is very important. We should criticize ourselves for the dominance of poverty and unemployment, the lack
of critical thinking, the spirit of corruption in our society, the lack of democracy. This should be said from the
beginning, and this will give us the power to deconstruct the discourse of the other. We begin by criticizing
ourselves.
We should also criticize generalizations about the West. There is nothing called the West and
nothing called the Muslim Arab world. We should differentiate between different currents of thought and ideologies in
the West. We should practice what we preach. There are progressive thoughts in the West defending the Palestinian
cause, as expressed by our honourable guest. Western discourse should also be criticized by Western academics when
they speaks about Islām in general. Each scholar should have the capacity to deconstruct the discourse of the other.
The spread of Islamopobia in the West should be studied. This claim of ’freedom of expression,’ which our guest
mentioned in the story of the cartoons, is, as our guest correctly said, ’freedom without responsibility.’ And if the
West is full of freedom of expression, why then are they not able to criticize the Holocaust? Why is there criminal
legislation in France punishing any scholar who critiques the Holocaust or questions the number of victims? Why
should you be afraid of criticizing the Holocaust industry, misusing it for political purposes? This is a double
standard. We have our own industry, believing in things that are not true. There are many currents of thought in
Muslim society. There are fanatics. It’s very dangerous. The Western scholar should be capable of self-criticism
concerning the threat of racism in Europe, a good example of which is a book by Goldberg, an excellent objective study
on the reasons for new racism in Europe. Western academics criticize the absence of social policies in the Muslim
community. You know what happened in Paris [ed: referring to recent riots]. Muslims are isolated, marginalized. There
are no social policies for them. This should be analyzed. The Western scholar should have the ability to deconstruct
Muslim discourse. They do not know Islām. They do not know the language. But it is very important to differentiate
between different discourses in the Islamic world.
We have a lot of examples of Western tolerance and excellent
studies about Islām for example. We have to study how can we build trust between societies and cultures. How can we
give cooperation and assistance to underdeveloped countries? How can we find a way to solve our problems within the
Muslim world? How can we ensure objective and fair economic conditions? How can we strengthen this idea.
I
would like to finish my remarks with reference to two concepts. The first is cultural diversity which is very
important and also there is the idea of comparative politics. The second very important point is understanding the
function of legislation, the function of expertise, the function of interpretation or analysis, and the function of
mediation. We are witnessing now the age of open systems of thought. The academic should be addressing his own culture
and the culture of others and this brings me to the role of mediation as the basis for cultural dialogue, education,
culture and science. …very important in our lives.
I have been asked to write a paper about Arabic Islamic
tradition. This paper was discussed critically by a group of other experts and after the meeting we made a
recommendation to be presented at the meeting of Arab ministers of culture and to be translated into English and
French and published in Arabic. Such papers are important.
What are the principles of the Islamic and Arabic
dialogue with the other? What are the goals of dialogue in globalization? And what are the methodologies and ethics
of dialogue? This is a very important document which concentrates a lot of Arabic studies which have been done in the
last twenty years concerning this. Thank you
Questions from the audience:
Q.(female): I noticed
three things. Number one, the emerging and growing need for dialogue, not only for better understanding, but as a
basic need to secure peace and security around the world. Two, a lot has been spoken about the good will involved,
which is sometimes tremendously blemished by politicians, either because the talk we hear from many of them is mostly
hypocritical, or because sometimes it is very controversial. I would remind some of the speakers and our professor
from The Netherlands about the statement of a Willy Claes, secretary-general of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
(NATO) [Ed: from 1994-1995] in which he stated that it was about time to join efforts to face the Islamic threat. At
the same time we were engaging in dialogue. Of course there is no excuse for politicians, and there is a list of
others who have done similar things, using overtones or undertones, making implications or insinuations that are
degrading. Nor is there any excuse for them to use fixed images of degradation in this part of the world, or to
generalize, or to resort, in many cases, to oversimplifications in which the message is, ‘Follow us and it’ll be ok’
and ’if you don’t follow us…’.
So, having said that, let me suggest the following: There must be a framework, a
code if you like, an ethical or operational code to deal with such distortions. We must be able to critique ourselves
and avoid generalizations. This is very serious… Thirdly, can we really have an international system with which we can
evaluate our values? We are talking about lots of things that have moral implications or value implications, like
religion or anything that is considered sacred. Can we create an evaluation of a system, a value system, a moral
system which is equally valid for all cultures? I’m not suggesting everybody will approve of a certain morality or
religion, but let us accept the following: If we differ, let us respect each other, moral values, globalization, and
human rights. [We do not fail to understand each others morality] because we are against human rights, or democracy,
of course not. Nobody is against human rights or democracy.
Q.(male): I would like to welcome our famous
guest. I have been working in your country and I know how your country respects differences and has reached a very
high degree of respect for human rights. You started with the cartoons and I think it is really a clash between two
ideas, first that rights have no limitations, which is a new invention. I have been teaching law for half a century,
and I don’t know of a right with no limitations…but apparently you explained it, freedom has become a religion for the
West. I think we should start by questioning our own responsibility for being seen in such a bad light abroad, and
this is what my friend said about auto-criticism. Of course we should add something very important: Why did Muslims
react months later? As a judge, I had experiences related to this. The Serbs started to kill Muslims five hundred
years after they killed their king. When Mr. Vladic was questioned about killing Muslims, he said, the king was
assassinated five hundred years ago and from that moment neighbours started killing each other. So, we can wait for a
long time, especially since there is a complex in our part of the world, a great complex due to colonisation. The West
has never treated us on equal footing. The West turns a blind eye to what happens in Palestine which is equal to what
happens in Yugoslavia. There we judged the head of state [Ed: Slobodan Milo?evi?] but Israel is exactly the same and
everybody is blessing it. So I think we are children of a lesser God, …this should be overcome, this inferiority
complex we have developed through colonisation and the superiority complex some countries of the West have because of
historical evolution.
There is a very important thing concerning the Weltanschauung, vision of the world,
mentioned. I think we should apply the advice of [name unclear], secretary-general of the UN who said, "Let us enjoy
our differences." So I think the Weltanschauung is enriching. This way we should not think of a dialogue of
civilisations, but I would say a dialectic of cultures. Because you can reach something in a united way. I’m sure some
of us here have reached this union of all civilisations, it’s one world after all. Thank you.
Q. (male): We are
living in a culture which does not accept same-sex marriages.This is not acceptable in our culture …do what you want
to your culture but not ours. What is happening in Palestine, killing a crippled man in his wheelchair, ..is this
acceptable? ..In the West you speak about attacks of Palestinians but then again, ok, I’m sorry, ..planes attack
civilians, this is not mentioned at all, I don’t know why..You expect us to respect the West but actually they have
double standards
Q.(male): Thank you very much professor for your clear talk and concrete positions regarding
the issues which are really critical. I would also like to refer to the introductory talk by Prof. Nadia Mustafa
emphasizing the fact that CAWU will take the ethical aspect as its major point in this dialogue. My question to you
is, "Can we consider the ethical in isolation of the political?’ And isn’t there intellectual aggression? …a post-
colonizational point of view returning to Eurocentrism. We cannot accept such things. If we trace back the
intellectual mind of the European, which has been developed sociologically .. Max Weber and Karl Marx believed
oriental people would never progress … this kind of thinking is very restricted. They are not showing a great
consideration for Islām and our culture.
Q (female): My doctoral degree was based on studies of women in Egypt.
Just as the West refuses to understand and accept that a woman who is wearing a headscarf can be a strong person and
have a career, people here think if we talk about women’s rights it’s all about sexual permissiveness. It is about
women having the right to get divorced when they are beaten up and want to keep their children. Real issues are at
stake here, and just because there are a few women in public roles who have freedom of expression and open-minded
families that allow them to have careers, this does not change the fact that a lot of women are very unhappy, that
they cannot choose their own destinies and do not have that freedom. By belittling that, by reducing that to
sexuality, that is not taking the program seriously, that’s all I’m saying.
Q. (male) First of all I would like
to mention the war against Muslims and Islām. I think this is irrational speech .. Secondly, I believe self-criticism
is important.
Cornelis Huslman:
It is obvious that time is too short to address all of the
questions and so I would like to invite you to the presentation of CAWU at the Culture Wheel in Zamalek at seven o’
clock tonight. We have met with ‘Amr M?s?, secretary-general of the Arab League who was saying there is no
clash of civilizations, there is a clash between the extremes in different cultures, this is what we are witnessing.
When you continually stress differences with the other it becomes an issue. Secondly I would like to critique
Professor van Agt. With all the good things you have said, you have omitted the most important person at CAWU. CAWU
was started by an Egyptian, not a Dutchman. Behind all men there are women, wives! My wife is Egyptian. She’s proud
to be Egyptian. She was very upset with many things that had been reported in the West about Egypt and so she pushed
for the establishment of CAWU. She was behind this, so it started with an Egyptian woman.
I was trained as a
sociologist and later became a journalist. I am very disappointed about what I have seen in journalism. There are many
journalists who are doing a good job, but there are other journalists who are not doing such a good job, whether
deliberately or by mistake. There are many things to be critical about with regards to media reporting, again, an
important reason for founding CAWU. But we cannot do this alone. We need to cooperate with academic institutions,
this is why, to pick up what Professor van Agt was saying, cooperation is needed with the institute of Dr. Nadia
Mustafa, the Program for the Dialogue of Civilizations. This cooperation is needed, we have to link media and
academia together. Academia should provide media with more context and background.
The problem is in the many
sweeping generalisations that are made. There is one comment I would like to make on the comments of my good friend
Dr. al-Sayyid Yāsīn. You spoke about Western media. There are indeed many media in the West influenced
by propaganda coming from extreme Zionist organizations. However, there is also a problem on the Arab side, that Arabs
have not done enough to provide their point of view. And then you, Arab academics, go to discussions at different
universities and what happens is that you have an excellent discussion on dialogue, all in Arabic, but there are no
foreigners there, and that’s the dialogue between civilisations. So you have to make more of an effort to present the
Arabic point of view
There is also a major problem in Westerners not knowing Arabic and thus, with the
exception of a few academics, having no access to original Arabic sources. There is also a lack of understanding of
Arabic culture. Many Westerners have a problem understanding arguments made in the Arab world, there should be more
explanations in order to bridge this. There is a problem with academics who do not have access to Arabic material,
people who do not know Arabic and do not have the opportunity to live for a long time in the Arab world and thus
primarily depend on texts provided in European languages. Arab-West Report wants to be both a documentation
center, providing information, and a forum.
I whole-heartedly agree with Prof. van Agt when he said that there
is no freedom to insult, but then how to respond when insults are made? You cannot respond with demonstrations in an
aggressive way. There is a need to respond in a way that helps a Western public understand that something has gone
wrong, trying to get people in the West to be more sympathetic to your cause, rather than alienating them.
Too
often I hear Egyptians asking how to respond. Some believe there is no possibility to respond.
There are
ways of responding. I will give you some examples from our work.
1) There is a problem of maintaining quality standards in reporting, and respecting different sets of values. Then how to respond? It is obvious from the responses we received that translation is of key importance. Translation of Arabic media shows that there are many different opinions in the Arab world. There is not one point of view. The problem with Western media is that very often, one thing is highlighted and presented as the dominant view of the Arab world. I'll make it very concrete. There is an organisation called MEMRI, Middle East Media Research Institute, that is supported from Israel, and led by a number of former security officers. MEMRI's reports go to tens of thousands of mail boxes in Europe and the United States and they present what the Arab world is supposedly thinking. Their translations are accurate, but they are highly selective. They select articles in such a way as to strengthen current against the Arab world, to present the Arab world as they want the West to see it. There is nothing from the Arab world competing against it.
Brian Whitaker from The Guardian commented that there would be nothing easier than for a group of media in Egypt, in the Arab world, to come together and to set up something to present the various Arab opinions. But it is not done. That is why we have started with Arab media. We would like to cooperate, to show that you cannot stereotype particular opinions.
2) The context in many articles is missing. When you present a particular incident ...people outside Egypt don't know what the background is and start interpreting it in their own way. You can't do that! You have to provide background reports to present to foreign media and academia. I remember a Reuters news agency article about a problem with church building in Egypt. The information in the text itself was presented correctly but the context was missing. I argued about this with a Reuters editor and he then said they could not give more space to that issue.
3) It is important to work with students. We have interns from many different countries coming to our office and no intern has left the office without becoming more aware of the need for intercultural understanding.
4) We need to network, linking organizations that have similar objectives, …we would like to work together with the Program for the Dialogue of Civilizations.
5) We need to work together to establish an ethical code in media reporting that is not limited to a particular culture. Setting up similar ethical principals for both Western and Arab media is of paramount importance. These principles could include guidelines for; respecting differences, opposing sweeping generalisations, opposing biased selectivity, all kinds of deformation in media reporting. Because when people receive deformed information, what do you expect? They will then harbour prejudices and harmful stereotypes against people of other cultures. Media have to provide the general public with good information about people of different cultures in its context. Thank you.
Prof. Van Agt:
Thank you very much. First of all as a preliminary remark, it is impossible to react to all the questions and reactions. Number two is that, if I may be frank, I was not very pleased by some of the reactions. I do not want to be held responsible for the West. The West does not exist. I'm certainly not responsible for the United States of America, it is not my business, and many Europeans would think the same and do not even want to be fully identified with the Europeans. There are as a many different views within Europe as within the Arab world. So that makes it so extremely difficult to give adequate responses to the number of interventions here. To just mention one example, it is a minor thing. Someone asked: How do I feel about the anti-Semitism law in Congress in Washington? Sir, I'm not responsible for the US Congress and I do not know exactly what the content of that law is. I am certainly incompetent to comment on a law, the text of which I do not have before me.
Then there was another nice person who became more and more angry while speaking with reference to 1492 [Ed: the year marking the end of Muslim rule in Spain. The king of Granada surrendered his city to the army of Ferdinand and Isabella after a lengthy siege]. Had I forgotten that? No, Sir. I have not forgotten 1492. And how could I forget 1492 after having spoken so favourably about Cordoba. And that whole period that so dramatically, tragically ended in 1492. Of course it is a very sad element in history. I regret that as much as you do. And I feel I have made it sufficiently clear how critical I am of what the countries of the so-called West are doing now and I am also critical of many things done, much to my regret, by Christians in the so-called West in centuries past. I have been clear on that.
Now let us review the main points. The matter of cultural developments in the West and notably the eruption of freedom has been raised. The freedom doctrine. What I have called in my speech already 'freedom without responsibility'. Now let me tell you now that I belong to an organization of heads of former governments that just a few days ago met in Amman, Jordan, and which, ten years ago, launched a project called Universal Declaration of Human Responsibilities as a counterweight to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Now the declaration has been sent to the UN Security Council and of course the General Assembly. And let me tell you that among many contributing to the drafting of the declaration and amongst those who made the decision to send it to the General Assembly were a large number of Europeans, headed by Helmut Schmidt, former Bundeschancellor of Germany. There are a few wise men and women left, be assured, who are fully conscious of the cultural imbalances that have become part of the prevailing culture of the moment in our part of the world.
As far as media is concerned, I have a document from which I quote. One of the articles of the Declaration of Human Responsibilities states: 'Freedom of the media carries a special responsibility for accurate and truthful reporting. Sensational reporting that degrades human person or dignity must at all times be avoided.' And it also says: 'Special responsibility of religious leaders without discrimination, covering all religious leaders, responsibility not to excite or legitimise hatred, fanaticism or religious wars.' And there is an article that addresses politicians and public servants, business leaders, scientists, writers. None of them are exempt from ethical standards. All these persons mentioned in this article show to all of you the 'good side of the West'. Fortunately! Otherwise, I would immediately emigrate to Egypt!
Now, someone spoke about the imposition of Western values. Imposition? I don't see any imposition. We are not trying to get the UN Declaration of Human Rights altered in order to say it is also a human right to marry man to man and woman to woman. We are not trying that. I do not see any imposition. What I do see is that an important part of public opinion as it has evolved in the West is of the view that, to stick to that example, homosexuals should be treated equally to heterosexuals in all respects, including in marriage and that is a view that has emerged over the last twenty years. That is a view and I add to that we are not imposing that view. I do not even share the view, so why should I impose it? No-one is imposing it, but indeed the West is often portrayed as having a sense of superiority. 'Our values are the best.' 'We know better.' 'We have progressed further in history and you will follow after a while.' That is to be noted and criticised. No, again, that is not a matter of imposition.
I come to my next point. And that is I see other things happening, I turn to our Palestine question. Over the last few decades, we have developed a body of international law. Among which is international humanitarian law as well as human rights law. Now when you look what is happening in Palestine, you note that it seems as though international law applies to everyone but the United States and Israel. That is the problem. So I don't see the West imposing values. No, I see the US in particular behaving itself as though values respected by the entire world do not apply to them.
Now as far as we come to international law, the tragedy that is happening in Palestine is clearly a matter of the brushing aside of international law for 44 years, in spite of the 30 UN resolutions that the occupation should be terminated. That is violating international law. Building in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, putting 400 thousand settlers there, colonists in occupied territories, violating international law, the fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, the building of the wall. What happened there? The International Court of Justice gave its ruling on July 9, 2004, and the ruling, which could not have been clearer, said that the wall was illegal and should be removed, and the Palestinians should be compensated for the losses incurred by its construction. The very same day, Israel, with Washington's approval, let the world know that it did not care one bit about the International Court of Justice. That is totally unacceptable. Of course, that is the crux of the problem. The very fact that Israel gets away with it, thanks to the unwavering support of the US. There is the problem.
I turn to three more points. Gender equality. One person said 'It's all fine in Egypt,' and another person said it was not all fine in Egypt. I was not talking about Egypt only, but the Arab world, the Islamic world. And I was not bringing you these reproaches as though they were mine. I have been trying to give you an understanding what is happening, what kind of cultural developments are taking place in Western societies, like my society in the Netherlands. I gave you the facts. And that is the point. As to gender equality, it may all be fine, but to give you a clue what is really developing in Europe, how far that goes, some of you may have noticed the proposals by the Spanish government that 40% of political positions and company directorships must be occupied by ladies. It shows what is happening in Europe, and the Norwegians have something similar.
I mentioned a fact, and not a simplification, that the deputy mayor of Amsterdam is a Muslim of Moroccan descent. It does matter when the number 2 in the capital of the country is Muslim. Something is happening in that country. It is fair to mention once in a while positive points and it is unfair to criticise me for that.
Next. The definition of terrorism. I provoked it myself because there is no definition of terrorism in all international discourse, not in the UN, not in international gatherings. There is a lot of talk, but nobody knows what 'terrorism' actually is. Let me make two points. The word terrorism is being used nowadays in ways that are either too narrow or too broad. What is too narrow? Too narrow is that in common speaking in 'the West,' there is no inclusion of state terrorism. Yes, sir. You are so right. The word terrorism is always reserved for individuals or private organisations, but never states, state agencies or armies. Secondly, it is used too broadly. It allows the discussion to become lousy and unclear, unfair. Fighting for freedom is all too often labelled terrorism. When Palestinians in their own occupied territory shoot Israeli military, the occupying army, destroying their buildings or tanks, that's called terrorism? What nonsense is that? It is a right for occupied people to fight, if necessary, the occupation. Should we give the Palestinians tanks, planes, bombers? And are they then no longer terrorists? What nonsense is this. I couldn't agree more with you.
Dr. Nadia Mustafá closed the discussion by thanking Prof. Andreas van Agt, participants in the discussion and the audience.
