Moderatör: Pascal BRUNET- Director of Relais Culture Europe, France
Lodewijk REIJS- Policy advisor of the Dutch Ministry of Culture, Holland
Sabine BORNEMANN- Cultural Contact Point Germany, Director
Gianluca SOLERA- Anna Lindh Euro-Mediterranean Foundation for the Dialogue between Cultures, Programme Director, Egypt
Catherine Lalumière- President of Relais Culture Europe, Former European Affairs State Secretary of France, Former General Secretary of Council of Europe, Former Vice President of European Parliament, France
Pascal BRUNET- It is going to be quite a comprehensive panel, so let’s try to cut short the presentations. In this panel, we are going to talk about projects realized with the initiative of certain states. We will take into account the attempts of Germany and of the rest of the EU as well. Therefore we will take the issue in hand at two different levels. Let us begin our panel immediately with the initiatives of the EU members.
Lodewijk REIJS
- Because of the focus on Europe of this conference, I would like to stress that for the Netherlands, Turkey is also an important partner, not in the European Union lights, but also about the migration history and large minority of Turks that live in Netherlands. I think that appreciatively 300.000 people that originate from Turkey lives in Netherlands at this moment. Let me first explain something about Dutch cultural policy and principles that the Dutch seem to find quite obvious but maybe not that natural in the eyes of the rest of the world. And it might make the rest of the story more understandable. One of the guiding principles of the Dutch cultural policy is the bottom up approach with the government at arm length distance. It originates actually in mid nineteenth century when the liberal politician Thorbecke who is quite famous in the Netherlands stated that the government is not the judge of science or art. The statement has often been misinterpreted but the idea of arm length distance where the government basically creates the pre-conditions and leaves artists free in the content of their arts, is deeply rooted in the minds and hearts of both policy makers and the cultural sector in the Netherlands. Policy is as much as possible focused on facilitation and as little as possible on legislation. It is a nice theory of course but when it comes to practice and distribution of the resources, which are always scarce it might be a little more difficult. Basically the judgment about what has enough quality and what should be funded by the government is up to the cultural field. Committees of independent experts review, judge applications on their artistic value and advise the government. The most important of these Committees is the Council for Culture, which is expert and sub committees on all fields of culture ranging from performing arts to libraries, monuments to amateur art. The government, in this case the Ministry of Culture can sometimes decide not to follow the Committee’s advice, but this should never be because of artistic differences, but rather more about administrative reasons like diversity, pluralism or regional spread. Apart from this bottom up approach, there is a second guiding principle to the Dutch cultural policy especially in international cultural relations, which is the importance of cooperation and networking particularly on the grass roots level. In the Netherlands this has led to an almost over organized cultural field, with a lot of networking organizations, institutes that represents certain cultural sectors, lobby organizations etc. On one hand this produces a lot of overheads, but then it also creates a certain level of order and structure, people from different fields working together to stimulate one term effect.
So with this background in mind, let’s turn to cultural relations between Europe and Turkey. Since other members of the panel are much better equipped to talk about the EU programs, the Culture 2000 etc, I would like to focus on the way that individual countries like the Netherlands approaches these relations in the European context, in the European mindsets. The forementioned principles and bottom up and cooperation and networking are clearly present here as you will see. An example of this kind of bilateral activity in European context is the Matra Program. It is a program for social transition originally focused on Central and Eastern Europe. The general aim of Matra is to support transformation through a pluralist, democratic statehood onto the roof of law and formerly communist Europe. In practice this means attention to the development of the civil society, NGO development, stimulation of expertness and capacity of enhancement. With the expansion of the EU, the program has broaden its horizon and now also covers candidate member states, like Turkey or Croatia, new neighboring countries like Ukraine and Belarus and even has started to work across the Mediterranean in northern Africa.
One of the twelve themes of Matra next to issues like the public administration, environment and media etc., is culture. And it focuses there on developments of cultural infrastructure especially in the light of the relationship between government and cultural sector, cultural management and even the support of independent cultural expression. Because of the focus on a strong civil society, Matra strongly focuses on the twining of NGOs, Dutch organizations working together with, in this case Turkish counterparts. The development of this kind of networks is very important in the eyes of the Dutch government. An example is running at this moment, through the Europist organization, it is a cultural management program, where forty or fifty cultural managers from Turkey follow series of lectures and workshops here I believe in Istanbul, if I am correct.
There are more ways to promote this kind of networks, where peoples and organizations can learn from each other. The Council of Europe for example, has developed the so called Compendium Policy Trends in Europe. This is a Europe wide information system on the Internet, compiling and collecting cultural policy measures, instruments, debates and trends of most members of the Council of Europe. This way, one can easly gain access to different ways countries deal with their cultural policy issues and learn from each other’s best practices. Of course Turkey is not a member of the Council of Europe, but everyone who is interested in cultural policy and instruments can easily inspire themselves with the huge amount of data that can be found in the freely accessible Internet site of the Compendium at www.culturalpolicies.net The information is available to the world and everyone can use it to learn network and work together on a trans-European scale. Of course again not top down but bottom up.
Another fine organization that promotes cooperation and networking in the European context is the European Cultural Foundation based in Amsterdam. It also works with the Europist organization and is also linked to the Anna Lindh Foundation. It’s goal is to promote the European integration process throughout cultural cooperation, especially on the practical grass root level, combined with what I mentioned about the guiding principles of the Dutch cultural policy. It might not be a coincidence that this organization is based in the Netherlands. ECF is also just like Matra, it has spread its wings and has started to work not only within Europe, but also with the EU neighbors through the Enlargement of Minds Program. In Turkey one of its projects is the Policy Infrastructure program, which helps to stimulate participatory policy making at local level and municipalities. Recently ECF has also started, partly funded by the Dutch Ministry, the Laboratory of European cultural cooperation. With this program, ECF wants to create a platform for cooperation for and with the cultural sector and stimulate intercultural dialogue. Next year it will open, as a part of this Lab, an Internet portal, the gateway for cultural cooperation, to connect and promote existing websites and filling information gaps. Again knowledge management easily accessible, focused on networking and cooperation.
Lastly, I would like to mention more bilateral projects, but also with a broader scope in the background, which the Netherlands has organized in the recent past, and this has a lot to do with this Turkish minority which lives in Netherlands, which I mentioned before. The Ministry of Foreign Affaires and the Ministry of Culture find out that the Dutch cultural organizations were reasonably interested in cooperation with Turkey, but there was hardly any information in the Netherlands on the existing networks and possibilities, even on cultural organizations with its partly Turkish background, within the Netherlands very little was known on the central level. That’s why we asked Dutch cultural consultants Han Bakker to research this subject, which resulted last year in a bilingual Dutch-English publication “Contemporary Turkish Culture in the Netherlands and Turkey”. He tries to map the existing networks and sketches possibilities for cultural cooperation and exchange between the Netherlands and Turkey. It should act as a roadmap for cultural cooperation, empowering cultural organizations to find their way. Principally it’s focused as a target audience on Dutch cultural organizations who can learn, who can help them within the Netherlands. But it can also serve a broader purpose, that’s why it is also in English; it can be used by a Turkish organization as a starting point for the Dutch cultural field, although it only describes the cultural field with Turkish roots, so not the whole horizon, but as a starting point it can work though. But also we use it for policy exchange with other countries, for example the Bulgarian Ministry of Culture was quite interested in this publication, not as much the information about the network itself but mostly on a more abstract level, in a way we were trying to organize and stimulate this kind of network with the cultural minority in the Netherlands like the Turkish.
Those were a few examples, which I think show the possibilities of networking and cooperation on this grassroots level, between cultural actors and organizations, and the way the government can try to stimulate and facilitate this kind of cooperation.
Pascal BRUNET- It was worthy of note to see after this presentation that, when we allude to Europe, we are talking about a multilayered structure actually. I wonder if you know, there is a French dessert called mille-feuille. Cultural cooperation constitutes one of the layers of this mille-feuille while the governments constitute a number of other layers. We mention the points at which national initiatives overlap. While a part of these initiatives overlap with the activities of the Union, the other part responds to special conditions. For example to internal problems such as you mentioned or to external problems such as international relations. I think this is the subject we will deal with today.
Sabine Bornemann’s presentation will have two parts. In the first part, she will talk about national support and tools in the field of cultural cooperation and the initiatives made effective and developed by Germany in order to regulate cultural cooperations. In the second part, as a different Sabine with another identity this time, will talk about cultural programs lead by the German National Culture Agency subordinated to the European Union of which she is the director and the general structure of cultural initiatives of the EU. Maybe, according to the content of the questions, we might have things to add.
Sabine BORNEMANN- Thank you very much. To take on the metaphor Pascal just introduced, about the pastry, millefeuilles, you could of course say that what would be the best instrument to just help and make one consistent of it all, and we found out, and it has been quoted very often, that the best mean for the integration of whatsoever is of course culture. The highest motivation, how to learn about the other cultures, is in the first step curiosity, and that’s why we are all very very grateful to the Europist to invite us to this cultural Forum, to make the first steps and get to know better about each other. As Pascal Brunet just said, I am sitting here at the moment, with sort of two heads on my head, I’m running the Cultural Contact Point for the European Cultural Funding Programs in Germany, but my carrying organization is a Federal Association in Germany, dealing with cultural policies, abling large discussion process and carrying on studies for the government. As I found out that unluckily Professor Wiessand from the center of research in Germany is not able to come here, there will be nobody on the panel to tell about some German bilateral initiatives, and I am not the most appropriate person just to deal with this subject but I think it is important enough just to mention a few of them.
Traditionally there are very close connections between Germany and Turkey. Turkish are the largest minority in Germany, there are about two million people from Turkish origin in Germany, and some fifty thousand more who have also now a German passport, so the number is even higher. There are two federal ministries dealing with cultural contact point and with my association; it is the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Culture. They were highly interested and I have of course to report back and I would have liked to send somebody to attend this forum.
For the time being, most activities are aiming at the Turkish minority inside of Germany. There are not so many programs for the bilateral cooperation but I am very confident they will come in the very near future, or perhaps even exist, I still do not know about it. What has been done by the federal funds for culture; they pay for an enormous multi annual project, they are collecting an exhibition of migrant art and it will end to be a museum for the migrant art in Germany and it is a large scale project, I think it costs about 5 million Euros. A different thing which is quite important is a study financed by another ministry, the Ministry of Education and Research in Germany and carried out by my carrying organization. It is focusing on intercultural competence and it is a study which will last two and a half years and will focus on education and culture to try and learn on both sides the intercultural competence, which I think will be a very important item on a long lasting term, between all countries, new and old member states and future member states of the EU.
The Compendium of Cultural Policies by the European Council, is a very good source of information, Kulturpolitische Gesellschaft has dealt with the German part of it and this is quite a good address to have complementary information. There are lots of other initiatives, I think it is Osman Okkan today in the stage, he will certainly tell you much more on a very interesting forum: the German–Turkish Cultural Forum. Yaşar Kemal and Günter Grass are the presidents and they established a very interesting project on the Internet for the young migrants in the Germany.
So just to give you some ideas, that the focus, the interest is very high from our Federal Administration, also from the Bundeslaender, and I would like to switch on to the European Programs. I told you about curiosity, many cultural operators are very curious and very keen on closer cooperations with Turkish cultural operators, and very happy when we learnt that the Culture 2000 program which is the main funding program for cultural cooperation projects, would be opened to Turkey. For the year 2005, we learnt at a very late state, that unfortunately Turkey for one year withdrew, but we are very confident and do hope that they will come to the program for 2006 and if not 2007 at the latest.
What are these cultural funding programs about? The EU is not allowed to finance cultural projects in member states directly, it is only allowed to contribute to the cooperation between cultural operators from different countries. So what these European projects need is cultural operators from at least three countries, and even now at the present stage when Turkey is not fully participating in the program, it is possible to be just an additional partner. So it is certainly very much advisable just to join in without having many obligations, to just establish first working contacts and make your first experiences. There are lots of other programs besides the cultural program, which are suitable for cultural projects. Just to name a few of them; there is a Youth program, there is an educational program, the media program for the film sector, and the cultural heritage sector has different possibilities as well. It would just be too many details to just to give you in a very short time. Thank you.
Pascal BRUNET- Thank you. Here we represent two National Culture Agencies of the EU, but amongst the audience we have other colleagues. It may be appropriate for them to introduce themselves, share their ideas with us and refer to points that will refine our remarks. Yes, I should guess that Iveta who is from the National Culture Agency of Bulgaria is closely concerned with the development of these programs owing to the fact that she comes directly from a neighbouring country.
Iveta DIMOVA- Thank you very much. I come from Sofia and I am here to represent the Ministry of Culture and Tourism of Bulgaria. Our Ministry recently united with the Ministry of Tourism and I learned that the same incident occurred here in Turkey. First of all, I would like to thank the coordinators of this Forum. The program is very interesting and I have to admit that I am deeply impressed. Although you are our neighbour, this is the first time I come to Istanbul. People are very genuine and the organization is flawless. I would like to express my grateful thanks. The subject treated today is indeed very interesting, because it concerns us directly. Besides, since we are Culture Agencies of the Culture 2000 programs of the EU, we function as a network and we are extremely willing to get in touch with our Turkish colleagues. So here we have such a possibility as well. The Culture 2000 program is an EU program as Sabine rightfully stated. I far as I know, Turkey has been invited to participate in this program as well. I would like to know whether this participation will take place in the time period 2005-2006 or whether we will have to wait for the year 2007. Bulgarian culture operators are very eager to improve cooperations within the scope of Culture 2000. In effect, their regional experience is considerable. The status of cooperations can vary from that of a coorganizator to that of a partner, but our experience in regional cooperation can be of service for the development of partnerships within the programs of Culture 2000 or Culture 2007. Thank you very much. I would be very pleased to see my Turkish colleagues get in touch with me.
Zora YAVROVA- I come from Slovakia, and I am the head of Cultural Contact Point in Slovakia so I do the same as Sabine does in Germany, so we are the administrators of this European cultural program, Culture 2005 at the moment, which will follow from the year 2007 by the new program. The new program is now in the negotiation so we will see how it will work from the 2007, and anybody of you who would be potentially willing to know something about the culture, how is the scene in Slovakia, just don’t hesitate to come to me.
Eva CERGOVA- I am from the Czech Republic, also at the head of the Cultural Contact Point, and even the Czech don’t have special experience or relations with Turkey, I am sure that many Czech operators really would like to cooperate, because for them it is very interesting.
Atilla ZANGOR- Good morning everybody, from Budapest, Hungary, I would like to join the chorus of the Cultural Contact Points. If you would like to make any contact with Hungarian cultural operators we are very pleased to help you. It is also a symbol of the cultural diversity, that each Cultural Contact Point in Europe, works a bit differently. Of course we are doing many other things as well, not only cultural contact point activities. For example, we are organizing a very big conference in November. That will be on the EU horizon; what will be the culture of Europe or what might be the culture of Europe in 2010-2020. If you are more interested in that major ministerial level conference, I am very happy to talk to you later on.
Mesut ÖZBEK- I participate in this colloquium as a representant of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism in Ankara. I am the project coordinator of the ministry; I mostly deal with projects regarding the EU. As it was said, we have not been able to take part in Culture 2000 in 2005. As regards the year 2006, messages have been sent to the NGO’s concerned with culture. If they have projects, we will participate in 2006. The importance of EU projects is that, with a message sent to our ministries in 2002 by the General Secretary of the European Union, project coordination centers have been established in each ministry. But coaching for the staff of these centers started quite lately, consecutively the Project Cycle Management instructions of the EU projects spread only very recently. In Turkey, to be able to present projects to EU programs, project themes should have priority in the first draft of the National Development Plan prepared by the State Planning Organization. However the Diplomacy Training Program has not yet taken culture in its priority list. Infrastructures, human rights, relations with minorities have always been priority. Therefore we haven’t received any direct financial aid from the EU for culture within the program frame. We cannot present cultural projects to program frames from Eastern Anatolia. We try to give priority to culture while using the 500 million Euros EU has dedicated to Turkey for 2006. We are in contact with authorities on this subject. Thank you.
Pascal BRUNET- I will complement with something of informatory nature and give an answer to your question. Our association as the branch of Relais Culture Europe in Bucharest called ECUMEST is preparing a mapping, a sort of a cartography with the purpose of making possible a dual cooperation between member countries and member or non-member countries in a vast geographical zone and in particular in the Balkans. It is also a mapping which regulates cooperations within the Union namely which comprises the sum of the tools cultural actors can use. At this point, we have also asked for help of our Turkish colleagues. You can download this document from the website of Relais Culture Europe or from the website of the ECUMEST association in Bucarest. As it was mentioned by Sabine earlier, this document includes general information about all the tools at our disposal. Data about the member states of the EU and about the structure of the Union is avaliable and the situation, the responsibilities of the operators as well as the conditions of participation exhibit a certain variation. And it is an impressive document inso far as it shows the present situation of the worksite. An ongoing worksite which is in progress and which occassionaly takes big steps is the case. As far as Culture 2000 is concerned, the situation is slightly more indefinite due to different reasons. On the one hand, the present program has gone through two important phases. At the end of the first phase from 2000 to 2004, it was decided that the program be prolonged for two more years because of financial perspectives and several other reasons. Accordingly, the program will close at the end of the year 2006. As per date it has been subject to many changes, went through alterations on many levels, especially concerning the participation of certain partners. We look forward to an effective participation of Turkish culture operators no sooner said than done, but I presume that this no longer depends on the Union but on Turkey. Add to this that at the end of 2006, we will move on to a new program called Culture 2007, or something else. You know that EU has creative teams and they are the ones who give the programs these names. Let’s say that this program will have a name other than Culture 2000. This program will bear differences in terms of its purposes. We hope that in 2007 both the purposes and the status of participating countries will be determined and that Turkey will be fully included in the program. Of course, this does not mean that we shouldn’t start working at once. I think that this is an important meeting owing to the fact that it displays different culture operators since colleagues from various national agencies are present here. We could be more in number. I think that in the following month we will organize a meeting with national agencies, and I hope that there the issue of this Forum will be brought up. However, I know that culture operators in many countries are willing to work together with their Turkish colleagues on subjects like cultural heritage and contemporary art. There is such a demand.
Yes, the current status looks more like a construction site, a construction site situation specific to the EU as clearly in the case of Culture 2000 and as in the context of the status of other countries in this geographical zone inside and outside Europe. Some of them are EU members, others to-be members, some have a member status, the other bear the potential to become one. Accordingly, we need a lot of time to be able to bring this construction to an end.
Zeynep BORATAV- I could also ask this question later, I would like to ask a general question. While using these tools, do you take into account the adequacy or the inadequacy of Turkey’s infrastructure? Are you planning to put on any programs to improve infrastructure? Do such programs exist?
Pascal BRUNET- To start with, I’d like to say that we do not have program, all we do is supply information. We don’t have programs, but programs concerning infrastructure are imminent. As of 2007, programs such as regional policy or participation policy will be established within the EU taking aim at infrastructure. This participation policy aims at infrastructure reinforcement –also comprising cultural infrastructure- wherever it is testified that it is of considerable importance to the development of a given country. These programs will be open to cooperation with Turkey in certain fields. At the present, since we try to bring certain political schedules into line within Europe, you will be able to benefit from programs aiming at inter-regional cooperation such as the current project programs in Serbia. Thus, I consider that these programs will take effect in the year 2007. From the EU perspective, what is meant by structuring is essentially economic development; an enormous development vision is at hand and it is expected to bear economic consequences. This policy has a structure founded on three major goals: the first of them is economic development, the second one social development and the third is rather the improvement of infrastructure and equipment. It is a very technical issue, but for example as far as infrastructure is concerned, an extensive enterprise on roads is at hand. Accordingly, if cultural infrastructures get involved with the regulation of economic, social and public domains, they can highly benefit from this. If you don’t have further questions on technical issues, I propose to attend to the Anna Lindh Mediterranean-European Association. This association is a novel tool, its preparations go on since several years, but it was inaugured only 15 days ago in Egypt, I guess this is the first time that it is presented in Turkey. This association is once more the consolidation of the huge foreign policy of the EU. This foreign policy went on for a period of 12 years with mutual contracts and established the desired relationship between Europe and the Mediterranean region. Owing to this, we will be able to see what the elements of cultural structuring could be.
Gianluca SOLERA- I would like to thank Pascal for his encouraging words concerning our future pursuits as association workers. I would like just to start by making a small reflection about a debate which took place yesterday. I listened carefully to the debate yesterday, and I felt as in the frame of this conference if it was necessary that Turkey had to justify something. And I felt that along all the interventions yesterday, there was these needs of justify itself of being European. Why does Turkey need to justify something to Europe? Well I think that one of the answers is that for too many years, or centuries, the space, the geographical frame where Turkey lies has been neglected by Europe. And I am talking about the Mediterranean region. Europe for many centuries has been considered as a continental space and its borders were along the seacoast. But there is another let’s say continental space which is the Mediterranean region and these borders are the lines of the continents, of the land. And this space as being for millenniums the center of civilization, has been where the civilization was even born and developed. Before the discovery of America, up to the industrial revolution, this empty space, the Mediterranean Sea was the center of the world. Now, we are talking about building Europe. And so far, the fathers of Europe have conceived Europe since the beginning as an economic construction. If you remember, that was the European common market. So the first original idea was to create a framework for economic and commercial relations. But there was something missing, and this is what has been on the table of the political work in the last decades, about the dimension, the identity of Europe. And I think that one of the dimensions that has been neglected was actually the cultural dimension, whereas by constructing Europe from an economical point of view, you have to look at the world from north to south.
What is the clearest materialization of this enormous heritage that we have altogether; cities. The polis for the Greek, urb for the Latin, medina for the Islam world. The clearest image of the highest peak of the development of a civilization was the creation of the idea of city. City was born in the Mediterranean region, not in the north. Now, the Euro-Mediterranean Foundation for the Dialogue between Cultures was born exactly at a point when the politicians realized that they had to go back to the Mediterranean region and find a “raison d’être” in that area. That was at 1995, when politicians realized what we have been neglecting for many many years. And if you remember, in 1995 the Barcelona Process begun, when ministers met in Barcelona and launched this idea of Euro-Mediterranean partnership among members of EU and Mediterranean partner countries going from Morocco up to Turkey. They are counting ten partner countries. This works on three dimensions: working for peace and stability, there was at that time the great hope of the Oslo Agreement for the middle-east conflict; working on shared prosperity, the fear of immigration was scaring many people in Europe, so we have to create economic development also on those areas in order to slow down the immigration process toward our continent. But than there was a third dimension, which at the beginning didn’t materialized, and that was cultural understanding and cultural exchanges between our peoples.
So in this Euro-Mediterranean process, the first ten years this third pillar remained just minor, practically unexisting. And then there was Bin Ladin and the twin towers in NY and suddenly this tiny column became of enormous importance, and those politicians realized that they had forgotten that a European construction without the third pillar could not stand up. And that was when the foundation started to materialize. The first idea was in 2002 and it was officially decided to set up this foundation for the dialogue between cultures in 2004, two years later. But it is only two weeks ago that it became real. You know these are the times of bureaucracies and politics.
What is interesting is in the name of the foundation. Let’s put aside for a moment the dialogue between cultures but this foundation takes the name of Anna Lindh. Well in the same way as European idea of integration was born on a defeat on a black page of history -the World War II- this foundation took also the idea of taking a name of the black page of history: the murder of Anna Lindh. And I think it is extremely significant that you start off a very good idea from a defeat. This is promising; I prefer this than starting from a victory, from a success, from a conquest. And Anna Lindh was a special person, unfortunately I didn’t have the chance to meet her personally, but I read about her and listen to people who met her, worked with her. She was chosen because she was a simple woman though she was a Minister of Foreign Affairs, but she believed that there were no borders in this world, that reality changes only if there are people to people contacts and that is the secret idea which lies behind the foundation.
Now, what are the missions of this foundation? The mission of the foundation is dialogue, but not in the sense of face to face dialogue, not in front but beside, where the partners have to be the same weight, the same dignity and the same mutual respect, in order not to establish just tolerance but respect and mutual interest going beyond the fact of accepting the other, but trying to develop interest and curiosity for the other. Therefore one of the basic mission elements of the foundation is to create mobility; mobility of cultural heritage, human resources, basically mobility of ideas. Because culture is not just something static, not just a monument, it is a fluid. Culture has to be a political vector for development, not just an event. Culture has to be the main political vector for development.
How to do that? Well the foundation’s challenge is to work with civil society, which is not easy even though the most of us are coming from the civil society, especially in this world, in the Mediterranean region where you have different political actors, political cultures and institutions, and where sometimes civil society is seen as an enemy not an ally. Therefore our attempt as foundation will be in between the political and the civil dimensions in order to calm down the politicians and to make them understand that their ideas or their projects must become reality if they trust the civil society. And therefore workshops, networks, labeling and acknowledging organizations, creating contacts. It will be working on three dimensions.
You know the foundation doesn’t have a lot of money. For three years it is about eleven million Euros, any European program is financially much well established than the foundation. But we will try to make the best out of a little, tiny amount of money. We will try to finance visibility projects, on the basis of 2 + 2 formula. What does it mean? That you will have at least two EU partners, in the projects and two non-EU partners. So we want equal opportunity. We want to establish this principle that non-EU partners must have the same dignity of participating in this project as the EU partners. When facilitating contacts, we will try to work as a bridge between different networks or organizations. And then acknowledging projects; we will try to develop a kind of label. Euro-Mediterranean label for dialogue between cultures, for the best performing projects.
What we did this first year: well, it’s funny because the foundation exists officially since april 20 2005, but it was working in secret somehow illegally in Egypt for the last few months. So for example for the launching event in April we organized a concert and we brought to Alexandria for the first time in history I think, a group of young people, musicians who are playing music, trying to bring together different cultural musics, and cultural heritage behind the music. I can tell you, I was at the concert and I saw even veiled women, maybe not dancing but moving their feet under the chairs. And that was just a first start, but just to give the taste of what we would like to do. We are going to try to work this year on schools, to change even their didactic programs in order to adapt their programs to an idea of Mediterranean culture, to find out what is positive about being part of Mediterranean region, and not just about wars, intolerance, Islam versus Christianity etc., but just to find out what is common among us and not what is dividing us. We are going also to start this idea of the label, we are still trying how to put it in an action but it is for us important to acknowledge the work of many organization because we are not going to invent anything new, we are just trying to give dignity or help many people who have been working for dialogue to be recognized as major actors in the cultural, political and social sphere, both in Mediterranean region countries and in all European Union countries.
Let’s go to the future: there are six action lines that we will try to work on for the next three years. The first one’s title is “our common future is about youth”: We want to bet a lot on young people and we will try to develop specific projects for the young people, on any kind of field but where the young people will be the actors and the protagonists. The second one will be, well it is a very complicated word: “multi-perceptivity”. The idea is to rediscover the common cultural Mediterranean heritage in our background and to make it visible, mainly in schools. Then “artistic creation”: third dimension of our work will be helping young and non-young artists to work together from all the thirty five countries. And then “scientific research”: scholarship for young scientists, common scientific projects on Mediterranean culture etc. And then last but not least: “How to make the most from the information technology as a tool for human development”. And finally “giving power to women”: very sensitive matter in the Mediterranean region that we have to challenge directly without fear.
The foundation is a network of networks, it will work as a cluster where people in Alexandria, my self and the other staff will be trying to coordinate the work of 35 networks of the 35 countries working together, where there is a head of network in each country. In Turkey is the Istanbul Foundation for the Culture and Arts, they will be responsible together to make proposals and we will be there to help establishing links with other partners, to trying to find out who are the best projects and to push for setting down and making this network working effectively. And than we will work also with established regional networks, such as UNESCO, Euro-Med, networks already established by the EU etc. The idea is us to be in between the board of governors, ministers which are those who have the keys if you want to say it and the civil society organization.
And I just want to conclude with a final remark: I think we have seen in the last few months, very important events for Turkey, but for Europe in general, for all this region. The first of them was the adoption of a draft constitution in October in Rome. The second one was the decision of opening negotiation with Turkey and maybe the third one will be that they have decided to establish a Foundation for Dialogue between Cultures, not in Europe but on the south shore of the Mediterranean Sea, which is not a detail. Because I think that culture is not just a commodity, but it is an engine for human development. And this is the way how we would like to interpret it. And I think that Turkey has an important role to play, not because it is at the edge of Europe, but because it is at the center between Middle East, Asia and Europe, because it is in the Mediterranean region. So we are expecting from Turkish people a lot of support and understanding about our project. Thank you very much.
Pascal BRUNET- Thank you, Gianluca. I think I saw one of your network members enter the room; he is sitting in the back. He must represent the Slovenia section of the network. With Gianluca’s presentation, we have seen clearly how the status of the Association and moreover that of the EU is conceptualized. More particularly, though it is too early to talk about an EU cultural policy, we witnessed the formation, clarification and definition of certain goals on the operation level and difficulties appear more openly. I think that cultural dialogue is one of the most important difficulties we are facing today. This will constitute the aim of the Culture 2007 program; without doubt this program will rely on several goals and objectives, and this will probably be the most outstanding of those objectives. Gianluca also mentioned a second operational goal; mobility includes, as said by Gianluca, the mobility of ideas, works and persons and we observe that Europe has many endeavors in this domain. The Culture 2007 program will also take this goal into account and will propose new regulations in that direction. We observe similar efforts in many member countries. Now we move on to Sabine Bornemann.
Sabine BORNEMANN- One of the magic words is mobility which will be one of the objectives of the future programme of the EU. But if you look at the European programmes, you need cooperation partners in different countries already and the question which we cultural contact points are more and more open, how to establish new countries, who will pay for them. For this it is maybe good to contact different Contact Points in these countries, cause there is an increasing number of mobility fonds. And I’m very glad to hear about this new initiative of this new foundation. The European Cultural Foundation (ECF) in Amsterdam has established mobility funds as well and it is open for a large number of countries. The ECF has an emphasis on the South and Eastern European countries and the mobility funds established by the ECF is open to Turkish operators as well. It is not very bureaucratic at all and it is focused on establishing new cooperation, for projects and the setting up phase. So, if you want to contact in network and go for the first time for a meeting or if you want to prepare for project and you have at least six or seven weeks time before you leave, it is worthwhile asking whether the ECF would pay for your travel. There are some others focused also on the Mediterranean area for the performing arts; just to name the Roberto Cimetta Funds which some of you probably know. And there’s a brilliant Internet site which offers all this information. It’s the on the move web site: www.on-the-move.org where you find all sorts of information concerning questions which you come across if you want to go to a European country. Thank you.
Pascal BRUNET – This is another point which leads us to consider questions concerning the way of functioning. These issues of links and networks, circulation of ideas will be considered after lunch. I think that the Association will be an important and active actor in this domain. I don’t have any doubts concerning the subject, but I think that enabling the circulation of ideas, setting up of such moments via activities similar to this Forum will be matters of priority for the Association.
Lodewijk REIJS- Maybe I can just add a little bit about this mobility issue. Because next to mobility of persons which is of course quite important, is the mobility of heritage which Gianluca also stated. There is lot of development at this moment still within the EU but I think the perspective can be broadened in the future and the next Council of Ministers in Luxembourg in May will have an important presentation about the working group for this mobility of collections. They have done a lot of work and they have reached already nice results. Work done again by grassroots organizations themselves, not the civil servants and we have reached a nice agreement on that I think.
Pascal BRUNET – Thank you. I will take only a question, but it should directly concern this subject, because afterwards we will inaugure the discussion part anyway. Let us hear you if you have a technical question to get information.
Yolanda ONGHENA – Thank you, I come from Barcelona, Spain. I would like to ask my question to Gianluca. For in Barcelona I attended the inauguration of the Anna Lindh Association attended by the President of the association. Do you have networks in other countries, if yes, what are the results you have obtained, do these networks function? Because I can’t keep myself from asking when a real cooperation, a partnership will be established in these countries? I would also like to know what Pascal thinks about Euro-Med projects. For a long time we have been working within the Euro-Med Cultural Heritage program. I observe that these projects are more European than Mediterranean because Southern countries have constant doubts about the continuity of these projects. What happens after the project is accomplished in the following two or three years? There is a question of time, sometimes in order to accomplish a project on time, it suffers a loss of quality, if not we do not receive the decided amount for the next project. My third question will be to Sabine: it is sad that you did’nt record further experience -not about Turkey in Germany but- with Turks in Germany as you said. I’m saying this because migration is a new issue in Spain, it does not go far back in history. The experience within internal cultural cooperations in a given country might give rise to more interesting results.
Pascal BRUNET- Thank you, now let us have your answers in a few words.
Gianluca SOLERA- In fact, networks in each country are autonomously formed. Thus, we shall not decide who will have access to the network and who will not. There are completely open networks, limited ones and project oriented ones, that is to say networks organized according the nature of the project. What can be done on a diplomatic level is keep networks as open as possible and activate a system of internal evaluation.
Pascal BRUNET- Yes, if we were to come back to the question you asked about Euro-Med projects and about the problematic of collaboration in general; these are difficulties of collaboration, that is to say of the working together of several persons, different structures and solidarity models as wanted by the alter-egos of partners. The Euro-Med question is an example that builds up even more tension. We have observed this fact within the Union. Structures in the West were stronger and more rigid than those of the recently admitted members. New members went through a process of learning and development; these tensions are experienced more intensely on the Euro-Med level. Accordingly, this situation compels us to define cultural collaboration. As mentioned by Gianluca, cultural collaboration means working side by side, but we should take into account our differences in this “working side-by-side”. Moreover, opportunities to communicate our knowledge and aptitudes to operators in the South must be instituted because, although we have mentioned technical issues very little here, behind all this is technique and this technique doesn’t always function easily. We need opportunities to form a structure solid enough to participate in this collaboration game. Maybe a graduation has not been anticipated, maybe preparation for participation in the project, its carrying out and a way out the project –a phase widely forgotten- have not been foreseen, but I intend to speak out this remark at the commission; that there are phases to a cultural project such as preparation, carrying out and abandon. I believe that these messages should be revealed in every possible way. As far as I could see from these first remarks, all these projects and technical tools manifest their operational goals at maximum and the not so easy-to-read political intentions at minimum. The indetermination of these intentions rely on several factors. They are indefinite because they are not always borne by appropriate offices or we do not spend enough time to straighten them out. Hence, I think Mme. Lalumière will address this political situation.
Catherine LALUMIÈRE- Ladies and gentlemen, hello. First of all, I owe you an excuse because I should actually have been here yesterday to make this speech, but I was not able to come and I feel a great joy to be here in Istanbul today. I have been visiting Turkey regularly for the last 15 years and I can say that I have learned to love Turkey. Of course there are many things I don’t know about it, but what I have learnt till now gives the enthusiasm to deepen my knowledge.
I have listened to Gianluca Solera’s speech about the Anna Lindh Foundation and I was very glad to hear it. I had the occasion to meet Anna Lindh and I really appreciated her because what she represented was this very idea of intercultural dialogue and it is very appropriate for her name to be given to such an intercultural dialogue. The other positive point is the interest manifested for the Euro-Med zone. We should define this as a big priority; I agree with what you said about real dialogue, understanding, respect toward the other, mobility and the essential message given by Europe. In fact, what I have to say here will go in line with your sayings.
I invite you to reflect on the role of culture in the relations within the European Union. As I talk about the relationship between Turkey and the EU, I take into account the political relationship. Of course before this I should explain myself. When I say culture, I don’t only mean fine arts and literature. It goes without saying that all art forms, artistic creations and artistic heritage are a part of culture, but when I say culture, I also mean ideas, values, beliefs and the view of the whole population. At this point, Mr. Solera, you talked about civil society. Yes, here culture should be taken in its widest sense, i.e. from an anthropological perspective.
When culture is considered from this perspective, it is observed that it constitutes the most important dimension of Turkish-European relations. There are of course other fields Turkey and EU should collaborate on. For example, there is the domain of economy; we have a Customs Union with Turkey since 1995, there is a lot to be done in this field. Regarding military questions as well, we should meet and cooperate; Turkey is an eminent member of NATO and UNO. In the military context, the relations between Turkey and EU will increase. We could also talk about international politics; our attitude towards the events in Iraq and the Middle East, etc. but on the other hand, the question of cultural context will play a determining role in Turkey’s project of accession to the EU -if such a thing is actually to take place.
The pre-condition of the establishment of all these files and in particular that of accession to the EU is mutual understanding, the construction of a real dialogue between Turkey and the rest of the EU. In this direction, we should surpass xyloglossie, misunderstanding and arrière-pensées. Cultural dimension has vital importance for the preparation and realization of this participation in the future. Eventhough I dramatize a little, I emphasize this because I see what people think about Turkey’s accession to the EU in EU and more specifically French public opinion.
The majority of European countries know Turkey very little. Yes, we have read history books mentioning the capture of Istanbul by Ottoman Turks, but this event dates from ten centuries ago. We know the Ottoman Empire and its power; we have heard about janissaries, the threatening of the Grand Turk.
Nevertheless, this is all but a pandemonium of information and exhibits an exaggerated and caricaturalized vision regarding Turkey. Ignorance is overall present and I have to admit with shame that the French, and other Europeans as well, are completely uninformed on this matter; they don’t know how Turks see the world, how they think, how they live. This leads to a misinterpretation and when time is come, it will be a situation that will set hurdles before Turkey’s accession to the EU.
Several worries complement these: Turkey’s demographical weight, its economic force –even though this is also to be considered a potential- and most significant worries are expressed thus: if Turkey joins the EU, European identity will dissolve because Turkey is not European. But what does this mean then? What do we mean by being European? What do we mean by European identity? Inevitably, this makes us enter into the heart of a cultural problem. What defines being European? From what perspective is Turkey not European? What is the content of European culture and what does define Turkey’s being European or not being European? You will say to me that this question has already been given a positive answer. In effect, Turkey is a member of the European Council since 1963 and in this context it has been defined as a European country incorporated in European culture and identity.
This question has been brought up when Central European countries knocked on the door of the European Council in 1989 and afterwards on that of the EU. The criteria of European identity began to be questioned at that period. What makes Europeans European and what are the criteria of accession to Europe? There are geographical elements: Turkey is founded partially on Asia, partially on Europe. Nevertheless, neither the Bosphorus nor the Dardanelles are impassable demarcation lines. Accordingly, geographical criteria are indications but not ascertained definitions. There are historical elements as well and they show that Turkey has been a part of European history since Antiquity. This brings us back to cultural criteria. At any rate, all question marks, worries and reservations concerning Turkey’s admission to the EU focus on this point.
If we were to analyze this apprehension currently expressed by a wide majority in France, we observe that it results from Turkey’s being a Muslim country. In turn, this leads us to the conclusion that the EU is a Christian Club and that it will not admit a Muslim country among its members. You can see that we are on quite a perilous path because we run the risk of reaching dangerous and totally detrimental results. These concerns about Turkey’s membership and their justifications imply serious discrepancies and perils. We take a very dangerous path by situating religion as a criterium for membership and tagging Europe with labels such as “Christian” or “a Christian tradition”. It is not necessary to acknowledge Samuel Huntington and the clash of civilizations to be right; we would have to start with the Crusades and that would be a fallacious start.
Another conviction on this subject arises out of a cultural problem; one of the former presidents of France had used this argument: “They are and will remain different”. Now, one option is to believe in change –that everyone can change, transform and develop- and accordingly find it wrong to exclude anybody a priori because this would mean that you believe neither in development and transformation, nor in the good will of diverse peoples. This argumentation holding cultural differences in high esteem as seen in today’s France is beautiful, but at the end of this argumentation you come to this point: “You are different, then remain different and stay home. You do not deserve entering our country, for you are different and we respect your being different. Therefore, you cannot become a member of our club.”
Here, we are on a slippery slope and we should react to this. Europeans should exert themselves on this matter. If we pay no heed to it, the present frame of mind will result in introversion, exclusion, fear of other people, petulance, xenophobia and intolerance. As the French, we thus have to settle the situation in our own backyard. I underline these words because the period we live in, the referendum to be held next week in France about the EU constitution, our worries, rancors, prejudices, all give us an opportunity to settle the question in our own backyard. From a cultural perspective, France does not display a correct attitude. We should be very careful to avert the evolution of these ideas because we could regret it dreadfully afterwards. Ideas, ways of thinking, prejudices; these too are a part of culture. We have this kind of a problem, but Turkey too experiences problems for Turkey is in a phase of change and transfiguration. I’ve been witnessing this process for the last 15 years. These changes have not yet come to a conclusion and very luckily so because if Turkey wants to join the EU, these changes in the cultural field in the sense I assign to the concept have to continue.
Accession to the EU, becoming a part of it implies stronger and more diverse commitments than those necessitated by the Council of Europe or any other international organization. Membership to the EU can be compared to a marriage contract. It implies commiting oneself to operate in the light of the same principal values, with the same attitude and in the same direction. This is not a superficial but a profound issue and I daresay that heretofore the EU has not evaluated the effort demanded from the components of the European mechanism.
Considering the events we went through after the application of Central European countries in 1989 –and I see representants from these countries in the room: Hungary, Slovakia, Bulgaria etc. were asked to conform to the Copenhagen criteria, i.e. economic and political criteria. We passed over the change of mindsets, public opinion and whether the meaning of becoming an EU member was rightly evaluated. Mr. Solera, you mentioned earlier civil societies and NGO’s are very important actors in the process of accession to the EU. Civil societies have been presented with a fait accompli. They are not utterly connected with functions fulfilled elsewhere by diplomats or politicians. If it’s the case, this is a big problem.
The cultural domain is not taken into account and today many misunderstandings are at hand; for example, before the UN or concerning the attitude to be assumed against the occupation of Iraq. This week, there have been between the new and old members in the European Parliament dissensions concerning the Yalta Declaration. Some wanted to celebrate what Russians did –including Yalta- because the Red Army helped overthrow Hitler. On the other hand, Poland, Baltic countries and others expressed that paying such a tribute to the Red Army would be exaggerated because although the abovementioned Red Army could have contributed to the fall of Hitler, it had brought into power Stalin and repressive governments that ruled over Central European countries for 50 years. So it is a given fact that; as long as misunderstandings are not liquidated, perplexing situations arise and these give rise to tensions within the EU. I daresay that in 2004 we have not seen to evolutions in public opinion and changes in mindsets not only within new member countries but also the old ones. Today, if we were to consider the example of France, one of the issues the EU is brought under criticism for according to the French population is that public opinion had not been mobilized for the affiliation of the ten new countries to the EU. Therefore, if you put the cultural dimension, identity dimension aside, you actually see that it leans against our cherished memories, because a consistent unity cannot be constructed without taking public opinion into consideration.
As for Turkey, when it declared its nomination for the EU membership, it undertook a difficult task. I would like to address the Turkish citizens who are present here, for you know it better than anyone: your country has a very strong personality, a very long history and it is a country which has known independence and the sovereignity of independence. However, accession to the EU necessitates the handing over of a part of this sovereignity to the Union. This has been quite hard for many countries. For instance, France and Germany had to go through the distress of two abominable World Wars to renounce their sovereignity in favor of the Union they formed together. It is not easy for a nation like the Turkish nation to hand over a part of its proficiency and sovereignity on behalf of the EU, to see itself of equal rank with 25, 27 or maybe 30 other countries because this question affects the depths of the heart, culture and the most profound cultural identity of each and every citizen. This is why the taking of this step implies big difficulties.
On the other hand, with affiliation, it will be necessary to apply common values. These values are very well expressed in the project of constitution we try to ratify arduously. It goes without saying that for a country like Turkey many changes are necessary. Indeed, effort is required and some events we went through are in contradiction with these principles and values. A few weeks ago, a feminist demonstration has been broken up by police forces, this demonstration has been broken up in a way completely in contradiction with the principle of equal rights for men and women. Accordingly, what is to be done must be well calculated. Some politicians in Turkey declare that Europe should not intervene in this problem according to traditions, but it is quite natural for it to intervene for these problems affect principle values.
If accession to the EU is desired, the rules of the game must be respected, what’s more, these are more than just the rules of a game; they are the principal values on which Europe is founded on. So, I would like emphasize on this point: if full-membership to this Union is requested, acceptation of the principal values of the Union is inevitable. If Turkey prefers to remain on the periphery, if it will be contented with a partnership agreement, observance to the common values of the Union is not necessary. On the contrary, if Turkey wants to join the EU, it is our most natural right to demand conformity to these values.
I personally do not stand for EU’s delivering lectures to the whole world; it is overly inclined to give lectures to the other without paying heed to differences. For instance, there is the 57th article of the treaty concerning the neighbourhood policy of the Union; I dislike this article because it demands us to cooperate with our neighbours with respect to Union values. It is a slightly unilateral way of thinking. The EU must respect cultural diversity and mustn’t constantly dictate its own rules to a third party. However, if one of these countries wishes to become a member of the EU, this of course is a different issue. It is a very strong and conscientiously to be obeyed commitment.
As you may have figured out from all I said, in my sense the cultural, philosophical and political dimension has vital importance in relations between other countries and the EU, because all of these are crucial elements for the EU. The EU which is a sui generis unity tied up together with tight bonds cannot keep on this solid structure as long as it is not erected on a pedestal of values. Just like a house, it has to sit on a foundation. These fundamental values are cultural in the noblest and widest sense. These values are the mortar of this Union and what determines the objectives of the Union is once again this set of values.
Why did we establish the EU? For the sake of prosperity and welfare, but there is more to it than just that. The EU has an ideal of civilization, a concept of humanity, a principle of human respect, a conception regarding man’s relation to the society. Accordingly, culture in its widest sense as I have defined it here is, at the same time the pedestal, the mortar and the aim of the European formation. It is this cultural stance which will determine the foreign policy of the EU in the future. The foreign policy of the EU towards the world will definitely not be a random set of activities, an attempt at colonialism or conquest. In contrast, activities such as humanitarian actions, help to developing countries, military support to regions in conflict aiming at certain goals will be carried out. This objective can be formulated as follows: reconstruction of a peace environment, assuring the continuance of civic life under the best circumstances, etc. In view of that, there is an originality in EU’s foreign affairs policy nourished by a certain world-view, a certain cultural framework.
Turkey has been invited to join this mechanism by sharing this pedestal of values and the afore-mentioned objectives. To that effect, certain transformations and a will manifested in that direction is required. No one can decide for Turkey. By Turkey, I mean of course Turkish administrators. I also mean the whole Turkish society. As I have already stated before; this decision cannot be taken by administrators only. The whole society must partake clear-sightedly and conscientiously in this decision. This process depends on men and women of culture; you intellectuals, creators, those who create ideas, beliefs, values, great principles and, in short, culture.
Women and men of culture, intellectuals have not been sufficiently active in the formation of Europe and because of this they are regretful. Depriving it of a crucially important social and human dimension, we left the formation of Europe into the hands of economists and technocrats. The same goes for Turkey and the membership of Turkey to the EU. This is not a matter to be entrusted exclusively to economic records, statistics or formalities. It is an issue much more profound and much more crucial; it is at the same time a very strict issue. Personally, I wish with all my heart that Turkey’s prenomination process will be handled in this way and that intellectuals, professionals of culture will lay hands upon this business and not withdraw to their corner saying that: “Everything concerning the EU is the job of experts and technicians. We are happy to receive subventions from here and there and to partake in such or such a program.” No, the problem is much more serious and I am glad that the Anna Lindh Foundation acts on the same principle and I think that this foundation moves in the right direction. However, this foundation cannot do everything by itself. Principled and idealistic men and women from all of our countries, capable of thinking under all circumstances must take this responsibility. This is the only way in which we can enhance, you can enhance Turkey and the EU; these are the only circumstances under which you can have Turkey admitted into the EU.
A listener- First of all, I would like to make a correction. Turkey is not an Islamic state, it is a secular state by its constitution but Muslims are majoritarian in Turkey. Nevertheless, we also have atheists, Christians and Jews everywhere around our country. I consider that calling Turkey an Islamic state is the greatest mistake committed by Europeans and Americans alike. Moreover, I would like to make something clear; most of the religions the majority of Europeans adhere to have their roots in these lands. Christianity and Judaism alike have originated in Mesopotamia and Sumerian lands. They came from this land, that is to say, when we take a look at sacred books from a perspective of cultural fusion, we do have many common points. In this respect, we should see that our differences are richness.
Secondly, I have travelled across many European countries. Fifty years ago, Turks came to your country to work. Since fifty years, there are Turks in the Netherlands who do not speak a word in Dutch. New laws are put into force: if you don’t know at least 500 words in Dutch, you will have to go back to Turkey even if you are a Dutch citizen. Europe which is seen as the community of world’s most sophisticated civilizations doesn’t bother to teach its language to its guests although it is economically at ease. Then well now underdeveloped societies thrust into the poor corners of the town live in a commune, they come together all by themselves and without understanding the postmodern structure of Europe, this Anatolain community which has not even gone through modernity lives in this feudal-Anatolian structure. I invite you to investigate this issue; foundations should before all else investigate this very deeply.
One more thing: we are a nation that has lived inside Europe for 500 years. We have come by force of war, but now the US does the same thing in the Middle East. So, I don’t think European culture will find it difficult to merge with Turkish-Anatolian culture. As we undergo this process of accession to the EU, we advance in order to unify our values with universal ones. This is very important; the French took over Antioch and stayed there for three to four years and today Antioch has developed under the influence of French culture. Hungary –the land of Huns who have their roots in Central Asia- where we have stayed for 500 years, see us as barbarians although we did nothing bad. We haven’t forced them to change their religion; we have been quite secular in that period. We have to evaluate these.
If we were to turn our attention to Europe, the whole world knows the differences between France and Germany, how they treat one another. Today, you can’t make a Frenchman speak English. You are paralysed when you go to Paris. What kind of a union is this? This is quite astonishing. However, what I see is mainly economical. Germany and France have to unite against the imperialist force of the US. A very serious union has to be in force. I didn’t get any detailed information about European identity from Mrs. Lalumière. I’d like to have detailed information about what European identity is meant to be.
I would like to give an advice. Please, examine well the humanistic philosophy in Anatolian lands. You will need it greatly. Learn the main factors of our people ranging from the Bektashis to Yunus Emre. Do you know why we haven’t been able to reflect this in our daily life? Because economically we have to live on a daily basis. We don’t have the means to plan our future. We are founded on a ruined state. We have been struggling to become a world state under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal and we have not received money from Africa or other countries to accomplish this. We have done these as a part of a whole and we have a cooperation with Germans and the French dating back to the time of Soliman the Magnificient. You asked for our help when you were in trouble. Humanity is a whole, what is important is the way one looks at it. As we consider the dimensions of globalism carefully, we are bound to live as a whole. If we don’t live as a whole, terorism and bloodshed will spread everywhere. I would like to say one more thing to Mrs. Lalumiére: me too, I felt ashamed when my police forces beat up that woman but the other day it was on Turkey’s biggest newspaper “Hürriyet” that the French police beat up youngsters badly. They beat them up so badly that it was in the headlines. I feel ashamed of that too.
Catherine LALUMIÈRE- Do not misunderstand me. When I talk of Turkey as a Muslim country, I am well aware of the fact that it is a secular country. I only mentioned what was going on nowadays in the EU and particularly in France; I myself criticize and denounce these incessantly, but unfortunately these are facts. In other words, I find some of the reactions in French public opinion quite unhealthy. We have to take them into account to be able to change them. I want these to be talked about because it is very dangerous to disguise them. If we were to consider Turkey, we couldn’t say everything is perfect here. What I wish to say is that to be able to construct something together, we have to be very prudent.
A listener - Last year I was a civic education project fellow in Bishkek Kirgyzstan, this year I’m teaching in İstanbul at a little University. I want to thank all the panelists for their presentations. They’ve all been very enlightening and I have to say that you’ve convinced me that culture is the problem, not the solution. I’m as a cultural historian - that’s my profession and my research deals with the question of multiculturalism in Canada and in US. I think if we do want to establish a real intercultural dialogue, we need to give up the idea of a center. I think we should rethink that. The other thing that I’m troubled by as an historian is about the idea that Dr. Solera talked about; this Euro-Mediterranean cultural synthesis, to what degree history will be misused to make it possible? The research for common values historically has often led to a revising and a distortion of history in the interest of certain political and economic objectives. I wonder if that is a danger here. Thank you.
Pascal BRUNET- Let us take a last question. I think we will have to end the session just afterwards. These discussions will resume in the afternoon and I believe tomorrow there will be a discussion part as well.
A listener- There is a talk of cultural fusion. A truly comprehensive and lofty truth is under discussion. Now then, in general it is us who are well acquainted with Europe. That is to say, there have been many leaps on this matter in the last 70-80 years. However, Europe really doesn’t know Turkey. This is obvious from the thoughts of those who are present here. Turkey is best portrayed in the words of a Mawlana who said “Whosoever you might be, come along yet again” and a Yunus Emre who said “We love the created by reason of the Creator” and a prophet who said “The most auspicious of all men is the one who is of use to others”. The cultural differences we keep mentioning always relate to politics. This lady said for example: “Turkey has to confirm to us in order to join”. If truth be told, that is right, if you want enter somewhere, you have to be in concordance with them. Well now imagine a wild animal that violates the rights of a hundred innocent and slaughters them. Now, if we forgive the animal we will have done a good thing, but what happens to those hundred innocents? Such a thing is not possible. To forgive a murderer who has massacred a hundred innocents is to violate the rights of those hundred innocents. Now, this is what Europe wants us to do. In other words, it is wrong to carry cultural difference to different dimensions. The question is about conscience because the nutriment of the mind is science and that of the heart is religion and conscience. From the union of the two the truth arises. Europe wants to disconnect the two. If you disconnect them, you can have success neither in politics, nor in daily life, nor in your conscience. We really study Europe very much but Europe should understand that the way of living of Turkey differs very much from theirs. For example, in European daily life, alchoholic beverages are regarded as an ordinary thing, to us it is known to be forbidden by religion. You have to know why it is forbidden. You try to look at it only from your point of view and that leads you to error.
Lodewijk REIJS- Just shortly a reflection on what this American man –I missed the name I’m sorry- said about cultural dialogue “there should not be a center of culture”. I think it’s very true and precisely for this reason there is a much heated debate especially in Europe, focused on UNESCO about cultural diversity and the importance of that. That is of course a very difficult question because everyone has their own center of view point but it is an issue that I think especially in Europe is considered quite strongly especially in France by the way, the whole issue of cultural diversity, I think it’s important for this meaning of cultural dialogue.
Pascal BRUNET- Thank you. Thus, our time has widely expired. I believe that this discussion will continue in the afternoon. However, our subject of discussion here was especially “Tools and activities within European programs and their preambles” and I presume we have been able to elucidate the matter. I think it will be very interesting to discuss it over on the basis of networks and the experiences of network operators. As for tomorrow, creation processes and artists will be under discussion.
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder