Minister of Foreign Affairs Jan Petersen

Building Bridges between the Muslim World and the West

Address to the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies 2 December 2004

Check against delivery

Professor Nizami,

Dear friends,

I would like to start by thanking Professor Nizami for the invitation to speak here today. We are both members of the World Economic Forum’s Council of 100 Leaders, which has launched the West-Islamic World Dialogue. The dialogue is committed to building bridges between the Muslim world and the West by providing a meeting place and a channel for inter-cultural and cross-political understanding.

At a meeting of the C-100 group Professor Nizami asked me to present my views on these issues from the point of view of a Norwegian politician.

The reasons why we should build bridges between the two worlds – the West and the Muslim worlds – are obvious. There is no lack of screaming headlines, of sensational media reports highlighting real and imagined conflicts between representatives of these two worlds. The issue is high on the international agenda.

Our societies have become more ethnically and culturally mixed than ever before. But at same time the friction and clashes between and within our societies are more serious and far-reaching than ever before.

Violence and terror have always been employed by unscrupulous leaders or groups for religious, cultural or political ends. Today, it is most often extremist Islamic organisations that use these weapons. In my view, the growth of radical Islamism – as a political extremist movement – is one of the greatest obstacles to improved relations between the Western and the Muslim worlds. According to Osama bin Laden and other leaders, al Qaeda is motivated by a tradition of jihad to defend the faith against non-believers. They see themselves as engaged in a holy, world-wide struggle against a corrupt and oppressive enemy, the West.

Nothing can justify the use of terror. No cause, however worthy, can excuse the killing of innocent people. In our globalised age, home affairs and foreign affairs can rarely be separated, threats know no borders, security is indivisible. International terrorism is a threat to the security of all of us.

September 11 ^th> was a political earthquake that shook a whole world. The aftershocks are still with us. The attack on the Twin Towers, the terrorist acts in Madrid and the violence in the streets of Amsterdam have dealt a severe blow to the relations between the Muslim world and the West.

The attacks seem to confirm our worst fears that radical Muslims want to target our societies and values. Thus in the West some people now have the idea that the Muslim world is “after us” – and vice versa. This idea is one of the main causes of suspicion, exclusion and racism – all of them widening the gap between the Western and Muslim worlds.

On the other hand, in my discussions with Muslim leaders, when they mention for instance the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Afghanistan or Iraq, it strikes me that many of them feel that the Western world is out to control, harm or attack them.

Many Muslims and Westerners do have different perspectives on the world. As a result, they tend to interpret events differently. Cultural stereotypes add to this problem. The ordinary Muslim tends to regard the West as corrupt, decadent and immoral, driven by an urge for power and control. The people of the West tend to regard the Islamic world as autocratic, violent and fundamentalist, lacking in civil liberties. A Norwegian television debate the other night, for example, raised the question: “Are Muslims a threat to Western values?”

Anxiety and fear create hatred. Fuelled by hatred, we start thinking in terms of black and white, we start classifying people and countries as ‘good’ or ‘evil’, we divide the world into ‘us’ and ‘them’. We stop searching for common ground.

This situation calls for political leadership in both the Muslim and the Western world.

Together we need to combat the misapprehension that Islam and terrorism are political twins. We should strive for a better understanding of Islam and the Muslim world among ourselves and focus on what we share – rather than where we diverge.

We need to examine how we – Western societies – can enhance our co-operation with the Muslim world – how we can work together with Muslim countries to address their challenges.

We must develop efficient means for dealing also with the underlying conditions that foster extremism. At a conference hosted by Norway on the root causes of terrorism in New York last September the following factors were identified as contributing to the growth of terrorism: lack of democracy, human rights and the rule of law, economic disparities, non-integration of opposition groups, extreme ideologies, and a tradition of political violence, dictatorship or occupation.

Samuel P. Huntington has described the divide between the Western and the Muslim worlds as a “clash of civilisations”. This is a description – and an attitude – I do not share. It completely overlooks the ties that exist between the Muslim world and the West.

It is, of course, not necessary to point to this fact at the Centre, but we should remember that Christianity and Islam build on the same religious tradition – a tradition that originated in the Middle East. We should remember that the Middle East has been a meeting place for religions, for trade and for political thinkers for centuries. We should remember that the Muslim world has made many significant contributions to our own culture. Where would the West be without the insights into philosophy, mathematics and science we have gained from Arab civilisation?

Our common intellectual heritage – our common values – are closely interwoven – this cannot be described as a clash of civilisations.

However, the divide is there. And we have to recognise that there are certain substantial differences between the two civilisations. – For example, in relation to women’s rights and women’s role in society.

But my main point is that what I would call a “clash of perceptions” – or perhaps even more precisely: a clash between two stereotypes – amplifies those differences that do exist.

We must therefore challenge these stereotypes. Muslim intellectuals have cautioned against regarding “the other world” as a single, monolithic object. I very much agree with them.

But this diversity is seen – by some – as a threat to their way of life.

The murder of Theo van Gogh by a radical Islamist is the most recent demonstration of the collision between different perceptions of fundamental values. The murder has been linked to van Gogh’s controversial film about Islamic culture. It raised an outcry, but also a backlash. Now it is Muslims who are being targeted in mosques and schools in the Netherlands. Like the Dutch Prime Minister, I believe it is totally unacceptable to express one’s opinion in the form of murder or any other form of violence. Such acts only serve to aggravate confrontation and xenophobia.

In the Norwegian debate following the murder of van Gogh an Islamic leader has stated that he understands the killer’s motive. I believe this highlights the need for strengthened dialogue with Muslim communities – among other things to explain the importance of freedom of expression as a basic human right deeply rooted in Western societies.

There is now an urgent need to search for common ground that will unite instead of dividing. But if the West is to succeed in gaining the confidence of the Muslim world, we have to act decisively at several different levels.

We can only succeed if the majority of the Muslim world takes part in the process – and only if we are able to engage the moderate forces of Islam – that is the organisations, groups and leaders that reject the use of violence as a political weapon. This is a point I want to emphasise; our fight against international terrorism will not be successful unless the Western world establishes alliances with the vast majority of moderate Muslims. And the Western world will never be able to create such alliances unless we – the West – show respect for Islam.

I would like to make three main points in connection with dialogues.

Firstly, it seems to me that much of the West-Islamic confrontation derives from the idea that the two cultures have different sets of values. – Or at least from the idea that the two cultures put different emphasis on the same set of values.

Again, we must admit that there are differences. This is a fact we cannot ignore. We have to acknowledge – and respect – these dissimilarities.

Based on this recognition we need to search also for the common ground there also is. In fact both the Western and Muslim cultures are based on values we all share. Human dignity, the sacredness of life, the pursuit of peace, tolerance.

Only by respecting the fundamental value of the individual – of every man and woman – can we create a vibrant society. I believe such societies are based on – and foster – free, independent, creative and responsible individuals.

We are united by our belief in universal human rights. This belief is a global instrument for mutual understanding. The fundamental freedoms that are inalienable rights, that form the basis of democracies, also contribute to viable, and not least to prosperous societies.

Thus, the belief in universal human rights represents common ground – a joint platform. But we all know there are in fact regimes whose human rights policies are totally unacceptable. These repressive regimes do not seem to recognize the value of the individual human being. They do not allow religious practices outside those of the official religion, their law is in conflict with women’s rights, they allow children to be exploited and they persecute minorities for their views. Those regimes do not respect the set of values laid down by the universal human rights. – Which makes it more difficult to build bridges.

If the belief in universal human rights is to function as a tool for dialogue between the Western and Muslim worlds it has to be respected and protected.

A vibrant society is characterised by tolerance and pluralism. Democratic systems exhibit a high degree of tolerance of the views of minorities. Each citizen – each group – has the right to speak out, to be heard and participate, without being rejected or oppressed. The task of every political system is to represent the views and opinions of all its members – and to form its policies in the name of respect, tolerance and pluralism. And not only this – governing bodies should always strive to allow the individual as much freedom of choice – room for manoeuvre – as possible. Without the free exchange of information, opinions and ideas, debate on the future development of our societies will not be inclusive – and it will not be productive. Without freedom of expression, there can be no real criticism. Education, freedom of expression, free media and political pluralism through political parties and interest groups are all essential elements in any process of democracy building.

In this connection I feel I should mention last year’s UNDP report on the situation in the Arab world. The report called attention to the need for further democratisation and for improving the status of women in Arab countries.

But my point here is that in all the efforts to promote cultural and political dialogue between the Muslim and Western worlds the point of departure must be that “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.”

Secondly, many values are rooted in religious belief. Religion plays a significant role in many societies. Religion can be a source of conflict – or a vehicle for understanding. People talk about the steady growth of secularisation – but I am not so sure about this. Faith will always be an important part of many people’s lives.

Religion is high on the international political agenda. September 11 ^th >gave the world the impression that religion is a major source of conflict. The idea of Islam as a force against peace and stability became prevalent in many parts of society.

But often religious differences are not in fact the underlying cause of a conflict. They are frequently misused for political purposes by extremists and populist movements. These exploit our fear of “the other” – a fear that is usually based on ignorance and misunderstanding. One could say that they hijack religion, and use it to stir up unrest and promote destabilisation. Combating this type of propaganda is a major challenge. But it is a challenge we have to deal with.

One way of combating this use of religion is to turn it around – to use religion as a means of fostering deeper understanding. Faith can bring together – instead of dividing.

By discussing similarities and differences in an inter-religious dialogue, we can identify shared values like respect for what is sacred, for human dignity and for reconciliation.

By focusing on what unites us, we can bring about a dialogue of civilisations – to use an expression introduced by Arab intellectuals.

More harmonious relations between religions will not in themselves solve conflicts. But they can pave the way for, peaceful, durable political solutions to conflicts.

As a contribution to this dialogue Norway is arranging an international conference on the role of religion in peacemaking and reconciliation next February. The purpose of the conference is to identify areas where religion can play a role in conflict resolution – and to make concrete suggestions for how to anchor peace and reconciliation more deeply in religious beliefs and practices.

Building bridges between the Muslim and Western worlds is also about building bridges within our own societies. It is easy for us to forget this idea in Norway – which is still a fairly homogenous society with a Muslim population of about 100,000. Most western countries, however, have much larger Muslim populations, and the Middle East has Christian populations. Muslims in Europe and the Americas, and Christians in the Middle East, can play a vital role in bridging gaps within their own societies.

In Norway we have had an organised dialogue going between different religious communities for the last 10-15 years. The dialogue has resulted in much greater trust between religious leaders and in a number of joint projects such as seminars and dialogue groups. The Norwegian media have also started to show much more interest in religious issues and in the relations between different faiths. One of the lessons the inter-religious dialogue in Norway has taught us is that disagreement on controversial issues such as family life, sexuality and relations between the sexes often does not run along the religious divide, but cuts across it.

Thirdly, a dialogue between religions must be combined with a broad political dialogue and a focus on global economic co-operation. Because we must not neglect to address the political, social and economic conditions that foster the spread of extremism and conflict.

Poverty, injustice and lack of political freedom generate frustration and hopelessness. Denying people their civil liberties causes resentment. Slow economic growth combined with demographic pressure results in high unemployment. Large social disparities together with suppression of dissent force public debate under ground. Any or all of these situations are fertile breeding ground for extremism – in both the Western and Moslem worlds.

To deal with this challenge we must put human dignity and human rights at the centre of our societies. And the only effective way to do this is for the Western and the Muslim worlds to join forces. They must engage in a dialogue on reform and economic development – a dialogue that takes account of the link between good governance, a low level of corruption, political stability and economic performance. We already have a good starting point for dialogue here. Documents such as the UNDP Arab Human Development Report, the Alexandria Declaration and the Tunis Declaration of the League of Arab States give guidelines for how to promote democracy, good governance, and social and economic reforms in the Middle East. I’ll return to these questions later.

I have mentioned the importance of global economic co-operation. The Western and Muslim worlds belong, of course, to the same global economy. Globalisation is an inevitable part of our modern world. It offers both opportunities and challenges. Globalisation can lead to development and prosperity – since international trade is an important engine of economic growth. But the forces of globalisation can also result in significant economic disparities and thus fuel instability and insecurity. Not all groups, regions and countries are enjoying the social and economic benefits of this process. This is an important point to remember when discussing the gaps between the West and Moslem world – it enables us to see where bridge-building is most urgently needed.

I believe that a sound foundation for growth and welfare for all countries can only be built through a system of fair trade rules developed through international co-operation. A successful Doha Round of the World Trade Organization can lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty.

Several Arab countries have now entered into free trade agreements, but they still face difficulties in exporting their goods. The most important obstacles are no longer customs duties, but standards that they are unable to meet. Many Arab economies are in great need of modernisation. The recent reforms initiated by the Egyptian government are a positive step in this regard.

Real economic development is only possible in a democracy – a society where ordinary people have the opportunity to fulfil their potential and make a contribution to the development of their country.

Inclusive, open, pluralist societies have economic accountability and transparent financial management. These are vital to economic growth and also to a more equitable distribution of wealth. Both these factors are essential for long-term political stability in a society. Thus inclusive, democratic societies fare better in the global economy. They are essential to a market economy.

Democracy presupposes participation – by everyone. It rejects violence as a way of solving problems. It maintains the structures that protect societies from a return to violent conflict. It offers alternative channels for the expression of dissent and difference. Thus democracy and respect for human rights and the rule of law provide a peaceful means of resolving conflicts of interest and settling disputes.

My point here is that democratic institutions are an instrument for dialogue between countries, societies, cultures and individuals – between the Western and Muslim worlds. A closer political dialogue should not be conducted at government level alone. It should include civil society, the media, research institutions and other important actors in society. This will ensure a public debate that reflects a wide variety of views.

I would like to stress how important it is that we hear the voices of moderate Muslims in this debate – that they are given the opportunity to put their ideas across and thus counter the spread of radical forms of Islamism that promote violence. Moderate views will challenge the stereotypes on both sides.

In the Western world we tend to assume that all Muslim countries and societies are alike. We tend not to see the differences and variations between them in terms of tradition, religious practices or current political system and governance. Fixed ideas like this get in the way of communication. It is vital that we do not generalise. As you all know, the Islamic world presents a varied and extremely complex picture.

Indonesia, for example, is the largest Muslim nation and the fourth most populous country in the world. In September Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono won Indonesia's first ever direct presidential elections. I was impressed by the conduct of these elections – at the local as well as at the parliamentary and presidential level. They could be described as the first peaceful transition of power in Indonesia's history.

I am also encouraged by Indonesian initiative to support the moderate forces of Islam - as opposed to the violent, militant attitudes that too often reach the headlines. About 86 per cent of the 225 million inhabitants of Indonesia are Muslim. The two most dominant Muslim organisations [Nadlathul Ulama and Muhammadiyah] have 40 and 30 million members respectively. Both are opposed to the introduction of Sharia law.

Even though the great majority of Indonesian Muslims are moderate, there are groups inclined to violence. The Bali bombings killed over 200 people. This action confirmed the status of Jemaha Islamiyah as a militant Islamic network. The Indonesian government has acted decisively against the group, and Ba'asyir stands accused of being the leader of Jemaha Islamiyah. Further, the president has wowed to tackle the problems of extremism and and terrorism.

I am encouraged by the way the Indonesian government has faced up to religious fanaticism and the terrorist challenge, both through its own efforts and by co-operating with other countries. Indonesia is crucial to the stability of Southeast Asia. The country also acts a spokesperson for developing nations in global institutions.

In Afghanistan free democratic elections are an instrument for increased stability and for a government’s true basis, its legitimacy. Next week President Karzai will be formally inaugurated as Afghanistan’s elected president. Indeed, the election is a milestone in the democratic process in Afghanistan. The election process was a success, it was surprisingly free of violence and terrorist attacks, and the voter turnout was high. This was very encouraging. It shows that the people of Afghanistan have a strong desire for democracy and peace and that our efforts to assist them along this path are bearing fruit.

In Africa, the conflict in Sudan between the Islamic government in Khartoum and the rebels in the South has been one of the world’s longest running civil wars. It has left over two million people dead and four million on the run. Hopefully, the talks under way in Kenya will bring it to an end before long.

The conflict in the South has been described as a conflict between an expanding Islamic state and Christian and African cultures. Southern Sudan is depicted as a ”fault line” between these cultures. The example of Darfur, however, shows that the conflicts are not only between Islamic and other groups, but just as much between a strong centre and marginalised regions throughout the country.

Thus the Sudan conflict is not so much about religion as about issues of government. It is yet another example of religion being used to legitimise a struggle for power and economic control.

I have discussed the importance of inter-religious dialogue, cultural and political dialogue – and of economic reform. But mutual respect, understanding and tolerance do not emerge or develop in a vacuum. Fortunately, there are a number of concrete multilateral processes and initiatives that are already going on between Western and Muslim countries. They are motivated by a common desire to address major social, political, economic and security issues and provide a sound framework for constructive co-operation.

• First, the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership, whose broad and ambitious agenda seeks
  to promote free trade and economic co-operation, aid and development, peace and stability, and dialogue across cultures and religions.

• Second , the G-8 Partnership for Progress and a Common Future, which is a forum for co-operation on economic development and political reform. Norway was especially pleased that the G8 countries explicitly mentioned the need to focus on support for the Palestinian Area.

• Third, the Middle East Partnership Initiative, which aims to strengthen co-operation between the Arab world and the United States on economic issues, political development, education and gender equality.

• Fourth , the Council of 100 Leaders, of which Professor Nizami and I are both members. Under the auspices of the World Economic Forum the Council seeks to promote projects and partnerships that strengthen intercultural relations.

• Fifth, the MENA Initiative on Governance and Investment for Development, which aims to strengthen economic, social and human development in the Middle East by promoting investment and good governance. It is a partnership between the OECD and UNDP.

• Sixth, the Istanbul Co-operation Initiative under the auspices of NATO. At the NATO summit in Istanbul in June it was decided to adopt the Istanbul Co-operation Initiative with selected countries in the broader Middle East in connection with NATO’s Mediterranean Dialogue on security policy issues, which is between NATO and Egypt, Israel, Mauritania, Morocco, Tunisia and Jordan.. Norway firmly supports NATO's decisions on these processes. We are seeking to make the dialogue as inclusive as possible, with an emphasis on local ownership.

• Seventh, these initiatives are also in line with the Tunis Declaration by the League of Arab States, which emphasises the need for modernisation and reform, particularly in the political, economic and education fields, and to improve women’s participation in society.

• And finally, the International Ministerial Meeting on Iraq in Sharm el-Sheikh last week brought together political leaders from Western and Middle East countries to find a common approach to the challenges of Iraq, and to identify ways of contributing to reconstruction and stability. These leaders’ acknowledgement of the necessity of working together is most encouraging.

All these initiatives are important political instruments for greater co-operation and dialogue between the Middle East and the West. Unfortunately, there are still conflict areas and situations where the bridges of Western-Muslim dialogue are either very few or very fragile.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a major source of mistrust and confrontation between the Muslim world and the West. The conflict is deeply symbolic – many countries, groups and individuals are identifying themselves with one or other of the parties. The Palestinians’ struggle is the struggle of the whole Arab world. Each side is feeding on its prejudices about the other . A peaceful settlement to this conflict is the single issue that would contribute most to improving Muslim-Western relations.

The death of President Yasser Arafat marks the end of an era. Together with the Knesset’s approval of Prime Minister Sharon’s disengagement plan, this has created a new situation. Strengthened US engagement at this juncture could be decisive, and I was encouraged by the report of the meeting between President Bush and Prime Minister Blair on 12 November.

It is now crucial that the Palestinian and Israeli leaders, the Quartet, and other international actors do their utmost to build a foundation for the resumption of the peace process. Not only in words, but also in terms of concrete actions. There should be no delay in following the Road Map for Peace, which contains all the steps necessary to reach a political solution and establish a Palestinian state.

Israeli withdrawal must not result in a “Gaza first, Gaza last” solution. The disengagement plan could be an opportunity. But Israeli disengagement from Gaza and the four settlements on the West Bank, must be made in accordance with the Road Map, UN resolutions and the two-state solution. The withdrawal must also be carried out in a way that contributes to sustainable economic development in Gaza. In my capacity as chair of the Ad Hoc Liaison Committee for Assistance to the Palestinians, and in close co-operation with the Palestinian and Israeli governments and the members of the Quartet, I have taken the initiative for a meeting to identify what is needed to stabilise the Palestinian economy. Unless the economy improves it will not be possible to strengthen the political processes.

One of the challenges for the donor community is to make sure that the conditions for Israeli withdrawal are conducive to normalisation and steady growth in the Palestinian economy. This will put heavy demands on Israel. The donor community cannot continue forever to pick up the bills caused by the Israeli occupation.

At the same time, the Palestinian Authority bears the major share of responsibility for achieving sound political and economic development. The new Palestinian leadership must continue the governance reform in accordance with the Road Map, and it must halt the Palestinian attacks on Israel and Israelis. Prime Minister Qureia’s dialogue with Hamas is a vital element in this process and must be encouraged by the international community.

Furthermore, the political situation must be stabilised. I am impressed by the way the PA has handled the situation since President Arafat’s death. In the coming months the Palestinian leadership will need the full backing of the international community.

While a lot of attention has been directed towards Gaza, the situation continues to deteriorate on the West Bank and East Jerusalem. I am particularly worried about the construction of the separation barrier on Palestinian land. I am also deeply concerned about the continued construction activities inside the Israeli settlements on the West Bank. These are in conflict with international law and create facts on the ground that will threaten a peaceful solution.

We know what the solution should be: two viable states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security. Let us hope that the coming months will strengthen the prospects for an end to this international conflict.

Like the situation in the Palestinian Area, the future development of Iraq will have a decisive impact on relations between the Muslim world and the West. There is no doubt that the war has seriously affected these relations. We must not underestimate the effect of the worldwide television images from the Abu Ghraib prison and more recently from the mosques in Fallujah.

The basis for Norway’s Iraq policy is Security Council resolution 1546, which outlines the framework for international involvement in Iraq. The aim of this involvement is to prepare for a democratically elected government and to ensure full Iraqi control of the country and its resources. The only way to achieve this is to re-establish stability.

No matter what we may think about the justification or the lawfulness of the invasion of Iraq, the UN resolution imposes a responsibility on the entire international community for the development of Iraq. This will require close co-operation with the Iraqi authorities.

The Security Council has given its full support to the Interim Government. The transfer of power last June and the holding of the National Congress last August were important steps towards a democratic government. The next milestone will be the parliamentary elections at the end of January. The road to long-term stability goes through democratic political processes.

Iraq needs international support for its reconstruction and stabilisation efforts. Standards of living have fallen dramatically after years of misgovernment and war. Norway is allocating almost 8 million dollars to Iraq for the period 2003-2006. The 80 per cent debt relief being granted to Iraq through the Paris Club will make a positive contribution to reconstruction.

But reconstruction will not be possible unless we first succeed in stabilising the country. Norway therefore supports NATO’s decisions to train Iraqi security forces. As a NATO country we will be contributing by sending instructors to NATO’s new training centre outside Baghdad and by training Iraqi officers in Norway. We are also providing training for a number of Iraqi police officers.

A democratic Iraq is possible. It is in our common interest to make sure that the Iraqi people are now able to elect their leaders in a secure environment.

I would like to conclude by emphasising that the Muslim and the Western worlds have a common history and share basic values. Our differences – as we perceive them – have been caused mainly by the misuse of religion to fuel conflict, economic and social disparities, and concrete political conflicts like the Israeli-Palestinian one.

We cannot afford to let these problems and confrontations continue sowing dissension and creating tension between the two worlds – and within Western and Muslim societies. We must focus on what Christianity and Islam have in common, not what divides them. We must address the issues of economic development and political reforms in the wider Middle East. We must strive to establish an independent Palestinian state, and we must join forces in order to stabilise, make safe, reconstruct and democratise Iraq.

All these challenges require an active dialogue on many levels, and in many forums – religious, cultural and political. Building bridges doesn’t mean assimilation or integration. Building bridges means establishing channels for contact, for talks, for the exchange of ideas. We must resist the “with us or against us” rhetoric, and start speaking more about joint interests, common ground and shared solutions. We will only succeed if we challenge the stereotypes and practice tolerance.

Thank you for your attention.