Lecture at the University of Ottawa
Ottawa, 5 June 2006

Ladies and Gentlemen,
Dear students,

Ever since I became European Commissioner in May 2004, I’ve had many
opportunities to debate the topics included in my portfolio with audiences of all
kinds.

As you probably know, my responsibilities include the policies of the European
Union on education, training and culture; on youth and sport; on civil society and
multilingualism.

I consider myself lucky, because these domains cover some of the most exciting
and pressing issues of our time.

Of these, cultural diversity has a special place in my heart. I come from Slovakia, a
country that has had its fair share of troubles to preserve its cultural and political
identity.

Fortunately, after the decades spent as part of the Eastern bloc, history has been
kinder to us. When communism collapsed and the iron curtain tumbled down, we
have returned to freedom. This new era paved the way to unprecedented
developments, but I’ll come back to that later.

---

Cultural diversity is an exciting topic both for politicians and for intellectuals.
Politicians cannot ignore cultural diversity because it keeps coming up in many
areas of public discourse; from trade and the new world order to domestic and
regional policies—including those on education, social integration, and minority
rights.

Intellectuals have a different challenge, because the phrase ‘cultural diversity’ is
very broad indeed and, as consequence, rather vague.

These are not necessarily bad things. It is unlikely that ‘cultural diversity’ can
become a specialty topic in the same way as computational linguistics; however, it
has all it takes to be a stimulating area of interdisciplinary research.

So, it seems to me that scholars and policy makers must demonstrate the same set
of qualities if they want to deal with cultural diversity: an open mind, tolerance and
curiosity towards the other, and above all the ability to engage in constructive
dialogue even with radically different positions.

For these and other reasons, I am particularly happy to exchange views on cultural
diversity with you. I thank the representatives of this University for giving this
opportunity to me—and I want to do it in French.

C’est un honneur pour moi d’être parmi vous aujourd’hui au cœur même de l’une
des plus importantes universités bilingues du pays.
Son environnement multiculturel, avec ses professeurs et étudiants de tous
horizons, ses programmes d’échanges d’étudiants et l’histoire même de la ville
d’Ottawa illustrent parfaitement la diversité culturelle ainsi que ses valeurs telle
que je la conçois.
A l’heure où les medias ne nous parlent plus que de mondialisation et
d’harmonisation, l’Europe reste consciente de l’importance de cette diversité
culturelle et c’est pourquoi elle s’est fixé comme objectif de la préserver et de la
promouvoir.
Je tiens à vous remercier de m’avoir inviter à partager ce moment avec vous.

---

Everything indicates we have the perfect conditions for a stimulating exchange of
ideas today—both politically and intellectually.

Ottawa is the capital of one of the most open and welcoming countries in the world
and the University of Ottawa is its premier centre of learning.
Canada receives around 200,000 new immigrants a year. These are people who are
drawn to your country looking for a peaceful and caring society.

Canada has a fair claim to become a model on the international scene for the way it
makes the most of its rich cultural, ethnic and linguistic makeup.

As to the University of Ottawa, it is clear that it reflects the cosmopolitan character
of your society. I was standing in front of Morisset Hall a while ago and I could see
what it means to have students and faculty from over 150 countries on campus.

It feels good to discuss cultural diversity in a bilingual university like yours; which
explicitly recognises the contribution of this country’s many communities.

On a more personal note, it feels good that your university has decided to study the
specific contribution of Slovaks. I am referring, of course, to your Chair in Slovak
History and Culture—one of the very few in the Americas.

---

Besides, how can this university not be at the forefront in cultural diversity? The
border between English and French Canada is very close indeed and it must be a
constant reminder that diversity is part of everyday life.

This national capital region, straddling the river and two provinces, is proudly and
confidently bilingual. It reminds me a bit of Brussels—the place where I now work
and live—so close to French– and Flemish–speaking communities.

Both cities show that the line between one’s own and the foreign is not as sharp as
many would have us believe. In Brussels and in Ottawa one can understand a
simple but important truth: a genuine attitude of openness towards the other really
begins at home.

If you are used to negotiating different visions of the world with your fellow
countrymen and women, then it will be easier to carry over this positive attitude
with fellow human beings from any other part of the planet.

Unfortunately, the opposite applies as well. Many acts of discrimination are
committed by individuals with a twisted sense of cultural identification within their
own communities.

These common views between Canada and the EU underpins our long history of
co–operation. I would just like to note that our first agreement—it was about
education—goes as far back as 1976.

Building on our past success, we are now looking at a broader dialogue which,
when the new agreement enters in force, will also make room for actions for young
people and policy–oriented activities to complement co–operation in education and
vocational training. The new Agreement should be seen as much more than just a
continuation of what we have been doing so far. We should therefore also be
working together level towards preparing the introduction of various innovative
aspects
of the new scheme. Such innovation could give rise to the award of joint
transatlantic degrees by a European and Canadian university, whether at
undergraduate or masters level.

Ladies and Gentlemen:

I have begun to draw a parallel between the meaning of cultural diversity here and
in Europe; but first I would like to tell you about the role of cultural diversity in
Europe’s past.

Europeans have had to share a relatively small space with each other for many
centuries. As a result, a salient feature of our continent is that it has always been a
mosaic of cultures in constant flux.

Living side–by–side as we have done for centuries, we’ve had to come to terms
with each other. This has had two starkly contrasting effects:

Often cultural differences have been the reason—or the pretext—for tensions
and wars, including some of the worst atrocities the world has seen.
At the same time, we have also learned a great deal from each other, and this
has made the peoples of Europe brighter, wiser and stronger.

Far from being a contradiction, these two facts are a testimony that cultural
diversity, dialogue and confrontation are part of our genetic make–up.
This contrasts with a current view that we have inherited from the nationalist
movements originated in the early 19th century. This tradition regards Europe’s
cultural map as a set of pretty uniform communities enclosed within national
borders.

In this view, the Nation State is identified with a language, a history, and a set of
values and habits that have been described as the national spirit or character.
Of course, in this view there is hardly any room for the languages, the histories and
the values of others—except on the other side of the border.

This representation of cultural unity is now losing ground under the double
pressure of the hard facts of history and their interpretation in academic and
intellectual circles.

In the age of globalisation, there is wide and growing consensus that there is no
such thing as a pure or uniform culture. Cultures thrive on hybridity.
This is especially true in Europe. Each culture that Europe has seen has always
been a highly diverse mix. I will give you just one example of what I mean, and
because we are so close to the linguistic border, it will be about an episode in the
history of the English and French languages.

---

After William the Conqueror became king of England, on Christmas Day 1066,
French became the language of administration and high culture, while English lost
prestige and continued to be used for everyday purposes.
The two languages would live and develop side–by–side in England for the next
three centuries or so.

During this period, the English language received about 10,000 words from French.
Some estimate that, today, an English native speaker who has never studied French
already knows 15,000 French words.

There are countless episodes like these in Europe’s history. Sometimes they are
presented to support this or that claim to superiority. These claims are often
motivated by present interests—rather than past events—and they are invariably
groundless.

In fact, these stories illustrate the words I chose for the first half of my title today:
diversity is the inevitable legacy Europeans have received from their past.

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Cultural diversity is a state of affairs here in Canada, back in Europe, and elsewhere
in the world. What we think and we do about it, is another matter altogether—and
this is entirely in our hands.

The argument I’ve been giving you boils down to one simple statement: in the past,
Europeans have used cultural diversity to grow smarter and richer; and they have
used it to bring death and suffering to each other.

The mind goes to WWII, of course, at the end of which the continent was down to
its knees. Then, the most enlightened political and intellectual leaders realised that
Europe would not survive another modern war.

To ensure peace in Europe a process was set in motion which has led to the
European Union as we know it today. Today’s European Union is more European
thanks to its enlargement.

Half a century has passed and things have changed a lot; however, peace is still the
single most important reason for our process of integration.

Robert Schuman—one of the founding fathers of Europe—was perfectly clear on
this point; he once said: “war between France and Germany [should become] not
merely unthinkable, but materially impossible”.

In their effort to integrate, the countries of Europe have given up some of their
sovereign powers and pooled them under common institutions. The breadth and
depth of this geopolitical innovation has no precedent in history.

Our institutional arrangement is equally unprecedented. The EU is not a federation,
but it is much more than a trade block such as NAFTA or a forum such as the
Organisation of American States.

In the past few decades, the Union has had an immense power of attraction across
the region. The original six members have now become 25 over five waves of
enlargement.

This is the part of the story I began to tell you at the start. Slovakia—my home
country—joined the Union on May 1, 2004 along with nine others.
We all embraced the Union because it stood for peace, democracy, and freedom.
So, to us the master plan for Europe was not of mere historical interest, but the
living promise for a better future.

---

Over the past 50 years the Union has grown both larger and deeper. What started as
an economic community is now an organization with significant political features.

We have common legislation, a single market, a currency, a flag, and a Parliament
directly elected by the people.

We are working on a common foreign policy and on military capabilities. So, the
next question is: “What does the Union want to be?”

The difficult months that are behind us prove that the answer is dramatically
elusive. Is it the case that a Union of 25 countries is growing too diverse? Have we
lost our sense of direction?

This is the deepest political sense of the question before us today and explains the
second half of my title today.

The future of the EU hinges on our ability to understand and manage diversity—
cultural, economic, and political. Even our motto reads ‘united in diversity’.
Diversity lies at the core of the debate we have launched to close the period of
reflection which followed the rejection of the Constitutional Treaty by French and
Dutch voters last year.

Last month the European Commission—which represents the common interests of
the Union—formally called on the Member States to renew their commitment to
Europe.

We suggest that national leaders sign of a joint declaration 50 years after the Treaty
of Rome, which is regarded as the birth date of the Union.
In the life of an individual, the 50th birthday marks the height of maturity, but for a
historical process like the EU it is a very short time indeed.

What I mean to say is that we are not looking at a mid–life crisis, but at a stage of
development somewhere between childhood and puberty.

I am confident that as the countries of Europe will create better conditions for the
Union to grow up strong and healthy.

Ladies and Gentlemen:

There is a lot the European Commission can do as well. Over the past twelve
months, we have realised that there is a gap between what Europe really does and
what the media and the people think it does.

The obvious solution it to centre our action around what we have called a citizens’
agenda. This includes policies and actions that will deliver results for our people
and revamp the role of the EU in the world.

Everyone agrees the EU is at a crossroads in its process of integration: there are
many ideas of Europe, many competing interests, many directions for the future.
Let me reprise my earlier argument: diversity is a fact of life and what we do with it
is entirely up to us. So, shall we steer towards division or towards unity?

I believe in the power of will and determination. I also believe in the power of
rationality. So, if you ask me, I would bet on unity.
It stands to reason that the Union will be the decisive factor for the security,
prosperity, and solidarity of the continent in the coming years. In a globalised
world, we simply don’t have an option.

I am also optimistic that the EU will find the willpower to turn the page and
strengthen the bonds that keep together its countries and regions, its institutional
systems, and above all its peoples.

Here, I want to put the stress on the people. Much of the current stalemate—such as
on Europe’s institutional arrangement—can be resolved by governments, social
partners, and other representative bodies.

But these issues are far from the real concerns of the people, who perceive the
debate on a Constitution for the EU as remote and obscure.
If we are serious about the long–term success of a united Europe, we need to bring
the process of integration down to the people.

---

I would like to tell you about one initiative that is currently in the pipeline: the
European Year of Intercultural Dialogue.
I called for a Year of Intercultural Dialogue as soon as I took office in 2004. Since
then, the need for dialogue has become more pressing and now many regard it as
crucial for the future of Europe.

The Year of Intercultural Dialogue is now planned for 2008 and will cover three
main areas:
First, we will encourage the members of the Union to talk more to each other,
especially involving the civil society and the countries that joined most recently.
Second, we will encourage dialogue between the Union and the rest of the
world.

Finally, we will encourage better forms of dialogue in our own societies,
especially with Europeans of recent immigration.
I would like to stress the second point, which is about dialogue and international
relations.

There is no doubt in my mind that dialogue should be the core of international
relations, which work best when there is a genuine understanding of the culture, the
motives, and the aspirations of the other.

If we are serious about bringing peace and prosperity to our complex world, we
should learn to listen to each other, engage in dialogue without preconceptions, and
restore the primacy of human dignity for all and everywhere.

I know these words of mine will find sympathetic ears in this hall. As I said earlier,
Canada has every reason to be proud of its intercultural policies and the rest of us
have a lot to learn from your experience.

What can bring us closer together is a culture of human rights, of security through
their promotion and effective implementation.
It is also a preference for the rule of law and diplomacy over other forms of policy
making.

---

Before I close, I would like to mention an important development in this context;
the UNESCO Convention on the protection and promotion of the diversity of
cultural expressions adopted at the end of last year.

I would like to take this opportunity to note with pleasure that the positions of the
EU and Canada have coincided all along the negotiations and beyond.
I also welcome the fact that Canada has already ratified the Convention. I am
confident we will soon have a new pillar of international law which may make the
difference in the quality of international relations in the XXI century.

Ladies and Gentlemen:

I’ve been telling you about cultural diversity and intercultural dialogue in the EU.
At the end of this talk I would like you to bring home just one important message.
Cultural policies rank high in the domestic and international agendas of the EU and
their importance will surely grow in the future.

Europeans will always be busy getting to know each other because the Union is
not—and will never be—about erasing the differences between its countries and
peoples.

Recognising and respecting cultural diversity lies at the foundation of our common
idea of Europe.

And because nemo dat quod non habet, we need to make cultural diversity a reality
at home if we are serious about following it as a beacon for our international action.
Cultural diversity is Europe’s richest legacy from the past and the crucial asset with
which we can build a future of prosperity, solidarity and security—both internally
and externally.

Thank you.