11 December 2008

First I would like to thank Mr. van Nistelrooij and Mrs. Hennicot-Schoepges for
their kind invitation to make this presentation. I also want to thank the authors of
the European Values Study.
I think it is beneficial for all participants to know; who we are, where we
are going, and what our aim is. Like Novalis once said, the answer to the
question ‘where are we going’ is: “Naturally, we are going home!” But where is
our home, what is our home? Where do we feel at home? So, welcome home. I
believe and I hope that you feel here like at home in this institution in Brussels.
Europe is where people live. It is a great challenge being here together, 60 years
after the war and the traumas of those times.
For living together in diversity we need more active response, more
certainty, more communication, more knowledge, more respect. That does not
mean we have to agree on everything. But at least we understand what the
difference is, why there is a difference and how to respect or manage diversity
and deal with interdependence which is growing.
Sometimes a crisis can help to make more sensitive about certain issues.
European progress or process was usually driven by moral and ethical
commitment after tragedies, like in the 40’s, 50’s or even later experiences such
as the oil crisis in the 70’s.
Europe needs to change paradigm: from multicultural to intercultural
relations. And intercultural dialogue is an important contribution to this shift in
the 21st century. The European Year of Intercultural Dialogue is one of the
components which should facilitate integration process.

Europe has also to take a more global responsibility. I think we need more
solidarity – solidarity with people, mankind as a whole and, of course,
responsibility for the nature. It is a part of our responsibility – whether we are
Christians, believers or not – that the conditions for life should be maintained
and improved.
The concept ‘European dimension’ is seen in many different ways. On
the one hand, it refers to the concept of Europe, its civilization, democratic
values and projects. On the other hand, more concretely, it can be seen as
‘European citizenship’ or ‘European identity’ with rights and duties of citizens;
and with a sense of belonging to Europe. And all this must be considered in the
respect of the subsidiarity principle. Subsidiarity is not a problem for
cooperation but rather indispensible part of a solution. It starts with citizen and
not with government, individual men and women, and only then local and
regional authorities, and then of course, state or supra-state, intergovernmental
and international responsibilities.
We need to find a way to integrate European dimension into our schools,
not geographically but through the curricula: Europe in school, school in
Europe. The Lifelong Learning Programme for 2007- 2013, in particular
Comenius, provides opportunities for projects for developing the European
dimension together with partners from other countries. There are also other great
programs like eTwinning or Comenius Regio.
Next year we want to start a mobility programme for secondary school students.
Erasmus is now coming to the secondary schools. Those actions are the best
contribution to intercultural education. When people study and spend time in
other country and live with different cultures, it has more value for intercultural
dialog and skills than just visiting a country. We want to increase these
opportunities.

I praise recent decision of the Ministers of the 27 member states to make
mobility rather a rule than an exception. Today only 4% of students are in
mobility through Erasmus. Up to 10% is the reality of total students’ mobility in
Europe today. We could and we should do more. And this commitment is very
important, but of course it takes time. But I believe we will be able to increase
mobility opportunities during the next decade.
Our economy, our society is influenced by European markets and
European realities. European citizenship is more than tourism for Europeans in
Europe. It is about rights and responsibilities of an individual. It is important
that children, students, and adults know what it means to be a European.
Cultural or intercultural competences are very important because we are living
in a more and more diverse communities. Our schools are changing, even our
streets, and I don’t mean architecture, but the composition of inhabitants, local
communities, and also work places. Companies are keener on diversity.
Companies or institutions which are keen on languages are also usually more
successful, more attractive. This year I met several high representatives of
American IT companies and they spoke of their experience that quite often their
European teams are more efficient simply because of their cultural diversity.
Europe has never been uniformed. That is why diversity should be seen as
our reality and characteristic, not as a problem. Understanding diversity
therefore reflects the respect, and is enriching. Multilingualism is, for instance,
an important policy in the Union of 27. We cannot measure everything through
money. Many things can be measured but as Einstein said “not all that is
measurable in life counts”. And a lot of what is measureable does not really
count. I do not want to sound too much philosophical, but I imply that if we are
keen and wise on some aspects of intercultural education, we get much more
cohesive and successful communities and societies.

I think it is very important to see that cultures are crucial for their values.
And values unite us. It is not geography, it is not business that keep us together,
but values. Which values? What hierarchy of values? I am happy that the
European Values Study will contribute to answering these questions. The truth is
that culture has always been in the centre of European integration. Without
cultural aspects and components Europe wouldn’t be what it is today. But of
course, integration started on the very material and simple commodities: coal
and steel. However, the project in its depth was ethical. It was about peace,
togetherness, reconciliation. We need to find instruments on how we can bring
people together. Jean Monet said: “nous ne coalisons pas des Etats, nous
unisons des hommes”. So, from the beginning it wasn’t about alliance of states
and summits of Presidents and prime ministers. There are so many critical issues
on the agenda today. Either we move ahead together, or not. Individualism,
isolationism, nationalism, protectionism or, simply, fragmented response to
common problems and challenges, are not the solution.
What I would like to stress is that the community of people, or unity
among people, is much more demanding than the organisation of the coal and
steel industry. The cooperation in energy issues was mentioned in the Messina
declaration from 1955. It took 50 years to understand that energy is basically
connected with our security, and thus an important issue that has to be dealt
with. We are launching a common energy policy.
It takes time to learn. Sometimes we learn by ourselves, sometimes from
lessons of the others. Europe is a community of people whose cultures and
values are not imposed, but proposed. Europe is not in a position of imposing
solutions, Europe offers them. Those who want to participate and join should be
allowed to join under certain criteria; and those who want to leave may leave.

I lived in the Middle and Eastern Europe, where during decades of
totalitarian regimes there was a unity without freedom. Europe in the West has
been a unity in freedom from the beginning. However, freedom is a demanding
phenomenon…
Every year in autumn we celebrate the European cultural heritage days.
Europe is our common heritage. And we have to feel responsible for this
heritage. That is why we are building access to this heritage. In November we
launched Europeana which gives public access to digital libraries and records.
This is an important contribution for getting to know Europe. Building a united
Europe was a cultural project from the very beginning. But only now we are
able to define points of common strategy. Not only to look back and quote our
glorious cultural past, which was important for Europe, but also to respond and
help cultures to get central and look together for more support.
The communication of the Commission on a “European Agenda for
culture in a globalising world” (May 2007) triggered a wider reflection on the
role of culture as a key element of the European integration process, based on
common values and a common heritage as well as on protection of cultural
diversity. We agreed on a cultural agenda with 3 pillars:
The first is cultural diversity and intercultural dialogue. It is a
commitment to dialogue. We need more dialog everywhere. The European Year
of Intercultural Dialogue is devoted to especially to this first component.
The second pillar is creativity: culture is a catalyst of creativity. It is a
mistake to think that business brings GDP and culture just consumes it. Culture
should be seen as an important central contribution to our politics, to our
economy, to our sports and the whole society. It must be a part of our everyday
life and not an option. Cultural creativity will bring more innovation and open
the door to a more innovation-friendly society which can and must be one of our
answers to the crisis.

The third pillar is the external dimension of culture. The UNESCO’s
Convention on Protection and Promotion of Cultural Diversity was successfully
ratified and entered into force last year. Now we need to implement it correctly
and make sure that cultural diversity is respected and promoted. It is not
“business as usual”. I think this is great achievement. For the first time in
international law we have such an instrument. Intercultural dialogue, of course,
requires a very clear legal framework. We can lead a civil dialogue only if we
promote equality among people of different origins. Only if we have freedom of
thought, freedom of expression, of association, of religion, of belief and other
fundamental freedoms, only then we can really have a genuine intercultural
dialogue.
The Parliament plays a special role in the latter by awarding the Sakharov
price every year, rewarding those who fight for peace. Wherever there is
discrimination, exclusion or pressures, lack of pluralism and intolerance, non
respect for others, the core elements for a dialogue are missing.
Regional identity has been also mentioned among today’s topics. Identity
should be understood as complementarity with others instead of any exclusivity.
On one side it speaks about our originality and this is an important recognition
of diversity. But on the other side, we all are equal in dignity. This
understanding of identity invites us to know who we are and who the others are.
It was Paul Ricœur, the French philosopher and theologian, who said: “La
chemin le plus court de moi à moi, c’est l’autre”. The correct understanding of
identity and human dignity is very important whether it concerns regional, local,
national identity, or our common, universal identity as a human family.

We have achieved a lot of results linked to raising awareness on
intercultural dialogue. I am happy that, for instance, the understanding of
transversal nature of intercultural dialogue is much stronger now. You will find
this in sports, immigration or migration policies, science, employment, or media.
The Slovenian presidency was very active and committed on this topic. And we
can see that there is an appetite for going further. In conclusions from the May
Council, the 27 ministers agreed to integrate and enhance the relevant initiatives
in the field of cultural education, youth and audiovisual policy with a vision to
develop long-term cross-sectoral approach. And recently, on the 20th of
November, the Council has adopted conclusions on the external dimension of
intercultural dialogue.

The civil society is also very active. There is a Platform for Intercultural
Europe which gathers associations and NGOs experienced in intercultural
dialogue from fields as diverse as arts and culture, education, the fight against
racism, youth and social work. The platform was created as the joint initiative of
Culture Action Europe and the European Cultural Foundation and has involved
over 200 participants. It is now a recognised partner in the ongoing “structured
dialogue” between the EU Commission and the cultural sector. Through open
consultation and discussion, the Platform has developed a “Rainbow Paper” of
practice-based recommendations addressed not only to policy makers, but also
to civil society organisations. Moreover, civil society at large has been essential
to the success of the European Year, spreading the message far and wide. Over
1,000 organisations have signed up as “Partners of the Year” on the dedicated
partner website (www.dialogue2008.eu
), publishing their initiatives and events
and using the site to look for new cooperation partnerships. Hundreds of
organisations have requested the use of the Year logo and thousands of events
have been organised under the logo, in Member States and beyond. I truly hope
that this legacy of the European Year—the broad mobilisation of civil society—
will continue to produce results beyond 2008.
The Commission has recently published a brochure on EU funding
support for Intercultural Dialogue. It offers a practical guide and inspiring
examples of how more than twenty EU programmes and instruments can be
used to support intercultural dialogue initiatives in fields as diverse as external
relations, research policy and regional and rural development.
The European Year has also benefited from the support of its “European
Ambassadors”; famous names such as Paolo Coelho, Jordi Savall and Abd Al
Malik have lent their support to intercultural dialogue. For example, more than
two thousand people enjoyed concerts, workshops, film screenings and debates
during the two-day Festival in October in Brussels bringing together the
Ambassadors in joint creative events.

I would like to conclude by reflecting the EP’s contribution. There has
been a strong input from religions to form interreligious dialogue. Related topics
were never so intensively debated before within the EU. In the EP, we organised
a series of important events and the first one was the hearing organised by Mrs.
Hennicot-Schoepges and dedicated to “Cultural diversity, religions and
dialogue”. I thank her also for her excellent work when she was a rapporteur in
2006 for the legislation on the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue. There
was organised in the European Parliament the African week, the Arab week, and
the interventions of some of the most representative leaders of Christian,
Muslim, Jewish and Buddhist faiths. So once more I want to express my
gratitude to the European Parliament for its support in the intercultural dialogue.
When I first heard about the European Values Study, I immediately
thought that this was something we needed. We need to know where we are to
analyse potential scope of action for the future. Together with the
Eurobarometer, we already have a tool which provides us with relevant
information on the expectations of the citizens. These tools should be
complementary.

Freedom, solidarity, mutual respect, and human dignity are not empty
notions. I have spent most of my life in the communist Czechoslovakia. I am not
saying this with a dark view. Nevertheless, it is a lesson, a part of our history,
and we should remember it. Europe is now more mature and if we want to tackle
global challenges we need to learn the lessons from our past and to take
responsibility.

Thank you for your attention for your commitment and for having
organised this inspiring hearing.