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.