Dialogue Among Cultures: A two-way
street
An
interview with Guenther Plager, Political Secretary of the
German Foreign Affairs Ministry
Foreword:
What is German’s foreign
policy stance on cultural dialogue? What is the significance of
cultural dialogue from the political perceptive? To what extent in
this volatile process due attention should be focused on “good
government?” Guenther Plager, Political Secretary of the German
Foreign Ministry in an interview with the German magazine
“Deutschland” answered the above questions. Plager has been a top
German diplomat for many years. He was born in Weismar in 1941. He
graduated in law and joined the German Ministry of Foreign Affairs
the same year. He served as a diplomat in New York, New Delhi,
Washington. He also worked in his country’s Foreign Ministry in
Bonn and during his diplomatic mission worked with the United
Nations on human rights affairs.
Q – During recent months
the dialogue on cultural values have increasingly been the top of
the agenda of political circles at the international level. Why
has dialogue between cultures in world community found such a
status?
A – There are two
distinguishing factors. The first one is that globalization has a
tendency towards the coordination of all affairs. The culture
dominated by business is now increasingly expanding without any
barrier on its way. This trend which paves the way for cultural
reactions of other nations also encourages the tendency among
other cultures to preserve their regional and personal cultural
values. Secondly, in a world which has been politically globalized
for mutual understanding, the intervention of culture-oriented
relations between nations is highly important.
Q – In the 1990’s Samuel
Huntington in an article drew world’s public opinion and proposed
the theory of “war among civilizations” as he depicted an
antagonist picture of different cultures which have more tendency
towards war …
A – I totally disagree with
Huntington’s idea. On the contrary I can see new ideas and
developments which is against Huntington’s theory and that is the
human rights issues. In his last discussion, which deals with the
so-called “Asian values”, it encountered a culmination, as it has
been revealed that specific fundamental values have supreme global
standing which is not confined to any particular culture. Even
though the people of the world at present have differences in
their lifestyle or the way they run their daily life, is quite
different. But without doubt, the clashes of cultures in which one
culture dominates over other cultures is something belonging to
the past and outdated.
Q – Meanwhile the clashes
which occurred in Kosovo and East Timor as well as other parts of
the world are outstanding documents indicating that different
cultures may turn to violence and bloody conflicts.
A – I believe that this idea
is simpleminded. The conflicts which took place in recent years
were not the clashes between different cultures, but actually they
stemmed from civil strives existing within the society that
eventually led to disintegration of the community.
It is true that cultural
aspects, particularly religious factors can instigate such
clashes, but the conflicts you referred to are rooted in social,
political and economic issues. I do not consider the emergence of
such issues as wars of cultures, but the announcement of
disintegration of social solidarity.
Q – Mostly the West is
blamed for propagating Western values rather than promoting
dialogue among cultures.
A – I don’t agree with such
issues. There are fundamental values where human rights enjoy the
most outstanding feature. Such values are substantially the same
in all cultures. No culture justifies rape, torture and genocide.
These fundamental values, more or less, are equal in all the
cultures of the world.
Q – But the discussions
do not proceed with such a coordination …
A – New discussion go ahead
in this direction:
Firstly countries such as
China claim that there exist contradictions in various fundamental
values. All these values are equal for all, but they are not
simultaneously achieved.
Secondly the determiner
claims that to materialize human rights – not its importance or
acceptance but its implementation – must be observed in a certain
period of time.
Naturally all the proponents
of this viewpoint agree with the important point that in the near
past European states violated human rights vigorously. To cite an
example, we Germans, to evaluate the issue do not necessarily need
to turn back to distant history of our country. After the
“Enlightenment Age”, it took two centuries for Europeans to obtain
the current standards of human rights.
Q –If you look upon human
rights as a pivotal discipline in the 21st century, in which
regions dialogue should take place?
A – Cultural dialogue is not
related to fundamental systematic values and having advantage over
certain regions or any religious background. At present this issue
is centered on specific conditions of development.
The United Nation’s
secretary-general has stepped up efforts for the promotion of
peace and development in the light of observing human rights. He
reiterates that basic values, including human rights, have a
predominant role and even stand in a higher position than all
general conceptions of “good government” as a systematic tool
throughout the world. A good government stresses on respect for
human rights, the authority of law, democratic constitution and a
flurry of other legal items which are the fundamental rights of
human beings as it lays the foundation of a respectable culture.
Thereby, it is impossible to restrict this discussion to regional
conditions or other considerations.
Q – What is the
significance of economic dimensions in dialogue among cultures?
A – Due to divergent
reasons, the economic rift existing among developing and wealthy
developed countries in recent decades has increased dramatically.
As a result, people put forth the following question: Why despite
efforts made by both developed and developing states to reduce
this gap, this situation still exists? They have reached the
conclusion that all countries should march toward economic
progress and political and social stability and enjoy a democratic
system. In other words, those countries respecting human rights
and running a good government, pay due attention to both economic
progress and at the same time political affairs equally. Political
stability and economic progress, to a great extent, have close
relationship with human rights, freedom and cultural affairs.
Q – To what extent
dialogue among cultures is affected by political objectives?
A – You cannot assess these
objectives as is common in trade exchanges based on loss and
profit. The consequences of this process mostly emerge in the long
run, therefore it is not necessarily concurrent with certain
political events. Cultural foreign relationship is highlighted by
fundamental elements in longstanding peace and political
stability.
Q – Don’t you think that
dialogue is mainly conducted among the elite. In other words, is
it vital for reducing concern and preventing prejudgments, they
enhance their relationship with the society and also promote their
influence upon the society?
A – I believe that such
collective sentiments have other reasons which could not be
removed through cultural dialogue. Whenever such massive concern
is disseminated, people who openly demonstrate their concern must
resist the eradication of such sentiments. By doing so, dialogue
can affect the society and ward off prejudgments.
Q –Cultural dialogue is a
diplomatic channel. Could it be interpreted as a channel for
“mild” political issues as well?
A – This dialogue by no
means is considered as a sort of artificial entertainment; the
dialogue must be greatly focused on identical and sensitive
problems which have rarely been addressed. Meanwhile, this
dialogue is not conducted for a bewildered population or moral
speech for ordinary people. If you desire to hold such a dialogue,
you should determine one thing beforehand: When we discuss human
rights, we have to bear in mind that it is like a two-way street,
because in dealing with human rights arguments we encounter
various setbacks. We Westerners also have differences on human
rights standards. Citing an example, capital punishment is still
carried out in many states of the U.S. and we believe that it is a
violation of human rights. If you direct the dialogue toward
mutual interests, then you meet mutual understanding. This mutual
understanding paves the way for fundamental, unique and
distinguished discussions.
