The Ideology of Fortress Europe
The term "European values" has lost much of its innocence during the so-called cartoon crisis early in 2006. One out of numerous examples to indicate the problem is the press release issued by the European Commission on 15 February 2006, echoing statements of almost all EU Governments:
"Freedom of expression and press freedom are ranking very high in our European values", is the core message addressed to the public both in Europe and in Arab and other mostly Muslim countries. Is the value base of Human rights a specificity of Europe, marking a civilizational frontier to other regions?
Many had hoped that the use of human rights as an ideological weapon during the Cold War would have come to an end with the UN Human Rights Conference in Vienna in 1993, solemnly declaring all human rights as "a coherent whole".
European specificity vis-à-vis Islam
The recent debate about "European values" highlights two alternative options – a substantive option, insisting in deeply rooted cultural differences between Europe and other regions, and a commitment option, focusing on Europe's commitment to the implementation of universal values which are – at least on paper – shared by the international community.
The first option guides the new European values network, established by Czech, Polish and German civil society organizations. It insists in the specificity of "European values" vis-à-vis other regions and, especially, vis-à-vis Islam.
An alternative option was developed by the European Parliament Democracy Caucus together with the Netherlands Institute for Multiparty Democracy (IMD), the Westminster Foundation for Democracy (WFD) and several political Foundations such as the German Friedrich Ebert Foundation. The proposal for a "European Foundation for Democracy through Partnership" promotes intercultural dialogue as a key dimension of co-development of Europe and "all regions with which Europe maintains relations".
"The values of the European Union" are seen as commitment in terms of support for democracy, integration and social development rather than substantive cultural differences between Europe and other regions. This "commitment option" was developed in the context of the debate on the social agenda of the European Union, with focus on pluralism, social cohesion, quality of life, solidarity and justice.
A "European way of life"
Given its anticipated outcomes, including public support for or rejection of Turkey's accession to the EU and the relations with Muslim communities, the debate on Europe's specificity in terms of cultural values can be considered an essential dimension of the European Year for Intercultural Dialogue 2008. "Preservation of the ‘European way of life' and opposing Turkish membership in the EU" are listed among the objectives for campaigning of the new European values Network.
The – failed – European Constitution project included a definition of European values much more in line with the above-cited "commitment option". It seems worthwhile checking references to European values in the new EU agreement approved under Portuguese Presidency. 20 years ago, Jacques Delors as the then President of the European Commission promoted the idea to "give Europe a soul", quoting almost forgotten words of Robert Schuman.
Delors saw the need to overcome the image of EU institutions as mainly bureaucratic entities. This opened an ongoing dialogue between the European Commission and civil society, including churches and religious organizations.
It seems as if many contemporary actors in this field would prefer – consciously or not – sealing off a whole package of cultural self-references for Europe, rather than building on Europe's tradition of shaping its diversity and pluralism in constant interaction with other regions of the world.
Europe's Convention of Human Rights
At the early stage of the Cold War, the – then mainly Western – Council of Europe (with Turkey as founding member) took up the task from United Nations to define in more detail the Human Rights listed in the Universal Declaration of 1948. The 1950 European Convention of Human Rights was instrumental for forging a common understanding of civil, political, social and cultural rights of European citizens. This Convention is now – with all its implementation tools – the value base of all geographical Europe.
In elaborating on the right to cultural self-determination, the convention reflects an understanding of culture that is not limited to heritage but remains open to creativity and change. It seems, however, that many voices in today's value discourse in Europe are not as well informed as necessary:
1966, more than 40 years ago, the whole substance of the European Human Rights Convention was adopted by the United Nations, under the format of the two covenants on civic and political, economic, social and cultural rights.
Europe's instruments of human rights implementation
The specificity of Europe does not rely in values which would not be shared by the international community. The characteristics of the European cultural space lie in instruments for their implementation, such as the European Court of Human Rights. As regards public commitment, I would not subscribe myself to an assertion that Europeans would be always avant-garde in defending human rights and their values.
When the press release on the cartoon row was issued in Brussels in February last year, I was invited by Arab Press Freedom Watch – an association of journalists' unions in all Arab countries, for their meeting in Cairo. Let me quote from their communiqué, March 2006:
"We are defending daily freedom of expression. Other than most of our colleagues in Europe, many of us go to jail in defence of this right, are often victims of severe punishment, and are constantly threatened by political and economic power suing us for libel. Our core values are not different from those of our European colleagues. We hope, therefore, that our appeal to respect religious feelings of Muslims will also be shared by European media."
It seems as if the two discourses on human rights and on culture would very often not share a common framework of values and understanding.
Traugott Schoefthaler
© Traugott Schoefthaler 2008
The article is a newly revised version of "The European Values Dilemma", chapter 8 of "Adventures in Diversity. New Avenues for the Dialogue between Cultures", ed.: Traugott Schoefthaler. Bonn, German Commission for UNESCO 2007, 176 p. (Book orders: info-bibliothek@unesco.de)
Click here for a free download of the publication.
Traugott Schoefthaler has worked for better understanding between Europe and the Arab World as Secretary-General of the German Commission for UNESCO (1993-2004), as founder of the Euro-Arab Task Force of National Commissions for ALECSO, ISESCO and UNESCO (since 2001) and as the first Executive Director of the Anna Lindh Euro-Mediterranean Foundation for the Dialogue between Cultures in Alexandria, Egypt (until 2007). At present, he is consultant for the Council of Europe.
Qantara.de
Cultural Relations Crisis
What Went Wrong with the Dialogue between Cultures?
We have a common language for universal values, but we do not have a common lan-guage for cultural differences, writes Traugott Schoefthaler. We need to work on such language, he says in his essay, in order to provide instruments for coping with critical moments of confrontation
Interview with Father Paolo Dall'Oglio
"I Agree about Respect, But as Something Offered Rather Than Requested"
What are the prerequisites for any meaningful inter-religious dialogue? This question has been addressed to Father Paolo Dall'Oglio, the winner of the Euro-Mediterranean Award for Dialogue on 'Mutual respect amongst people of different religions or any other belief'. An interview by Traugott Schoefthaler
Learning about Cultural Diversity
Mind the North-South Gap
In 2004, Traugott Schöfthaler was appointed to set up the Anna Lindh Foundation in Alexandria, Egypt, in order to create new forms of dialogue between North and South. In this article he takes a look at the lessons learnt during the past three years