Topic: Challenges of the Process of Globalisation for World Religious Traditions

Morning session, Oct. 17

Gavan Titley
Could everyone please take their seats, thank you.

Your Excellency, Your Highness, Your Holiness, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, friends. I think clearly there is a special air of anticipation this morning that we have the opportunity for profound engagement with issues, which in some shape or form touch all of our lives. This air is heightened by the fact that we have a panel of speakers today, noted not only for their profound engagement in these issues, but also for their commitment to them.

It is clear that global processes are nothing new in relation to religious traditions and have obviously been influential in shaping the landscape that we know today. However, globalisation as a complex set of processes, which this Forum interrogates, is obviously posing new challenges in specific and global forms. I would like to ask Tomáš Halík, Professor of Charles University and President of the Czech Christian Academy to outline some of the key issues, which were identified by Forum 2000 for this very special panel.

Tomáš Halík
If the process of globalisation consisted only in surpassing economic and political borders and did not open any space for sharing cultural and spiritual values, it would lead to a cold and dangerous world. The purpose of Forum 2000 is to emphasise the mutual dependence of policy, economy, ethics and spirituality. Today our interest is focused on religion, ethics and spirituality. Globalisation concerns religion in many respects as religious groups are getting into closer contact. A varied range of options is opening up, through dramatic conflicts, to dialogue up to coalescence. Members of different religions, who live in religiously pluralistic societies, are forced to think more deeply about their faith for their own sake and its relation to others. They can choose to close their soul from their environment, reject it and demonise it.

It seems that the social role of religion is changing. Religion is becoming maybe more than before an important bearer and counsel of individual social and cultural group identities. At a time when some nations and ethnicities are strongly apprehensive about keeping their identity, religions may become instruments of individual nationalistic and social interests or they can build bridges of reconciliation, of understanding across national borders, state borders and cultural circles

Religions can inspire the rules of mutual relations inside the Global Village, such as International law or questions relating to ethics in science, environmental measures of control over our elements. It is a viable way to search for common elements in different traditions.

We will begin with two sets of questions. Does this epoch pose new tasks for religion? Is it right to claim that a post-modern society is a post-secular society? How is the social role of religion changing the present? As certain social aspects of religion are disappearing, are new ones springing up? What responsibility is felt by our representatives for the human world? Is religion supposed to change this world exclusively by endeavouring to change the minds and souls of people as some oriental traditions are inclined to do? Is an integral part of faith also direct participation in changing social, economic and political structures and conditions? Does solidarity, the fight for justice, human rights and care of the integrity of nature belong to the values that the main religious currents of the world are able to agree on?

The topic of the afternoon session is the spiritual and ethical foundation of global civilisation. What can be the contribution of individual religious traditions to the foundations of global civilisation? Does this emerging civilisation already have certain, possible unconscious moral and spiritual values and characteristics? Is there a need or a possibility to create a spiritual and ethical base for the new civilisation? Does something of this nature come about spontaneously or is it necessary to take care of it? Is it possible to say that unlike the great divergence in the area of doctrine, there exist analogies and points of congruence in the field of ethics and spiritual practice? In what way is it possible to hand over the spiritual heritage of the past? Are we confronted by spiritual and ethical problems today which we fail to find solutions to in the existing traditions? Here are my suggestions for questions of the day. I am deeply convinced that it is enough for a day of our conference and maybe enough for the next century.

Gavan Titley
I am charged and indeed and honoured to introduce someone, who needs no introduction at all. Our first keynote speech comes from His Holiness the Dalai Lama, the highest temporal and spiritual leader of Tibet and a recipient of the Nobel Peace prize.

Dalai Lama
Brothers and Sisters,
I’m very honoured to have this opportunity to be with you today and to speak with you. Some of you, I have known for many years and are my old friends - and in a sense my teachers - as I have learned from you, so I am very happy I am also a little nervous, as my English is so poor. I would like to express my appreciation to the Forum 2000 for organising this event.
Basically, all sentient beings, not just life, but also feelings such as pleasure and pains. All beings that feel pleasure, pain have imagination and a memory have one common thing - a feeling of self. They have one thing in common - a desire to feel pleasure and to overcome pain and suffering. In that respect we human beings are not very different from other mammals. The one real difference between human beings and other sentient beings, mammals is, I feel, thinking power, intelligence. So the satisfaction that we seek is not only based on a sensory, physical base. These we share in common with the animals - food, sex. Due to our intelligence, we seek happiness and satisfaction at another level, a mental level, not a sensory level. Some of the worries and disturbances in our mind do not come from physical or sensory pains, but are of a mental nature - from imagination and vision. So when we see some obstacles in our imagination this disturbs our mind.
I believe that human requirements are not fulfilled by material comfort or material facilities, but also on a mental level we need to overcome pains and problems to gain peace of mind. To overcome a certain unhappiness on a mental level we need a remedy for this that is also on a mental level. For example, a person who has a disturbed mind cannot overcome this by material comfort. Even if he has money, maybe a millionaire, he may have some friends, but maybe these are more friends of his money than true friends. Material comfort cannot cure the mental worry. On the other hand, a person, with calm, self-confidence and peace can overcome physical pain. This shows that the feelings of the mental level are superior to the physical. Money and material facilities simply cannot cope with mental problems.
Although my experience of Western society is limited, when I meet some friends in America and Europe they may have all the facilities and material wealth, but after greeting you can hear a lot of complaints and disturbances in their mind. A sense of insecurity, doubt, fear, show that material comfort alone is not the full answer for humanity. From the Buddhist viewpoint, we call these disturbances ”affected emotion”. Some emotions are good for self-confidence and inner strength, but others can be immensely destructive for peace of mind. If we encounter these emotions often they can affect digestion and sleep patterns and eventually they will affect the physical health. So emotion is a very important part of our lives.
So we have to subdue these emotions but not by drugs, by alcohol or by injection. Maybe if scientists could remove part of the brain that would be a useful thing! Then we would have no feeling whatsoever and this would be very unfortunate and we would be like robots. However, emotions have their own beauty, such as love, compassion and affection. Emotions are like other external matters in nature, there are contradictions, opposing forces. If we want to reduce one force, one sorrow, we must increase the opposite sorrow force. The other will automatically reduce.
In the world of emotion there are many contradictions - love and kindness oppose hatred. More love and kindness reduce hatred and vice versa. These are opposing forces. We have to find ways and means to minimise the opposite of different emotions. We must know what kind of emotions are being dealt with. Emotions such as hatred, jealousy and suspicion are destroyers of our peace of mind and eventually health and fortune. These are truly enemies within ourselves. The counter-force to these emotions is love and kindness - a sense of caring and sharing one another. I feel that human kindness, sense of responsibility, sense of community are a kind of spirituality. With these you do not need religious faith. Even when we were in our mother’s womb we could recognise our mother’s voice, showing that the unborn child has a sense of intimacy. So human affection is an important emotion from conception to death. A 1 year old child does not have faith. Faith comes later. The potential for the appreciation of human affection and the potential to show affection to others come from birth. Therefore irrespective of faith, believer or unbeliever these are basic human values for this life not for a happy life, not just for the afterlife. They make this life a happier one with more self-confidence and less fear. These basic human values are very essential to bring peace of mind.
Despite globalisation and the changes in the world, we are all still human beings and despite advancements in technology we are not slaves to technology. I think that human values should be above technology, what I call secular ethics. We need some kind of spirituality in order to fulfil a happy life. Once an individual becomes a happier person, a more calm person, then that person’s family becomes more happy and peaceful and through that way human society can transform...
I think it is necessary to stress to people through education, media and arts that it is important to be a happy person. I feel we are lacking in the promotion of these human values. Some people think that secular ethics is a rejection of religion, and that’s not true. In India there are so many religions, they cannot put just one in the constitution, so there is a secular constitution. Secular means that all religions are treated equally. There must be respect for all religions, not favouritism for just one. For a happier future, we need less violence, more harmony, helping each other and sustaining human values above matter. The various traditions can play an important role in this. Despite different philosophies and different ways of presenting these values (some have a creator, others believe in self-creation; these are fundamental differences), they converge on compassion, love, forgiveness, contentment, self-discipline. There are common grounds and a common purpose. If we learn of each tradition unbiasedly then we see that each major tradition has the same potential. The variety of philosophies is very necessary. Only variety of philosophies can satisfy a variety of people. The variety of philosophies is the beauty of human intelligence, in the same way that a garden with different colours is more attractive than a garden, which is one colour. Similarly, the garden of the planet is more beautiful in this way. I think that if one day some new guests come from outer space they will appreciate more the diversity of philosophies.
Thank you

Gavan Titley
Thank you very much Your Holiness. I think I positively noticed the flowers of this diverse forum blooming as you spoke. Speakers yesterday identified flux and uncertainty as part of the fractured and contradictory processes of globalisation. What you have shared with us today is your design for creating an inner world, an inner life, that can contradict negative forces that play in the world and that identify fundamental human values and spirituality regardless of religious traditions as a basis for dialogue - and hopefully for progress.

Ladies and Gentlemen, our second keynote speech today comes from Archbishop Joseph Ganda, the Archbishop of Bo and Freetown in Sierra Leone who has been an bishop for 29 years. He was the first African bishop appointed in Sierra Leone and I think he is well - known and respected for his tireless campaign against the violence in Sierra Leone.

Joseph Ganda
I am very happy to be invited to take part in this assembly of very distinguished men and women convened by the Forum 2000 foundation. I would like to thank the President, because he has made some of us ”rub shoulders” as we say in Africa. It never entered my mind that I would be sitting so near the Dalai Lama or conversing generously with Frederik de Klerk.

I could see the excitement this morning. What comes to mind is whether we need to globalise religion. We don’t. It is already part of humanity. Everywhere in the world’s religion forms the basis on which we can globalise. This is certainly not the place to attempt to present an academic definition of globalisation. However, we must have some idea of what the process of globalisation is before we discuss the challenges it poses to the world religious traditions. Therefore in the first part of my presentation I will endeavour to outline some of the major indicators of globalisation. This will serve as a background for my treatment of the challenges of globalisation to the religious traditions and their values in the second part of my input. I shall conclude by attempting to formulate fundamental questions on the impact of globalisation on the world religious traditions. I hope that the latter will stimulate our discussion after my presentation.

Globalisation is a very complex range of processes, which does not yield so readily to a scholastic definition. It is, however, possible to describe it by its major indicators and instruments, such as the modern communication technology, the free-market economy and the new forms of geo-politics with strong economic interests. In the second part, I shall treat the impact of globalisation on education, culture and spiritual values.

One of the major indicators and instruments of globalisation is the rapid development in communications technology - especially the computer and the media industries - in the second half of this last century. With so many telecommunications satellites hanging over the earth instantaneous communication is possible from one part of the world to the other. For instance, other types of communications equipment developed in a few decades makes it possible to transfer news and information speedily from one part of the globe to the other. From Freetown in Sierra Leone I was able to follow the progress of Tiger Woods at the St. Andrew’s Golf Championships in August and the Olympic Games in Sydney as well as the daily fluctuations of the markets, etc. Our presence here has been facilitated by advanced communications technology. This is producing an amazing global cosmopolitan society, the contours of which are yet to be defined.

The free-market economy is closely connected to the communications technology. Some say that it is the very soul of globalisation. The free market economy is global in scope and therefore indifferent to national, geographical, religious and cultural borders. The level of world trade is much higher than before and involves a much wider range of goods and services. The global currency markets favour electronic money, i.e. money that exists only in digits and in computers. With electronic money, financial institutions and individual investors can transfer incredibly huge amounts of capital. The value of whatever money one may have in his or her pocket or bank account charges according to fluctuations is evident in the financial market.

New forms of geo-politics and economic politics. The IMF and the World Bank are closely related to the process of economic globalisation, which try to tailor the needs of the Third World to suit the raw- material demands of the industrial nations. For example, in Africa the IMF has favoured a model of economic development that would be at the service of markets in the Northern Hemisphere, by encouraging mono-crop food production. Africans are encouraged to grow crops like coffee, tea and cocoa, which they hardly eat, and import their staple foods. While the IMF and the World Bank continue to manipulate Third-World economies, ensuring the flow of raw materials to the industrialised countries, the latter are introducing themselves on the world market.

One of the negative side-effects of globalisation of the market economy is the impoverishment of a greater part of the world’s population. Every day, trillions of dollars are transferred from one part of the world to the other, but millions of people do not know where to get their next meal from because they are living in abject poverty. Let me give you the challenges of globalisation to the world religious traditions.

Like all human processes, globalisation is a very ambiguous phenomenon. On the one hand, it represents a great opportunity for the advancement of the world religious traditions and their spiritual and moral values. On the other hand, it presents great problems for us, the men and women of religion and the values we represent. Improved information technology provides ample opportunities for the propagation of religious traditions and for the establishment of links with people from other parts of the world. It also creates opportunities for building bridges, for peace and reconciliation. We are aware more than ever before of the common problems of humanity, such as ethnic conflicts, weapons of mass destruction, ecological crisis and poverty. There is no doubt that the conflict in the Middle East is of a human dimension. Yesterday, when Prince Hassan read the text of the email he received, I was really reminded that we are all involved. Here is a world body: ” Is there no chance that we can send a message to the two leaders who at this stage don’t even want to speak to each other?” This is a crisis in humanity and we know the results, you know the result of what might happen. It might mean nothing to them, but at least it will be an indication that the whole world is concerned. It has happened in many countries, where attention was not paid to them, but in this case where the world powers are concerned, I think that we should be able to send some message.

Globalisation of a largely consumerist culture which puts higher premium on secular than spiritual values, poses a serious challenge to the religious traditions. Secondly, the dehumanising poverty of millions, especially in the Third World, is an affront to God, who created human beings and so that is was very good. Genesis 1. - 3.1. I think that the world should remember that when God created Man, he said that it was good. We cannot say that we do not know about it, because the world media brings us pictures of it every day. Even as the world is becoming a global village, certain sectors of the world are afraid of loosing their identity and so are adopting hard-line fundamentalist attitudes that do not tolerate diversity, let alone criticism.

In the light of what has been mentioned, what can we do to utilise the potentials of globalisation for the advantage of our religious traditions, for the good of our planet, for the advancement of humanity and, ultimately, the glory of God? Does this globalisation not impose on us, people of religion, no matter what religion you are, to co-operate in the construction of a world that will be characterised by global solidarity and a civilisation of love? I certainly do not have ready-made answers to these questions, that is why I am presenting them here in this forum so that going back we can reflect on them together with the hope of finding realistic solutions. In my view, this Forum is a golden opportunity for us to leave our mark on the history of humanity. It lasts only three days, but I firmly believe that it can reap a benefit. We have religious values that are sometimes not respected. God, our creator, our common denominator, who is seen and called by different names, is responsible for us. When he created us he said ”It is good.” Posterity will judge us very harshly if we allow this moment to slip by without later endeavouring to establish guidelines that will help humanity to be a love-centred society and to re-orientate the world towards God, who is our origin and our eternal future.

Gavan Titley
A key issue identified today is whether it is a duty for faith to be directly involved in issues of social justice. I think it is an inspiration to us all the way you spoke of the growths of inequalities of resources and the grinding poverty of today’s world. Like His Holiness you called for a dialogue on secular ethics and humanity. Thank you also for your passionate and energising call for a message from this Forum.

That concludes our keynote speeches for today. We now move to the panel discussion. We are delighted to have President Lee Teng-hui, former President of Taiwan, a man who played a leading role in the democratisation of that country and also a renowned agricultural expert. Mr. Lee, please take the floor.

DISCUSSION

Lee Teng-hui
I must commend President Havel on his foresight in hosting such a special conference. I believe we have all benefited from listening to the discourses of His Holiness the Dalai Lama and His Excellency Archbishop Ganda on the issues concerning religions in the course of globalisation.

Yesterday, there was some debate about the definition of globalisation. Well, from a historical point of view, globalisation is a non-stop course of evolution, representing the interactions of all mankind in political, economic, and cultural areas. We may say that the great geographical discoveries in the 15th Century initiated globalisation. With overseas expansion, world trade volume rapidly increased. The establishment of colonies enabled the Western countries to gradually spread their influence to Asia, Africa, and Latin America. The industrial revolution led to higher industrial productivity and to improved means of transportation. As a result, great quantities of industrial products were exported overseas. The use of the steamboat and the locomotive, as well as the inventions of the telegraph and the telephone, shortened the distances between nations; contact between peoples became more convenient. In the last two decades of the 20th Century, the rapid development of science and technology, as well as the universality of information technology has accelerated even more the interactions between nations and the creation of the global village.

Globalisation manifested itself in the formation of the capitalist system and the operation of the world market. Western nations accumulated great wealth from the capitalist system, becoming modernised countries. The operation of a world market further provided a basic mechanism for the world’s economy to adjust and allocate resources efficiently under the principle of equilibrium between supply and demand. The world market represents not only a place to sell merchandise; it also represents that capitalism is a more forceful tool to promote productivity, make profits, and control the economy.

Moreover, the development of the international financial market provides an important catalyst for economic globalisation. Currently, the money flow in the world’s foreign-exchange market exceeds the total amount of transactions in the real economy by over thirty times. The speed of currency transactions and exchange further accelerates the interdependence between nations as well as tightens the interconnection between domestic and international economies.

Under the ever-booming global economic system, many non-state members also play an active role, making the global economy even more closely interconnected. The most notable are the many multinational corporations and private individuals who, through flexible operational tactics, are able to maintain economic competitiveness in various products. They constantly introduce new products and, by means of mergers, acquisitions and strategic alliances, bring their expertise in business administration to the world market, thus shaping a borderless economic system and providing never-ending vitality to economic globalisation.
In the political arena, we see a global trend of democratisation. As described by Prof. Samuel P. Huntington, the first wave of democratisation occurred between 1828 and 1926; the second wave, 1943-1962; and the third wave, since 1975, in various different countries around the world. The facts show that in the last twenty-five years, more than thirty countries in Europe, Asia, and Latin America, and I am proud to say the Republic of China on Taiwan as one of them, have experienced political transformation to democracy. Regular elections, freedom of speech, vibrant opposition parties, and peaceful transition of power have become the common values of the international community, as well as the universal paradigm of behaviour for democratised countries. Not only that, but the protection of human rights, especially the freedom of speech, freedom of religious belief, and respect for individual choices, have been stressed more and more by the international community. Even the supremacy of sovereignty, a principle long insisted on by the international community, is in evolution. As more and more emphasis is given to the concept of human rights, it is gradually being considered to be more weighty than sovereignty, and the development of human rights more important than the protection of sovereignty.


In retrospect, over the 20th Century, rapid advances in science and technology have brought, to the world, not only unprecedented material wealth but also massive destruction. The accompanying social change has furthermore exerted a huge impact on spiritual civilisation. Faced with the enormous pressures of development and competition, countries have striven to attain economic growth. People have worked hard to raise their living standards, which resulted in materialistic satisfaction becoming the sole measure of success and a universally- sought-after goal. Although this pursuit of materialistic life has been a force to stimulate social advance, its over-emphasis has led to human beings neglecting their spiritual growth in the pursuit of materialistic wealth. In particular, the tendency toward one standard of value has brought about social systematisation, which has further obscured the value of man’s existence. Humans thereby have developed feelings of emptiness, creating social fragmentation and distortion. However, politics and economics have been incapable of solving such issues of human spirit and social ailment. They must rely on a spiritual strength that exceeds materialistic values.

The world that the human race needs for its existence is not built purely upon rationality. Rather, there are many irrational factors, such as emotion, mutual trust and other interactions, that are important for their survival. As such, recognising irrational existence is the first step towards rectifying social problems. One must start from respecting individual freedom and the spirit as well as cultivating the value of social pluralism in order to let every single person acknowledge the value of his or her existence. Then, the individual can be liberated from the systematised society to pursue growth and development of his or her soul.

Moreover, religion plays a very important role in the process of establishing the value of social pluralism and cultivating the individual’s spiritual strength. This is the reason that there is a great trend in the world toward religious revival and spiritual awakening as the curtain falls on the 20th Century.

In the tide of globalisation, religion will shoulder the heavy burden of balancing the developments between materialistic and spiritual civilisations. Nevertheless, as we face the new era, religion should have a new essence and expression.

Religion should return to its original essence, beginning with its concern for human character and social needs. It should not only focus on individual practice, but should present a social vision that is integrated into the trends in the development of civilisation. It should build a new horizon filled with spiritual balance and social harmony.

Religions ought to develop more tolerance. The new interpretations of religious tenets ought to be toward greater accessibility. The tenets believed and gods worshipped by each religion may differ; however, their pursuit of the truth and respect for nature are the same. Therefore, the development of religion should not be toward more exclusiveness, but toward observing principles of mutual respect and peaceful coexistence.

Religion should be even more closely linked with society. Religion is the spiritual pillar of support for society, while society is religion’s patron. Therefore, religion is not a spiritual activity divorced from society, but rather should be a concrete realisation of its fusion with the social pulse. Only by embracing the ideals of the lay world can religion reach more converts to work jointly for the realisation of a beautiful vista.

In conclusion, the great trend of globalisation is an irresistible force. Following the advances of information technology, the expansion of free trade, the frequency of international intercourse, as well as the increase in degree of interdependence among nations, the impact of the global village on each and every nation will increase every day. Without question, everybody will have to deal daily with the issues of religion and culture. We should face the different religions and cultures with an open mind, and listen to different advocacies with a mutually tolerant attitude, so that the special characteristics of various cultures may be brought into full play. The various peoples may emulate one another’s strengths as a remedy for their own shortcomings. Needless to say, the greatest appeal of religion is to urge people to do good deeds. In this rapidly-changing information society, we ought to turn this common appeal into a truly binding force, guiding the international community toward a more harmonious and a more beautiful horizon. We hope global freedom of religion may soon arrive, and we hope that each and every citizen of the global village may be blessed with spiritual serenity and enjoy lasting world peace. Thank you.

Gavan Titley
I think it’s especially important in your thoughts that you outlined that in the political transformation to democracy there do exist questions of secular ethics, respect for universal values, respect for universal rights. People are increasingly putting forward these notions over sovereignty, an issue that was addressed by Dr. Giddens yesterday.

Ladies and gentlemen, despite the fact that much of our talk here centres on the role of global technology and communications, perhaps we can also limit its presence in the Forum by switching off or turning down mobile phones.

Our next speaker is Dr. Karan Singh, a well-known member of the Indian parliament, a writer, thinker and philosopher on a wide range of interests and diverse subjects.

Karan Singh
President Václav Havel, Your Holiness Dalai Lama, distinguished participants in Forum 2000 and friends.
We have at last reached the long awaited third millennium A.D., and Forum 2000, under the visionary leadership of President Havel, is now poised to confront the many challenges that lie ahead in the 21st century. These include political conflicts that are still raging around the world where conflict resolution is urgently needed; the continuing phenomenon of widespread poverty and deprivation which science and technology, if used with wisdom and compassion, can overcome within the next 20 years. Serious environmental problems such as global warming, melting of the ice caps and other ecological devastation that have been such a tragic feature of the 20th century; and the continuing threat of nuclear conflict that could devastate the planet.

What humanity faces at this juncture is a spiritual challenge to evolve a global ethic that would enable the peoples of the world to overcome their long history of conflict and create an abiding climate of peace and harmony. Globalisation, with both its positive and negative implications, is now an irreversible process. With accelerating globalisation, not only have the barriers between nations and peoples been overcome - which is a positive development - there has also been a massive collapse of any kind of coherent value system so that generations are growing up without any clear guidelines for thought and action.

As a result, despite the glittering and unprecedented achievements of science and technology during the 20th century, it has been the most lethal and destructive in all of human history. Over 200 million people have been killed in the many wars of the 20th century. Organised crime and religious fundamentalism, drug running and trafficking in human beings, illegal arms trade and widespread individual and collective violence are casting their malign shadow over human civilisation. The marvellous, almost miraculous, technology of television and the Internet is widely misused to pour a constant stream of violence and horror, hyper-consumerism and ultra-promiscuity into the consciousness of human begins around the world, the malign effects of which will unfurl only the decades that lie ahead. The grievous destruction that we have inflicted upon the biosphere has wreaked havoc with our natural environment. World population has crossed the six billion mark, and the number of men, women and children subsisting below the poverty line is steadily growing. The HIV/AIDS pandemic is threatening to decimate country after country in the developing world.

These negative aspects of globalisation represent a major challenge to all of humanity's great religious traditions. Religion has played an extremely important role in history. Much that is great and noble in human civilisation - art and architecture, law and literature, dance and music, moral codes and religious texts - can be traced back to one or other of the great religions, without which humanity would have been immensely impoverished.

On the other hand, we are forced to admit that, tragically enough, more people have been killed and tortured, persecuted and ill treated, in the name of religion than in any other. Even as I speak to you today, fierce battles are raging around the world in the name of religion, and people are being massacred in the name of a divinity, which each religion looks upon as being merciful and compassionate. Whole population are being indoctrinated into the necessity to kill and die for their religion, so that thousands of young people are growing up convinced that their highest destiny is to destroy other young people belonging to different religions. Surely this situation is no longer acceptable to any sane and humane society. It is up to religious leaders to respond creatively to this challenge, to transcend the barriers of hatred and exclusivism, fanaticism and fundamentalism, and move towards a new era based on respect for all the great religious traditions of humanity.

This necessarily involves a creative and continuing dialogue between the great religions of the world. The Interfaith movement, which began with the first World Parliament of Religions in Chicago in 1893, seeks precisely to sponsor such a dialogue aimed at highlighting the universal elements within the religious traditions, and bringing together people of different faiths in a common quest for peace, harmony and mutual understanding. At the initiative of Mr Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the United Nations, a Millennium World Peace Summit of Religious and Spiritual leaders was held a few weeks ago in the UN General Assembly Hall. This was a clear recognition that without inter-religious harmony it will be virtually impossible to establish a peaceful society on Planet Earth. The Declaration made after the Summit entitled Commitment to Global Peace lays out the major challenges before religious and spiritual leaders in the context of our rapidly developing global society. It is a significant document to which I would draw the attention of fellow participants, and I have attached the text along with copies of my speech.

The essential point, which needs to be accepted, is that there are multiple paths to the divine. From the dawn of recorded history, the quest for the divine has been a major dimension in all world' great civilisations. The divine has been accessed in different ways, described in different words and portrayed in different forms. This plurality of paths to the divine is one of the most striking features of human history, well expressed in the famous Vedic dictum - Ekam sad vipraha bahudha vadanti - the Truth is one, the Wise call it by many names. It provides the ideological foundations for the Interfaith movement.

We can all hold firmly to the belief that our own religion is the best path to the divine, but it is unacceptable to use terror and oppression to force this view upon people of other faiths. Who are we, denizens of a tiny speck of dust in the cosmos, to seek to limit the immeasurable effulgence of the divine to one particular entity, one particular point in time, or one particular text? There are billions of suns like ours in our own galaxy, billions of galaxies in the boundless universe around us. It is not the height of hubris for us to claim a monopoly of divine wisdom or an exclusivity of contact with the divine? You mention humility in your opening remarks, Mr. President. This is not humility, it is the opposite, hubris.

The stunning photograph of Planet Earth taken from outer space should hang in every classroom, boardroom and parliament around the world. That shows our world as it really is, a tiny speck of pulsating life amidst the infinity of outer space, and is par excellence the symbol of the emerging global society. It does not reveal geographical, racial or religious differences; it shows our planet as a spaceship hurtling through time-space with all of humanity on board.

Moving beyond the terrible traumas of the twentieth century, therefore, we now need to create new songs, new symbols, new myths, a new dimension of awareness to sustain and support the new global consciousness. This, indeed, is at the heart of what thoughtful people around the world, consciously or unconsciously are attempting, whether in science or philosophy, religion or any other field of human activity. It is most appropriate that Forum 2000 in the year 2000 has highlighted the theme of spiritual values. Love, compassion, mutual understanding, respect for teachers and elders, equal regard and protection for women, special care and consideration for children, commitment to healing Mother Earth of the ravages inflicted on her, conflict resolution and creation of a climate of peace are all spiritual values that need to be highlighted.

It is particularly important that educational systems around the world should reflect these values, because it is the younger generations who need to appreciate the importance of interfaith harmony so that they can build a sane and safe global society in the decades ahead. I drew attention to the UNESCO International Commission for Education in the 21st century yesterday, I would urge the distinguished members of the panel to take a look at that document. In addition to the formal educational structures, the immense power of television and the Internet must be harnessed to the chariot of spiritual values in the emerging global society. Simultaneously, religions must address the problems of poverty and deprivation, oppression and exploitation if they are to remain relevant in our times. This re-articulation of religion as a positive, life-affirming, yet transcendental enterprise is the greatest single challenge faced by humanity at this crucial juncture in its long and tortuous history, and one to which those of us gathered in this beautiful Prague Castle must apply our minds and skills in the years ahead.

Friends, we must rejoice that though we are all transitory residents of a small planet hurtling through the cosmos, we each encapsulate a spark of consciousness which can be fanned into the blazing fire of spiritual realisation transcending the throbbing abyss of Space and Time itself. To achieve this we need to address a dimension that is often overshadowed by the glitter and glamour, the speed and stress of our modern society. We must rediscover that inner core of effulgence that sparkles within the heart of all human beings, regardless of their race or religion, sex or nationality, and to which saints and seers from every religion have left ample testament. It is this golden thread of spiritual consciousness that links the human race into what the Sanskrit texts have called Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam, the World as a Family. The human psyche today is fractured and fragmented, and can be healed only by the inner processes of mediation, prayer and introspection which are to be found in all the great religious traditions of the world. Let us never lose sight of this fundamental truth enshrined deep within the recesses of our consciousness, for in the final analysis it is only through a profound inner quest that we can access the divine and thereby fulfil our individual and collective destiny on Planet Earth.

Gavan Titley
Thank you very much Mr Singh, not only for your elegant exposition of how we see existence, but also for your practical commitment to education, faith and the needs of the social environment. Ladies and Gentlemen we will take a coffee break now and also stop for a press conference with Shimon Peres. We reconvene in twenty minutes.

Welcome back. We have a pressure of time on us, but also our next guest has to perform an act of globalisation. He has to leave the conference swiftly to catch an aeroplane to get back over the Atlantic, back to the US. Our next speaker is Thomas A Dine, the President of Radio Free Europe and formerly worked for the US Agency for International Development. Please, Mr Dine, take the floor.

Thomas A. Dine
I would like to take the opportunity to thank Mr Havel and participate in President Havel's Forum 2000. President Havel is the moral and political architect of the redefined and revised international communications company that I head.

I want to begin by drawing a distinction between the word "tolerance" and the word "acceptance." Tolerance means the capacity to endure pain, to indulge beliefs and practices that differ from your own, to suffer them. Acceptance goes further. It is a positive, which I would like to emphasise in my talk this morning. It means agreeing with one or another by words or by actions; that agreement requires understanding.
If there are to be genuine freedoms in religion, of speech and the press, of expressions in lifestyles, there must be neither endurance of pain nor condescension toward our beliefs or faiths, but acceptance and appreciation of varieties in religious and ethnic groupings. My theme is there must be more than tolerance, there must be acceptance, and there must be a conscious, concerted effort to educate and to turn offenders of intolerance into practitioners of good will and fair play.

Intolerance or unacceptance is an old and recurring global problem that humanity still faces today. Most parts of humankind have treated this problem with indifference; they have not found a way to deal effectively with this destructive force in society, this cancer. It seems to me, however, it has never been more urgent as it is currently, in our ever smaller living space, to check the growth of this disease of the human character. The challenge is learning to accept others, finding worthiness and enjoying the differences, rather than using them as an excuse for elevating one group and excluding others.

If this problem were to be adequately addressed, other pressing problems we face could be more handily resolved. If, however, fear and hate, and resulting intolerance or unacceptability, continues to dominate our personal and inter-group and national relationships, the solution of any of the other problems will not in the end matter nearly as much.

Precisely because the problem of intolerance is an age-old one, we may be making a mistake looking for any complete solution. We need to be trying to manage our way toward an ever better approach, toward appreciation of acceptance. Otherwise, the unattainable best may become the enemy of the accessible good.

Archaeological and historical records attest that human beings have always distinguished between "us" and "them" and treated those in the first group as special, as superior, and those in the second as less worthy of respect, as inferior. The making of distinctions is part of our human make-up. We need to make distinctions in order to make sense out of our world.

If making distinctions is part of what makes us human, making invidious comparisons between and among human groups clearly is not. As populations have grown and expanded in their range, simultaneously they have come into more contact and become more aware of distinctions and divisions not only within their own communities, but also within those they identify as being outsiders. They have not always assumed that these outsiders were suspect just because they were different.

Instead, they learned this response in families, in schooling systems and in political systems. The tragedy is that there have been all too many people prepared to preach religious and racial prejudice. Remember the line from the 1940's American Broadway musical South Pacific, "You've got to be carefully taught to hate all the people your relatives hate." Throughout recorded time, many, who would lead any group, have sought to exploit distinctions to advance their own political agendas, maximise their own power, and weaken others. All too often, this exploitation has taken the form of elevation of the insider and dehumanisation of the other.

Now, as we commence the 21st Century, people are beginning to ask whether it is possible to address this global problem. All of us know the results of the vicious inter-ethnic, inter-religious fighting in the former Yugoslavia, the same in Rwanda, in all too many other places - indeed in this part of the world toward the different Romanies. All of us have seen how combatants have tried to dehumanise their opponents in order to be able to kill them. We have been shocked at the disfiguration of men, women and children, the rapes of people's bodies and minds, the destruction of humanity in all these conflicts.
The very fact that those who want to destroy their enemies must first dehumanise them may point us in an important direction.

Within all human beings, even among the most vicious, there is a taboo of human killing human. Consequently, those who would do so on a massive scale must first strip their opponents of their humanity, of their worthiness, of their self-regard. The fact of this dehumanising process puts into perspective our common humanity, the touchstone value of conferences like Forum 2000. It suggests that with consciousness, with combined efforts, we can move first ourselves and then others beyond what seems to be such a compelling need to divide people into categories and then hold some to be more valued than others.

The question before us is: How should we proceed? Our common history suggests that each individual, each generation and each society needs to struggle with itself in order to transcend such divisions. I believe we can do more and the aphorism that to understand all is to forgive all is not true - or at least not true in the ways that it is typically employed. There are unforgivable actions and unforgivable people, but there are no unforgivable human communities.

In order to learn that - and to learn it again and again - we must turn to both formal education in schools and educating via modern public communications.
Communications technology has often been put to the wrong use in dividing and dominating people. Communications technology exists to allow us to understand each other -- the Internet, radio and television, and the print media. Up to now, these channels all too often have been used by those less interested in promoting understanding than promoting pervasive messages of destruction.

All of us have been horrified by the hateful messages that now travel across the electronic frontier. The un-free media in the former Yugoslavia shares responsibility with Milošević for causing four contemporary Balkan wars. If we are horrified, we often fail to act. We fail to counter such hateful and inherently false messages with more hopeful and true ones. Sometimes because we are fearful, intimidated, embarrassed, and sometimes because we simply do not know how. We need to learn to fight back, to reverse the course of intolerance, and fight for acceptance and appreciation of each other.

Today, I would like briefly to share with you ideas that grow out of my work with an international communications company. We are trying to develop and try out democratic ideas for radio and Internet usage in order to overcome intolerance of religion, race, ethnicity, and expression. Experience over the last three years has taught me just how difficult this challenge is.

Every day at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty' we meet to discuss our editorial approach. I witness our Armenian and Azerbaijani language service chiefs - who broadcast to countries divided by two religions and two separate cultures, whose countries are at war with one another - meet to talk about how to reach over those divisions. They do it as colleagues, and hence our broadcasts reflect that kind of co-operation. The two of them see the world differently, just as do the peoples of the two countries to which they broadcast; but because these colleagues can co-operate, their news and information programme reflect that; and so too, perhaps, can their audiences. At least that is our goal and hope.

Moreover, every day our Central Asian service programmers meet and seek to gather, produce, and broadcast balanced and accurate information to peoples who have no other source for that kind of news and information. All too often, people in our audiences have heard only about the cult of a single personality and the stories about the supposed enemies that the national leader wants them to hear. Our broadcasts are simply to tell the truth about what is happening locally -- in the local language. Our Central Asian listeners can begin to question what they are being told by the state radio and the propaganda machines of the cult of the personality. In the questioning comes the pause that makes progress possible.

Everyday we have been and are broadcasting to the people of the former Yugoslavia in four different languages promoting acceptance and fair play. Instead of promoting a greater Serbia and a greater Croatia, we report local news based on hundreds of stringers in Serbia, Montenegro, Kosovo, Croatia and Bosnia. We broadcast current events in the context of democracy, using the standards of accuracy, balance and objectivity.

Even when we broadcast to audiences not locked in conflict, we seek to talk about conflicts in such a way that our listeners understand the nature of conflict in general and thus are immunised against those who would try to lead them down the same road. In none of these cases are we entirely successful. I gladly add here, however, that throughout the recent election and post-election crisis in Yugoslavia, local polling showed our broadcasts to be the most listened to domestic and foreign radio station on both a daily basis and weekly basis. Every day, we look for better ways to do our job, to ensure that our broadcasts promote the kind of understanding that makes bigotry and hatred unattractive options.

We have not always achieved our goals, but we have been successful often enough to be encouraged to go on. The letters and telephone calls - and, increasingly, e-mails - encourage us.

The ancient Greeks challenged the citizen of the polis to "know themselves." That was a necessity, but not a sufficient condition for the growth of our civilisation. Our common challenge now is to expand that dictum to include the understanding that we can know and ultimately accept ourselves only by knowing, celebrating, and accepting others in a world whose size is ever smaller and whose peoples must become ever better, worthy neighbours.

Thank you.

Gavan Titley
Thank you very much Mr. Dine and we wish you bon voyage. You picked up on the debate that started here yesterday concerning the media and the possibility of thoroughly developed media practices to create communication channels as a channel to counter hatred and intolerance. Your discussion of inter-group distinctions and mistrust echoes what Dr. Singh was saying about the transfer of bigotry from one generation to another. It reminds me of a small anecdote from a place near where I live in Belfast, another city that is riven by issues of religion and cultural identities. A young man was walking home and stopped by a group of men who asked him, ”Are you a Catholic or a Protestant?” the young man thought of how to get out of it and replied, ”No, actually I am a Jew.” The men looked puzzled and the said, ”OK, but are you a Catholic Jew or a Protestant Jew?”

Our next speaker is Rabbi Albert Friedlander, Rabbi of Westminster synagogue, Dean of Leo Beck College in London and President of the World Conference of Religions for Peace.

Albert Friedlander
I am a moderate Jew. We have just finished our season of penitence and confession. There is one small confession that I would like to share with you. I recently went to my doctor and said to him that I have a problem that I keep falling asleep during theological lectures and he said, ”Everyone does”, but I said, ”But I am giving the lectures.” At least you have had your caffeine break so you are filled up with enough drugs to keep going through the next minutes where I will try to meet some of the challenges given us by this brilliant chain of speakers that preceded me.

We have talked a lot about globalisation, seen how communication is important, also for religion, but also how much suffering and anguish approaches us in the vicinity and in the distance. These days, with the presence of Shimon Peres to remind us we know how troubled times these are. Somewhere beyond the horizon, the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse are approaching, bringing a darkness which can destroy the work we have done over these past years. In 1994, when Shimon Peres shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Yitzchak Rabin and Yassir Arafat, it seems so long ago, the late poet Yehuda Amichai read his poem Wildpeace:
A peace
Without word,
Without the heavy thud of the rubber stamp, I want it
Gentle over us, like lazy white foam.

That dream has receded into the distance, as peace has receded. It died in the rubble of burned sanctuaries, in the outcry of the mob in once sacred streets. Can we return to the peace process as an aspect of the work which has brought us to Prague? It is a question for the economists here who observe oil prices rising, the stock market sinking, business fears growing; but more it is a challenge to the statesmen and politicians trying desperately to return to a climate where discussion is at least possible. Yet it is also a challenge to all representatives of religion who are present and who acknowledge the failure of religion at this crucial time.

I speak as a president of the World Conference of Religions for Peace. Last week, our moderator, His Royal Highness Prince El Hassan bin Talal, spoke of the need for religious insights from regions of strife where hatred has replaced respect for others. He stated:

‘Paralleling the political contribution to peacemaking, undergirding, guiding and supporting them, must also be the engagement of the profound civilisational legacies of the region. These legacies are the three monotheistic religions: Islam, Christianity and Judaism. Far from being necessary sources of division, these traditions must be grasped as major assets for peacemaking. Mobilizing these assets is both an urgent and long-term necessity, since they share common moral concerns essential to the establishment of peace and common living.’

We know the logic of aggression, which inexorably leads to more violence, and moves far away from the original sources. I am afraid that there are similar aggressive patterns within religion, where the own position is affirmed to the point where it eliminates any awareness of other religions and their authentic approach to God. The fires of fanaticism can rage through sanctuaries and destroy the faithful. Thus, in the Torah, we read of the sons of Aaron, Nadav and Avihu they placed strange sacrifices before the Lord, which God had not commanded . . . and a fire came forth and destroyed them.” The Torah does not tell us what the strange offering might have been. Traditionalists feel they wanted to make changes; liberal thinkers recognise the fanatic fire of faith, which is self-destructive and leads religion into rigidity and estrangement from the world. In our time of globalisation, we cannot afford to erect walls around ourselves. We need an open religion, not one that is closed to all except a few faithful devotees. The logic of excluding others is a false fire in our houses of worship. We have to remind ourselves that there is no monopoly of the sacred space, which exists between God and humanity.

There is also a logic of love and of mutual understanding, This, more than anything else, is a contribution which religion can make to the world at this crucial time. Some come to Jerusalem these days, carrying a fiery touch in their hands. Others have a flame burning within the heart which can either melt the frozenness of hatred, or which can ignite strife. Certainly, Jerusalem is a holy place for many religions, and many sanctuaries compete with one another as they occupy the centre of the city. It is strange that a city filled with so much sacred history, with so many places of worship, can be filled with so much anger and hatred. If there is a solution, even a temporary one, it must come from the politicians of both sides -- but these politicians must be instructed by the most noble teachings of their faith.

I have always come here to be instructed by the wisdom of scientists and scholars brought together by President Havel. I know that science and religion must work together, as the Dalai Lama pointed out in his autobiography Freedom in Exile:
“Since science exercises ever greater influence upon our lives, it is the constantly growing task of religion and spirituality to remind us of our humanity. Science and religion do not exclude one another, but demand understanding for one another. Science, as much as the teachings of Buddha, speak of the fundamental unity of all things.”

As a rabbi, daily reciting the credo ”The Lord our God, the Lord is One”, I can follow this great soul whose noble life in exile illuminates our world. Again, listening to Karan Singh this morning, we were reminded that the truth is one but the wise call it many names. Einstein’s unified field theory as an expression of that. Certainly, we have learned from science that reason is integral to faith; and science has become aware that its quest for truth is also formed by faith. Let me here remind you of Karl Jasper´s teaching. (It could have been worse: I first found a quote in Heidegger’s Sein und Zeit!). For Jaspers, there are two types of ultimate truth. One emphasises that which is ultimately valid; the other is the truth which demands our total commitment. The universally valid belongs to science, it can be verified and must be acknowledged by all as correct and true (wahr und richtig). But, precisely because it is universally valid and verifiable, it does not demand the unconditional historical commitment of existence (den unbedingten geschichtlichen Einsatz der Existenz). It is different when we confront the existential core within the totally committing truth. As it is true, it demands from all humans who surrender to that truth an unconditional giving of oneself. Here, we do not deal with a scientific truth but with religious, philosophic, ethical truths -- the truths of faith. In his book Der philosophische Glaube (1988) Jaspers presented those two approaches through Galileo on the one side, and through Giordano Bruno on the other side. Galileo could confront his truth with rational equanimity and caution. Submitting to the authority he could still whisper within himself “and still it moves”. Bruno gave his life for the truth he found in his faith. We may feel closer to Galileo than to Bruno, but we have to understand the difference in their conditional and unconditional commitment to their visions of ultimate truth. Yet what endures, what reaches out to us in their visions, is this concept of linking our existence to a vision which is most often encountered in the various religious faiths which surround us these days.

The most profound, existential and commanding truth of religious faith at this time is the vision of peace. It seems unrealistic - apocalypse seems closer than the children of Abraham - Islam and Judaism - confronting and embracing one another. Yet the totally-committing truth which we all share is the knowledge that there is the future which the prophets saw:

”Lo yissa gov el ~ov cherev, lo vilm’du od milchama” - ”Nations will not lift up the sword against one another; neither will they teach war any longer.”

May we live with that truth, may we pray for that truth and may we serve that truth. Thank you.

Gavan Titley
I remember that at last year’s forum you were also worried about the relationship between sleep and your teaching. After a friend of yours consistently fell asleep during your sermons you asked him, ”Why do you sleep during my sermons?” he replied, ”Rabbi, I trust you”

Thank you for calling for an architecture of values for humanity that could be distilled from many faiths. It is possible in the terms of the philosophical division of truth that you made.

Our next speaker on the panel is no stranger to the Forum, professor and author on economic anthropology, among many other things.

Takeaki Hori
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When I found my name on this particular session, I felt awkward as I am the least religious person and I don’t know anything about religious beliefs. When I arrived here I really tried hard to come up with some good remarks related to a spiritual dimension or a religious dimension. Yesterday’s topics were based solely on education and everyone tried to conceptualise, analyse or define what exactly are the procedures of globalisation. Each time the panellists and the keynote speakers spoke I thought to myself, there is something I have to think about. At my age my lifelong - learning process started here in Prague.

I tried to find some kind of anecdote or personal feelings, how I deal with the procedures and transformations of globalisation. I came back to my remarks last year and then realised something about my family life, which is a taboo for me. My wife says to me: ”Don’t tell anyone what is going on in my house.” This is a very spiritual agreement between my wife and myself. I then thought of my little family and how it has been washed by the massive wave of globalisation and focusing on my relationship with my daughter. My daughter was chosen by the Japanese government, despite not being qualified to study overseas and that they would pay for tuition and all travel costs, etc. She went to Canada last May. She was so excited and it was the first time she was to be exposed to the globalising processes. As a devoted father I begged her, ”Just one thing, one promise between you and myself”- and I am not racially prejudiced - ”please do not pick up any boyfriends who come from China, Korea or Japan, because Canada is a multicultural country so try to find an Anglophone or Francophone.” Then she can come back with a full command of English and she can apply for the Students’ Forum. As somebody pointed out yesterday, language is one of the major factors of globalisation. She asked me, ”But Daddy, why?” I told her not to waste her time so that later she can open a conference and scatter everybody by speaking English. She moved to Canada, phoned me two months later and said that she had a Chinese friend. I said ”Why?” and I was so upset. She told me that there are no Canadians studying at this university; there are 1400 Taiwanese, so wherever you go you are surrounded by them. That was the greatest disappointment.

Then when she came back a few months later, she said, ”Daddy, finally I have found a white man.” She speaks the language beautifully, but this boy is not an Englishman. This boy was from Australia and had a really broad Aussie accent. This is one of the globalisation processes going on in my family. Then she comes back speaking Singlish, Japalish, or some broken Aussie English, what can I do? Maybe it was a mistake that I ever sent her to Canada. If someone has any good advice please tell me. This is one of the impacts we are suffering from globalisation. I wonder what sort of life she has been enjoying. In a few months time she phoned me up saying that she can stay on the phone to my mother 24 hours a day through the computer and it doesn’t cost much. In other words my wife is learning to work the computer, sitting there idling around, staring at the computer until the little light flashes and then talking for hours on the phone. This is another small effect of globalisation on a personal level.

People may think that I am drifting away from the spiritual side of globalisation, but this a spiritual side, which has touched me. As a social anthropologist I need to touch on a few more aspect of the spiritual transformation relating to globalisation. My colleague, Mr. Shiraishi, puts the stress on language and English is second to none. When you go back to the 19th century and find a dictionary of any language, whether it be Greek or Latin you can find very useful spiritual terminology - spiritus sanctus, pneuma, etc. These days, the younger generation, the generation of my daughter never try to find the meaning of this spirituality. At the turn of the 20th century these terms in these languages were of importance and now no-one lays any stress on them; we are putting emphasis on consumerism, materialism, universalism or a financial situation. Everyone is trying to establish their security through this materialism. I am not a pessimist about globalisation, but I do feel a demonic element in globalisation. As His Holiness mentioned, we are different from other mammals as we have intelligence. My beliefs as a commoner and a layman are that you can pick up spirituality anywhere, maybe in the forest or in water, and we have to counter this emphasis on materialism. My spiritual globalisation is more removed from the rest of globalisation. I am becoming more and more religious- -minded.

Gavan Titley
Thank you for your attractive methods of language learning and also for emphasising the importance for re-centring the spiritual and cultural contexts in which people find themselves. This is part of the aura of what global contact can bring. The Students’ Forum has asked me to remind delegates and speakers that they can leave a message at the presentation stand to communicate what these challenges can mean to younger generations and transform them into platforms of action.

Our next speaker is Mr Yousif al-Khoei, the Director of the London-based Al-Khoei Foundation, which runs educational establishments for Muslim communities in, among other places, London, New York and Bangkok. We look forward to his presentation.

Yousif al-Khoei
Thank you for inviting me to give a Muslim perspective to this debate. Let me start by saying that Islamic civilisation has always been engaged in the global processes of interaction and exchange, which exist at different levels today. I see no inherent contradiction between globalisation and Islamic tradition. Indeed, throughout its history, Islam has been both a recipient and initiator of globalisation - its interactions and processes.
If I may begin with a small example on the level of ideas: Medieval Islamic philosophers were, in great part, the medium for reviving, in the West, the legacy of earlier civilisations, such as the ancient Greeks. Indeed, inherent within Islam is the attachment of spiritual and ethical values towards the protection and promotion of knowledge, a process which in itself has left Western civilization with an enduring and positive legacy.

I should like to look at the contemporary debate about globalisation and religions from what might be termed an ”Inside” and ”Outside” perspective. Firstly, the view from the outside - the contemporary reality.

The Muslim world today is, by and large, the developing world. There are, of course, important and growing minority Muslim communities in the developed world, not least in Europe. For now, I would like to concentrate on the developing world.
If we look at it in these terms, then the issues, problems and processes associated with globalisation and the developing world can be linked in with those of globalisation and Islam. Here, the debate converges in the sense that there is no need to necessarily produce a separate Islamic discourse vis-ŕ-vis globalisation and its effects, good or bad.
Many contemporary Muslim societies have been largely shaped by the more recent legacy of their colonial subjugation. Their development has therefore been stifled, like much of the developing world. This context needs to be understood if we are to comprehend the differential impact of globalisation. The social reality in these societies is, in many cases, poverty, lack of access to education, elitist maintenance of the status quo through military muscle, environmental degradation, lack of rule of law and denial of civil liberties. How the vastly different elements of these societies will meet the various challenges of globalisation has yet to be seen. Important indicators are already in place that do allow us to consider the advantages and disadvantages of globalisation on our world.
Let us look at some of the disadvantages first. The idea of cultures is important here. Some have pointed to the idea of cultural hegemony - the ”Mc’Donaldisation” of the world. It is sobering to bear in mind that some multinationals are richer than most developing states. Moreover, in an era where there is now only a single superpower, which has the potential to impose its hegemony - cultural, economic and political - through these global channels, it is all the more important to guard against the erosion of traditional and in many cases, powerless, societies who wish to preserve their ways of life. This is as important for parts of the Muslim world as it is for the rest of the developing world.
The communications and technological revolution have also had a profound impact. The advances of information technology and the sheer volume of its availability and accessibility - albeit mainly to politically and socially empowered elites - poses a number of questions and challenges. Muslim societies are, in the main, recipients of this phenomenon.
Globalisation, however, also has potential advantages. It has the potential to give a larger role to the United Nations and the idea of an international mechanism, substituting the cold- war ethic for a new pattern of international interdependence and co-operation. Thus, paradoxically, globalisation can actually help in diffusing power, rather than centralising it. It also places human- rights values and democracy as a basis of politics and social development. It leads to a global village that, it can be argued, removes barriers between nations in many different areas of co-operation; allows for greater economic relations; facilitates social and cultural mixing; and ultimately even can reduce xenophobia and mistrust.
With this latter point in mind I would like to turn to looking inside - that is, to challenges within Islamic tradition. It is important to unlock the crucial role Islam can and does play in accentuating the positive aspects of globalisation.

Here, I shall just take 2 brief examples - that of the environment and of the development of jurisprudence - Ijtihad.
To take the issue of the environment, for example: In Islam, it is incumbent upon humanity, as vice-gerents of God on earth, to understand, appreciate and look after the rest of creation as it is a trust in our hands.
Allow me to quote from the Qur’an:

To Him belongs whatsoever is
In the heavens and the earth,
All obey His Will
And it is He, who originates creation, (Qur’an: 30:25)
Thus, Islam also injects an ethical dimension to how we treat the environment - in the modern age environmental problems, as well as the economic aspects already touched upon, are of course intrinsically global in their implications. The solutions therefore are also global and Islam recognises this and the need for understanding and co-operation across boundaries.
On a more theoretical level, the concept of ijtihad - of interpretation of holy texts - also has important implications. Ijtihad allows Islam to adapt to changing circumstances and environments. It militates against a rigid, traditional one-dimensional view - wholly inadequate in such a dynamic era of globalisation - while remaining firm on universal principles.

I began my talk by suggesting a link between spiritual and ethical values towards the protection and promotion of knowledge. Education, I continue to believe, is the key to solving many of our problems. Deny education and you deny fundamental freedoms all religious traditions have been espousing since the dawn of humanity. Deny education and you allow the infiltration of bigotry, prejudice and extremism. Deny education and you allow abhorrent practices to occur without criticism and sometimes under the name of tradition, religion or nationalism.
All of us, Mr. Chairman, including some political and spiritual leaders, need to be educated - as was mentioned yesterday - in the art of governance, tolerance and respect for human dignity and spirit. In a globalised world, the challenge for faith traditions should be the elimination of both the spiritual and earthly poverty that too many people endure.

Gavan Titley
Thank you very much for identifying Muslim ethics as a contribution to common humanity. You touch on an important point that in a global information economy certain countries control far more resources than others. If we want to combat prejudice, surely the ability to represent oneself and one’s cultural values and social reality must be central to that.

We come to the last speaker on the panel, Maria Celina Del Felice, a representative of the Students’ Forum from Argentina. She also took part in one of the first decentralised forums, which was a forum for Latin American students in Buenos Aires. She currently studies political science at Rosario National University in Argentina.

Maria Celina del Felice
It was a pleasure to participate in the Students’ Forum last June and what I enjoyed the most was the respect with which we listened to each other. This made me realise that only through listening to each other attentively can we achieve a fruitful dialogue and understanding. As was said here, this is not a minor fact. On the contrary, intercultural and inter-religious dialogues are important steps towards peace. Lester Pearson, former Canadian Prime Minister and Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, eloquently said, ”How can there be peace if we do not understand each other? How can there be understanding if we do not really know each other?” In the age of globalisation we have plenty of means of communicating, but we continue to misunderstand each other. This is not only among people of different backgrounds, but also between people of different generations. I often hear at home that young people do not care about anything. I would say that the Students’ Forum 2000 is one of the best proofs that this is not entirely true. We may be inexperienced but we certainly care about our future.
I also wonder what would be the point of listening to these young inexperienced students. The point seems to me that by listening to these young people you can hear a little bit of the future. I participated in the environmental workshop at the Students’ Forum, where we dared to dream of an ideal living environment and how to get to it. We acknowledged that daily decisions are made by materialistic and individualistic bodies, from recycling to ordinary decisions, and we asked how we can reach this dream of living in harmony with our environment. We must highlight these values which some say we have lost. I think we haven’t lost them, but we haven’t put enough emphasis on them - respect and love for others, responsible freedom, respect for life in all its forms, solidarity, hard work and commitment. We stated: let us have less to be more. We talk of material poverty, but I would say I am more worried by spiritual poverty. If we were not so spiritually impoverished we would not allow many things to happen.
I would like to comment on the relation between religion and young people in my part of the world - Latin America. We have to bear in mind that it is demographically a very young continent. According to the economic commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, 59% of the population is under 29 years old. That means that we have a lot of potential for change. It is also calculated that 9 out of 10 Latin Americans are Christians. Spirituality does not necessarily come from Christianity. Long before colonisers came, aboriginal groups had very deep religious beliefs, which were reflected in their way of life. These beliefs blended with Christianity in a process of inculturation. These beliefs are part of customs and beliefs. A religious gathering generates more enthusiasm and participation than any other social and political gathering. At least in my town this is the case. The political scientists cannot explain why a priest is much more popular than the politicians.
Even though I am saying that young Latin Americans believe in God and have Christ as a guiding figure, they tend to have a more personal approach to their beliefs and standards of religious institutions. Last year the Continental Catholic Youth Gathering in Chile stated some criticism towards church institutions: lack of coherence between what is preached and what is done and lack of commitment to those who suffer social exclusion and poverty. Young people feel very discouraged by indifference of those who call themselves Christians and act in non-Christian ways. We feel discouraged by self-centred institutions that deny us the space to participate. We also hope for a more determined approach from the Church. I have a very encouraging example. The Argentinean Catholic Church asked for forgiveness for its behaviour and lack of commitment in the defence of human rights during the last military regime. As a Catholic myself, I find these gestures encouraging in the long way to justice, reconciliation and peace. We shouldn’t be afraid of acknowledging our mistakes, we should move forward so that the clouds of scepticism and indifference do not prevent us from being thirsty of spirituality. In a secular world, loneliness and feelings of emptiness should be replaced by feelings of hope.
What are the challenges for religions in a globalising world, where people tend to fall into materialism and hedonism - when people seem more interested in buying a new model of mobile phone than becoming a better person or a better father? How do religions react to these cultural changes? They seem to act in three different ways. Some ignore the problems and do not acknowledge the need for change. Some see the church as a security space where young people are protected from these evil forces. The others, with who I identify, try to evaluate critically the changes, without fear and tackle them positively. Religions are wonderful fountains of inspiration, guidance and examples. We are desperately seeking for models and light. In a hectic world full of noises, we need to believe strongly that praying and taking time to reflect is not a waste of time, but the necessary steps towards inner peace, and consequently social peace. Concern for others, the need for prayer and a transcendental view of man are elements present in most religions, if not all. These common values of religions must unite us, despite our differences. If world religions do not engage in dialogue and lead peace processes, what kinds of example are we giving those who do not believe in peace? To those who are seeking to quench their thirst but cannot find the right answers in traditional religions? To those who have not decided whether they are for a culture of death or a culture of life. In my humble opinion, the greatest challenge for the world religions is to contribute mainly through example and commitment to move from a culture of death, which denies human dignity and preciousness, towards a culture of life, peace and justice. We can only respond to this challenge with, as I said before, active hope. I would like to say Gracias in Spanish, which means that I wish you are all in God’s favour.

Gavan Titley
Gracias a te también, Miss Del Felice for contributing your ideas to the continual struggle to assert spiritual values over material logic and for addressing an important question that historical injustices need to be recognised and processes of reconciliation to be centred.

We have reached the end of our speeches, so I must thank our keynote speakers and wish you bon appetit.