Recep Tayyip

Erdoğan

Prime Minister of Turkey

Speech made to the Assembly

Wednesday, 28 June 2006

All speechesQuestions and answers

Mr Erdoğan said that he was pleased that those topics he dealt with in the framework of the Alliance of Civilisations were also discussed by the Council of Europe. An action plan had been submitted to the United Nations and concrete steps, on such topics as education and the integration of immigrants, could be expected. The Council of Europe was also taking practical measures which would reinforce the work of the Alliance of Civilisations.

An important phrase was “unity in diversity”, or perhaps “plurality within unity”. Multiculturalism was important for maintaining peace within Europe and in the wider world, and there was a need to take steps to reinforce it. Muslim populations had been increasing in Europe. In several large European cities, such as London, Paris and Rotterdam, the Muslim population was between 10% and 25% of the total population. The problem of immigration was not a problem of Islam; there was a need to be more tolerant generally. Countries needed to integrate new communities and not respond with hatred or fear, nor seek to isolate or assimilate such people, but instead to communicate and engage with new communities to develop shared understandings for mutual benefit. This was the key challenge, and would require efforts on behalf of both the host country and the immigrant communities. It was also necessary to teach the young about tolerance as a virtue. The Alliance of Civilisations could help to achieve this goal, and to create a peaceful world for future generations.

Historically, Turkey was very diverse, with a rich socio-cultural mix. Turkey was ready to co-operate with the European institutions including the Council of Europe, of which the Parliamentary Assembly was the pillar. The Assembly had a responsibility in that it was pursuing a freer, richer world. This could only be based on fundamental rights. He valued the work of the Council of Europe and appreciated the opportunity to speak today. He thanked Mrs Hurskainen for the report and looked forward to the debate. He would not give his detailed views at this stage but would express them later. However, he agreed with some, but not all, of the report.

Freedom of expression lay at the core of modern life and was the foundation of democracy. Freedom of expression applied not only to opinions not shared by all, but also to those opinions that shock and disturb. A commitment to freedom of expression was essential, but there had to be some exceptions; some limits. The recent cartoon crisis, and the international reaction to it, was a prime example of that. Freedom of speech and respect for minority communities were not mutually exclusive and could co-exist in full harmony, but action guided by the law and common sense would make the world a more peaceful place.

The cartoon crisis had done more than draw attention to the lack of respect for other cultures and minority communities. It had highlighted the increasing polarisation of the international community along cultural lines and showed a fault line emerging between the western world and the Islamic world. Extremism was emerging in both communities. Extremism could only cause us all harm, so it was essential to find the middle ground. Terrorism perpetrated in the name of religion and Islamophobia were both extremist tendencies that could lead the world into crisis. In observing and reacting to these movements, we should remain calm and rational.

He said that every society had “sacred” values, whether religious, cultural or traditional, and nobody had the right to assault those values. Never in history had there been unlimited freedom. The violation of the freedoms of others would lead to conflict, and indirectly to terrorism. This would endanger global peace. We were entering a dark alley with no end, so it was therefore imperative that we mobilised our hopes, not our fears.

To avoid this clash of civilisations, we should make respect for the differences between people the starting point. It was imperative to respect each other when exercising freedom of expression. It was necessary to disregard some of the values of the past and start afresh in protecting the freedom of others. It was vital that we did not evoke the syndrome of fear or hatred of the “other” – those who are not like us. Perhaps also freedom of expression was not the same as a freedom to insult. Part of the new challenge was that in an interconnected digital world, geography was no barrier to the interaction of peoples, cultures and faiths.

It was important to embrace past achievements, but we now faced new challenges. Countries needed to unite around a common definition of democracy. Free societies must be culturally pluralist, and democracy should be seen as an alliance of freedoms, but we were at a crossroads, faced with the danger of a clash of freedoms. The origins of this clash come from within free societies. It was essential to develop a culture of freedom that did not lead to violence.

Anti-Semitism had long been accepted as a crime against humanity. Islamaphobia should be seen in exactly the same way, as a crime against humanity. The historical evolution of societies was different. Some societies had developed a strong emphasis on the liberation of the individual, whereas others had taken different paths, but no society should impose its own values on others. There was no hierarchy of civilisations. All cultures had interacted and influenced each other in the course of their development, but no one culture was superior to others. The differences should be seen as richness.

He and his Spanish colleague were co-chairing a group of 20 “wise men” who had prepared an action plan. At their last meeting, in Dakar in Senegal, they had developed a plan which contained practical proposals. One crucial element was a focus on the education system, because young minds have more potential to be freed from prejudices. This was particularly important in minority communities. They hoped that the action plan would be adopted next November at a meeting in Turkey.

The high level group had not ignored the political context feeding radicalism. The group was looking at issues in the Middle East and Iraq, and at economic differences across the globe. As yet, there were no concrete plans, but the group was concerned not just with the identification of problems. It intended to make moves towards establishing initiatives and taking positive steps. It was important to make common values visible to enable countries and peoples to exercise their rights. This would be the most important contribution that the group could make.

If the world was determined to create world peace, then the formation of a global alliance would be required, but if terrorism were to persist, then there would be a continuation of the clash of civilisations. The Alliance of Civilisations could be an important means of achieving the global co-operation required. He hoped that the Council of Europe would assist in this process and he thanked the Parliamentary Assembly for listening.