The Event has been organized by Rudolf Šulík and Mária Janeková in cooperation with International Visegrad Fund (IVF)

The entire ICD Team had a chance to welcome at ICD House of Arts & Culture two top officials of the IVF – Executive Director Petr Vágner and Public Relations Manager Jiří Sýkora. These distinguished guests, visiting Berlin to honour cooperation with Humboldt University, came prepared with a comprehensive presentation on the history of the Visegrad Group and explained the motivation behind the many developments and attributes of the cooperation. The second part was focused on daily functioning of the IVF, the composition of its programs and its target recipient states and regions. This was followed by a lively discussion, started by our Team members from West and South Europe, eager to learn more about this regional cooperation, its dealings with regional issues and its impact on the region of Central Europe, EU and NATO. Those from Central and Eastern Europe were interested in more details and possibilities to participate in IVF programmes (e.g. students mobility) and how to acquire appropriate funding. The whole event took place in a very friendly and open minded atmosphere, rounded off with refreshments for all the participants. To simply conclude, this event was a great success.

What is the Visegrad cooperation and IVF?

The Visegrad Group (also known as the “Visegrad Four” or simply “V4″) reflects the efforts of the countries of the Central European region to work together in a number of fields of common interest. The Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia feel as a part of a single civilization, sharing cultural and intellectual values and common roots in diverse religious traditions. All the V4 countries aspired to become members of the EU and reached this aim in 2004 (1st May).

The International Visegrad Fund (IVF), established in 2000, pro­motes devel­op­ment of closer coop­er­a­tion among the Visegrad Group (V4) countries and strengthens the ties among peo­ple in the region. The organisation pro­vides fund­ing for com­mon cul­tural, sci­en­tific, research and edu­ca­tional projects, youth exchanges, pro­mo­tion of tourism and cross-border coop­er­a­tion. Most of the grant recip­i­ents are non-governmental orga­ni­za­tions, munic­i­pal­i­ties and local gov­ern­ments, uni­ver­si­ties, schools, other pub­lic insti­tu­tions and also indi­vid­ual cit­i­zens not only in V4, but also in the Western Balkans and members of the EU Eastern Partnership.

This weekend another 100 were brutally massacred in Syria including the stabbing and axing of nearly 50 children. The U.N. Security Council condemns it, of course, but can soft power or cultural diplomacy play any role here? Or is it only a matter for hard power and military intervention? I would be grateful for your input.

- Mark Donfried -

Follow this discussion on my Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/markdonfried

Stimulate more discussions by joining the ICD Facebook community: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Institute-for-Cultural-Diplomacy-ICD/125959932672

For more information about the massacre in Syria, please clieck here:

• Syria faces mounting condemnation after Houla masscare: live updates – The Guardian
• Annan to visit Syria as UN condemns Houla massacre - BBC
  

Egypt Between Economic Difficulties and Political Instability

Since the 2011 emergence of uprising and revolution in the MENA (Middle East and North Africa) there has been a question of classifying these incidents all under one label as the “Arab Spring”. Not all of these events have had the same causes, characteristics and outcomes.

The notion of labeling an “Arab Spring” can be challenged if compared to the sudden rise of Islamist groups in Tunisia and Egypt, and the respective Parliaments of both countries. Regardless of the leaders of the transitional period, the Presidential council in Tunisia and Supreme Council of Military Forces SCAF in Egypt, the end result was the same; the rise of Islamic groups with their specific ideologies to be future legislators. As Islamic groups start to dominate the post-revolutionary parliaments, the internal composition and differences of each fraction need to be taken into consideration.

Egypt and the Post-Revolutionary Period: Dispute and Escalating Prices

Egyptian citizens were primarily positive after overthrowing the former authoritarian President Hosni Mubarak. However, their optimism has gradually decreased as political power balances between SCAF and MBH has prompted public discontent against the revolutionary youth. While the SCAF is still highly respected on a general scale despite some mistakes, the burden of daily life has furthered the dissatisfaction with the group who fuelled the historical revolution on the 25^th of January.

Unfortunately, the post-revolutionary period has shed light on the high rate of crimes and general lack of security in the Egyptian streets and previously peaceful villages. The frequency of rape crimes, attacks and unusual accidents has highlighted the insecurities of the nation. There have even been security threats that endanger the long-standing peaceful co-existence between the Moslems and Cops after Salafis burnt down a church in an active district. The SCAF intervened and promised to quickly rebuild the destroyed church in time for the celebration of the Christmas Feast.

By the end of the fifteen-month transitional period, the general sentiment of most Egyptians is one of discontent and fear of the unknown. No Egyptian can deny that daily life has become more difficult with higher prices and lack of security. The higher rates of crime have internally cost people soles and assets and have externally affected the country’s capacity to export and its need to import. The daily strikes and road blockages from protesters have caused an overall downgrade in the nation’s GDP.

Mittens in the Transitional Period

After the first elections Moslem Brotherhood and Salafis dominated the Egyptian Parliament.  The biased performance of this parliament has polarized Egyptian citizens into being in either pro- or anti-revolutionary camps. Normal citizens, political activists, thinkers and the intellectually elite alike have condemned the dramatic performance of the newly elected MPs. It is not only the naïve theatre portrayals played by the MPs that have led to fear and frustration, but also the monopoly enforced by the Islamic majority in the parliament to build a commission tasked to draft the new Egyptian constitution.

The severe attack to dismantle the current government of Dr. Kamal El Ganzoury was called “salvation” rather than “taking care of the government”. The current Egyptian Parliament, dominated by MBs, hastily aimed to pass this notion, which would have produced more Islamic executive power and is another sign of a monopoly of Moslem Brotherhood.

What Will Happen In Egypt If…?

Although the new Egyptian president is expected to take office as soon as the scheduled 23/24 May elections are concluded, the responsibilities of the President are still not clearly defined. No one among the thirteen presidential candidates can affirm the tasks prescribed for him if he is successful in winning the Egyptian presidency. This pressing matter has not yet been decided due to the monopoly and reluctance from the Moslem Brotherhood to build the commission that will create the new Egyptian constitution. Will Egypt have a Presidential or Parliamentary Political System? No one knows.

Not only is there uncertainty about the new Presidential authority, but also the vague question if the expected ruling of the Supreme Constitutional Court (SCC) against the unconstitutionality of the parliament will lead to the dismantling of the current parliament.

Polls Show an Unexpected Way Out of Cultural Diplomacy Defined by Citizens To Go Through

Egyptian society has nearly passed the transitional period that will end on the 1^st of June, the date scheduled to SCAF to deliver power to the newly elected President. With more resistance against the hardliners that talk in the name of Islam, these Islamic fractions are now being criticized among citizens that were previously shy and reluctant to comment in a country with state-controlled media. The new power balances have been carefully calculated by the state-run media, which has now been condemned and hated by most citizens.

There is talk on the streets about the enormous need for stability and the need for a culturally balanced president. This president must have the diplomatic ability combine all disputes into a common discourse, in regards to this, candidate Amr Mousa has such a diplomatic charm. Many polls show that the qualified characters from the previous regime that are highly accredited with national achievements can be satisfactorily elected to the forthcoming presidency. An example is Mr. Ahmed Shafik, the former President of Civil Aviation. Unfortunately, Mubarak appointed Shafik eleven days prior to the toppling of his regime.

Egyptian citizens now seem to vote with the concept of “national reconciliation” in mind. This term is not completely accepted politically by the dominant media sources. Many voters are viewing a liberal candidate like Amr Mousa as a potential future President. The previously famous diplomat is seen as moderated, well-cultured with foreign affairs and is still credited as trustworthy after being through the old regimes. Those who wander the Egyptian streets in both poor and rich cities can find the real truth that is growing, a sense of unity that grows from the public opinion that the new President should be elected without bias on a religious base and by a diverse assembling of Egyptian cultures.

Out beyond ideas of wrong-doing and right-doing, there is a field. I will meet you there.”
- Jalal Ad-Din Rumi

For thousands of years, it was the nature of human beings to use violence to settle their ultimate differences. Likewise, violence has been the basis and ultimate rule of conduct of power politics – ultimately the endpoint being war. Cultural diplomacy, by stressing soft power in our daily activities whether in trading, competition or in political activities offer a viable alternative that enforces our human nature. The definition of Cultural Diplomacy is offered by the American author, Milton C. Cummings, as: “the exchange of ideas, information, values, systems, traditions, beliefs, and other aspects of culture, with the intention of fostering mutual understanding”.

Travelers, traders, artists, scientists, and engineers practiced cultural diplomacy for centuries, they all can be considered as cultural diplomats. They have been instrumental in exchanging information, ideas, cultural habits, religious rituals, music, and other cultural forms, enabling more tolerance, and promoting wider understanding between different nations.

Nowadays, our world is becoming more complex, and diversified. The population is growing in numbers, and there are increasing demands on food and natural resources such as water and energy. This increases the pressure on the countries to fulfil these demands, and eventually wars could be prompted by countries fighting each other to get access to these resources. Also countries have to work with their people to meet their political and economical aspirations, and to bridge the gap between their government’s performance and the people’s expectations. In addition, in an increasingly globalised international environment, and with the rapid advancement of communications, media and technologies, companies and foundations are becoming ever more central as forums of international dialogue and cooperation.

Using cultural diplomacy through cultural exchange between countries, which implies respect and communication and based on better understanding of respective values and reduced vulnerability in fields such as art, sport, literature, music, science and the economy, more understanding will be achieved between these countries. The outcome of such an exchange would be an improved interaction and cooperation leading ultimately to peace and prosperity for all.

Also, using the soft power of cultural diplomacy to communicate, and to bridge the gap between Governments and their people rather than using the conventional power to crush the people, Governments would get the support of their people and thus getting them involved in their development programs, which will lead to empowering the people and the country at the same time, and establishing clear links between long-term development challenges faced by the Government and the requirements of their people.

Wednesday 09 May 2012 marked a historical event within the United States when Barack Obama became the first president to publically express his support for same-sex marriage. In a nationally televised interview, Obama stated, “It is important for me to go ahead and affirm that– I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.“ Obama’s notion of support came when directly asked by an ABC News Reporter if he was still opposed to same-sex marriage. This is the first time that any Obama has gone on the record stating an affirmative view after being bluntly asked.

The President spoke about his evolution of opinion on the issue and that he believes same-sex marriage doesn’t weaken families, but strengthens them. While he specifically expressed that he believes this issue should not be decided on a federal level, he has received praise for the bold statement of support on a very polarized issue. Both advocates and adversaries have weighed in their opinions on the matter, further drawing out the range of ideologies. Many in the United States are also questioning what the support of the President means for the LGBTQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer/Questioning) community and for relations domestically and abroad.

Opponents are calling into question Obama’s intentions and timing of this monumental announcement, particularly in light of the upcoming American Presidential elections. In the past decade, the Pew Research Center reports that America’s views on same-sex marriage have changed from 35 percent in 2001 to 47 percent this year. Despite North Carolina recently banning same-sex marriage, the support for same-sex marriage has been upwardly trending among both Republicans and Democrats. These figures are an indication that close to a majority of citizens are in support of same-sex marriage and thus the politics and legislature around this issue is due for a shift.

Federal broadcasting institution, Voice of America, reported a worldwide mixed reaction to Obama’s statements. In South Africa, where same-sex marriage has been legalized since 2006, political analysts at the University of Witwatersrand report that a majority of South Africans are still opposed to it. The reception has also been mixed from Obama’s fellow politicians worldwide, from openly gay German foreign minister Guido Westewelle in support, to Australian Prime Minister vowing to vote against the Australian parliament’s same-sex marriage bill later this year. There has also been an overall mixed opinion from international LGBTQ culture groups.

While it is difficult to estimate what last Wednesday’s announcement means for diplomatic relations abroad, the United States is slowly nationally transforming on the issue. People of all ages, nationalities, political affiliations and backgrounds are increasingly supporting same-sex marriage and regardless of opinion, the important political debate is occurring around the issue.

References:

         – Pew Research Center, “More Support for Gun Rights, Gay Marriage than in 2008 or 2004“ (25/4/2012)

           – ABC News, Interview with President Barack Obama (09/05/2012)

           – VOA News, “Obama Gay Marriage Stance Draws Mixed Reactions Worldwide” (10/05/2012)

Welcome

The International Symposia on Cultural Diplomacy 2012 is the world’s leading and largest event in the field of cultural diplomacy. The Symposia 2012 will include five large-scale events incorporating the fields of cultural diplomacy, international politics and economics, and international human rights. The events will take place in three different countries throughout the entire month of June and will include over 200 high level speakers and over 2000 participants. In addition to the main five events of the symposia, additional events will take place around the world in all 5 continents simultaneously during the month of June.

Introduction

In the year 2011, the international community witnessed historical events that changed the political landscape of the globe, ranging from the Arab Spring, to the “Occupy Wall Street Movement” and other protest movements around the globe. These transitions and protests were all facilitated and supported by the use of modern technology and the social media. These events represent, each in their own specific context, the people’s will for a change, whether it is political, economic or social and their unified demand for more equality and justice.

The events were each highlighted by the possibility for the people to better organize themselves and express their will through the social media, allowing them to gather millions of supporters around them within a very short period of time. When one compares these transitions to similar historical events, one can see that such changes have traditionally taken many years, rather than days, however once they do occur, they are sustainable and broad changes that are not then reversed.

The ICD therefore decided to dedicate the 2012 International Symposia on Cultural Diplomacy to the common goal of the public for more equality in the political, economic and social spheres. The Symposia will be divided into five main themes and will be hosted in three major international cities, which were chosen due to their relevancy to the theme of the conference. The Symposia will analyze the current global situation as well as future trends, strategies and the potential to counter political, social and economic inequality around the world.

For further information please click here: http://www.culturaldiplomacy.org/academy/index.php?en_symposium-on-cd-2012

The term ″human rights″ indicates a broad range of rights as ″nothing may be prevented which is not forbidden by law″ which is quoted in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. Some rights are given to an individual at birth, whereas others may additionally be given due to  certain economic, social and political situations.

By establishing the Schengen Area and the European Union, Europeans gained specific rights such as freedom of movement for people, money, goods and services on the Internal Market of European countries. The Schengen Agreement was signed in order to create a borderless  Europe, in order for it to operate as an individual state.

Today it looks as if European rights are not accessible to all members of the European Union and the Schengen area equally. New European members experience different barriers, especially when it comes to immigration because some European countries occasionally restrict migration to people from certain European countries.

Recently Switzerland, which is a member of Schengen Zone but not the European Union, announced the restriction for immigrants from countries such as Slovenia, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and the Czech Republic. These European countries entered the European Union in 2004 and are known as ″the A8 countries″ and since then the immigrants from these countries ‘affected’ the UK Labor Market. This is why the UK introduced The Accession State Worker Registration Scheme  in 2004, which was in use for 7 years. Workers from these countries have been seen as a threat to social stability in other countries, but not as an opportunity for their economic growth.

The reason for the Swiss action is that  there has been an increase in the residence permit applications in comparison with previous years. Until last year Switzerland had a quota of 2,000 residency permits per year for citizens of Eastern and Central European countries which joined the EU in 2004. Last year the number of permits tripled.

Switzerland has agreed not to discriminate against immigrants from EU countries (with a time-limited exception for Romanians and Bulgarians) and hence why nothing should excuse this action.

The question arises: Does the economic situation of a country force it to forget about promises? Are we entering times of mistrust instead of promoting openness and cooperation?

Giving someone certain rights is not a give and take game; it takes responsibility and thoughtfulness – only with cooperation can countries benefit. Immigration restrictions (not only recently but also past) were specifically discriminating against certain countries and that shows a picture of a divided Europe; a case of Western Europe against Eastern Europe. This poses the question: Is true cooperation only a utopia?

Whether the emerging European Dream can offer an alternative vision more able to accommodate the tumultuous changes occurring in the world today, from the globalization of the economy and rising unemployment to the spread of religious terrorism, remains to be seen…

These are tumultuous times. Much of the world is going dark, leaving many human beings without clear directions. The European Dream is a beacon of light in a troubled world. It beckons us to a new age of inclusivity, diversity, quality of life, deep play, sustainability, universal human rights, the rights of nature, and peace on Earth. We Americans used to say that the American Dream is worth dying for. The new European Dream is worth living for.

These statements by Jeremy Rifkin, in his 2004 book, The European Dream, should strengthen our leaders’ resolve to cross barriers and build bridges. We must try, with intercultural dialogue, to promote arts and music, non-verbal expression, feelings, and emotions, and to live with our hearts not just our brains.

The first decade of the 21st Century has brought many changes to the world. In the first months of 2011, people’s fight for freedom exploded in many regions. Networks helped these, hopefully peaceful, revolutions to happen. Oppression is no longer tolerated- a new area started with the spread of worldwide information and communication technologies. Therefore, a new form of governance has to come. With respect to the cultures and beliefs of each human being, democracy has to prove its real value.

Cultural Diplomacy can help to promote a new thinking, based on the knowledge of each other, to gather people from different cultures, generations, professional backgrounds, and civilizations, to meet- not only in the virtual world of the “Net”- but as real people with their individual thoughts and values. Cultural Diplomacy should help us to be ahead of the changes and anticipate upcoming conflicts, in order to better prepare the right solutions. This should, however, not remain the dream of some privileged participants, but help to initiate future leaders in a changing world.

Culture and its diversity are tools for a new way of political action, promoting contacts between generations, nations, and continents. The language of arts and music may succeed, where words and figures failed. Culture can make the difference, by telling us which proposals should be set into force to reconcile people with themselves and build peace when the economy failed- the finances broke down, when political structures are to be questioned.

The goal of intercultural diplomacy is to make people aware of the power of music; to connect musicians, executives, artists, and managers; and to think about how the change can happen.
Culture should make the difference- it should establish the link from one person to the other. All together we should aim at making the diverse distribution of wealth- of the well being of people- the overarching goal, achievement, and eventual success of our society.

Roughly this time last year, Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor warned; that European peace can no longer be taken for granted. She warned that European peace was threatened by the collapse of the Euro.

Fast-forward a year and this threat is even more pressing. Merkel maintained that were the Euro to collapse then the Eurozone would be soon to follow. The collapse of the Euro is now resting on a knives edge and it is Greece who holds this power.

The Greek elections on Sunday saw the shocking rise of the far right who oppose the European Union ( EU), the Bailout and the austerity measures coming from Brussels. It is not only the far right in Greece who reject the EU and the IMF bailouts but also the far left, who represented a large number of the voters.

Many Greek voters and political parties believe that they can renegotiate the deal made with the EU and remain within in the Eurozone. This is almost entirely untrue, the chance to negotiate this deal has long expired and over the last few days, Merkel as well as the Slovenian Prime Minister Janez Jansa have urged Europe and in particular, Greece to follow the rules and stick to the austerity measures.

But the question facing Greece and Europe is what would happen if Greece left the Eurozone? It is a reasonable question considering default may be an easier way out of the suffering inflicted by the endless austerity and debt coming from Brussels.

The French economist, thinker and writer, Jacques Attali states that the EU intervention in Greece came a little too late and should have happened at least 10 months ago. He argues that Greece is more than likely only the tip of the iceberg in relation to the economic crisis.

Attali believes that the Euro will not last another five years unless there is ‘united European state’. By this logic alone, surely the Euro will inevitably fail.

Ultimately, it must be remembered that the EU survived perfectly well without the Euro. 

Hannah Benaim