Discurso de SEXA o PR no Forro Formentor (inglês)

Palma de Maiorca
08 de Outubro de 2004


Ladies and Gentlemen,

Thank you for inviting me to give the inaugural speech at this edition of the Formentor Forum, which I am happy to attend for the second time. More than ever we need opportunities for a frank and open debate between the two sides of the Mediterranean. This is a role that this Forum has played for some time, for which its organisers deserve sincere congratulations. I, for one, am delighted to have this opportunity to contribute to a debate which, as is obvious to all, is of key importance to our collective future.

This year’s edition is dedicated to the theme “a new neighbourhood concept”. In a globalised world, close or, if you like, neighbourly relations are increasingly established well beyond geographical frontiers. Strictly speaking, Portugal has only one neighbour, Spain. However, we have relations of proximity with a broad range of countries – our partners in the European Union, for one, as well as Portuguese-speaking countries, our allies and the countries of the Maghreb.

In addition to these privileged relations we are all increasingly aware that our countries are part of an international community, whose evolution conditions even the stronger and more powerful states. Globalisation makes the world increasingly united: it shortens distances, accelerates movement and multiplies contacts and knowledge. Every day international reality invades our day-to-day life through television. Sadly, in the last years the news has been marked by an abhorrent display of violence. Suicide attacks, booby-trapped cars, executed hostages, aerial bombings, exploded houses, deaths by the dozen, have become daily and almost routine occurrences.

In the 90s many thought that globalisation would contribute to cultural standardisation; some saw it as a way of bringing together ideas and settling conflicts through the universal dissemination of the values of liberal democracy. Others, from the same perspective, feared that it would unacceptably reduce the world’s infinite variety. That perspective is no longer appropriate. We have become aware that the growing proximity between peoples and cultures brought about by globalisation not only fails to wipe out differences but often causes frictions and multiplies and exacerbates difficulties and misunderstandings, motivated both by different values and interests.

For the first time since the fall of communism, we are faced with a radical ideological challenge to globalisation and to the democratic values with which many sought to identify it in the 90s. This challenge is embodied by the current outbreak of international terrorism, inspired by Islamic fundamentalist movements, of which September 11 remains the most haunting symbol. Whether we like it or not, the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon opened a new chapter in relations between the West and the Islamic world. It is difficult to admit it: it was hardly the chapter we wanted and it began in a way that has given rise to fractures that have rippled outwards. As I will attempt to show, it is wrong to speak of a shock of civilisations but there is no doubt that September 11, and afterwards March 11, not to mention all the serious attacks in between these two dates, increased tensions, mistrust, hatred and misunderstanding. Almost always at the root of these tensions is religious fanaticism, which has grown – as we must acknowledge – not only amongst the Muslims, where it has reached worrying proportions, but also in some fringe sectors of Judaism and Christianity.

September 11 drew our attention to the dimension of the threat. It should not be underestimated. As a political weapon terrorism is not a recent occurrence and history shows us that unfortunately it has sometimes proven an efficient one. Now, after September 11, the terrorist threat has acquired new dimensions: an international dimension and a catastrophic dimension, the latter attaining a scope that we are not entirely able to measure. In the meantime we have become aware that behind Al Qaida and all the movements that in one way or another it has inspired, are legions of sympathisers, not merely recruited from amongst the poor and the unemployed but also from amongst young affluent graduates, who speak fluent English, are familiar with the new technologies and have direct experience of the Western world.

To win this war against international terrorism whilst at the same time rebuilding the bases for healthy co-habitation between the West and Islam, we must recognise the outstandingly ideological dimension of this fight. Terrorism cannot be fought only by police or military force. When faced with people who do not hesitate to use barbaric means to impose their agenda, who resort to mass murder and who take pleasure in cruelty, we have the right – more precisely the duty – to defend ourselves, if and when necessary by military means, as was the case in Afghanistan. However, it would be naïve to suppose that a combat of this nature can be won only by military means. Or that these means can be used to good purpose without a clear idea of their limitations and without a political framework endowing them with indisputable legitimacy. In fact, we are faced with a true political fight on many fronts, mainly ideological and cultural. To win it we need a political strategy.

To fight this battle we need, first of all, to understand the enemy and its aims. Al Qaida attacks the West but the ultimate aim of its activity is revolution in the Islamic world. To achieve this, it wishes to impose a total cultural separation between the West and Islam so that later it can seize power in the Muslim world and impose on it its fanatical and retrograde designs. That is why it is both absurd and dangerous to confuse the fight against international terrorism with a confrontation between the West and Islam. That confrontation does not exist and it would be tragic if by act or omission we contributed to create it. Objectively, that would be to play the Al Qaida game. On the contrary, all Muslims – and I am convinced it is most of them – who have non-radical views on life, religion and politics, who do not wish to cut themselves off from the international community and who believe in progress, are as threatened as we are, if not more, by terrorist fundamentalism. We have a common interest in establishing an alliance to fight it.

This alliance is vital. Any serious policy to fight international terrorism cannot be prosecuted without the active help of the Muslim peoples, and certainly not against them. It is from those countries that the phenomenon of international terrorism arises with its new face of religious totalitarianism and it is in those countries that it must be discredited, isolated, defeated and eliminated by the action of their governments and the pressure of public opinion.

On what bases should this alliance be established? What should be the new concept of neighbourhood we are discussing here? I would suggest that it be governed by three principles. The first two are of political ethics, the third is instrumental. The first is mutual respect, the second ecumenical dialogue and the third, mutual interests.

Mutual respect implies accepting a difference. The West is proud of its values and believes that they have universal appeal. In the 90s many believed that once communism was overcome the triumphal liberating march of democracy, associated of course to a market economy, would encounter no paramount obstacles. However, our message was very often perceived by its hearers as arrogant and hypocritical. We should ask ourselves if we are conveying it in the best light. Islam and democracy are not incompatible. We should not refrain, then, from proposing the freedom, democracy, human rights and women’s emancipation that it took us so long to gain. But we must do it with full awareness that those values will only prove long-lasting if they are the independent and genuine desire of each people and if they are experienced in the idioms of their respective cultures. We must be able to defend our principles, concentrating on essentials, whilst avoiding, insofar as possible, wounding feelings. This means that we must learn to listen and to respect - and if possible to persuade - even when we disagree.

In the second place, an ecumenical dialogue is essential when so much of the violence committed today is justified in the name of religion and in particular in the name of a holy war. We must state loudly and clearly: it is sacrilege to invoke the name of God to justify acts of pure barbarianism such as the assassination of civilians and the seizure and execution of innocent hostages. Terrorism is in itself the negation and the perversion of the ethical message of all religions. It is therefore up to all religious leaders, particularly in the Muslim world, vigorously to denounce acts that are contrary to the moral heritage that is common to all creeds. That is a responsibility they cannot avoid or forget.

The instrumental principle of mutual interests is also important: the fight against terrorism is a priority and we must act accordingly. This means greater co-operation in sharing information, speedier mechanisms for two-way extradition, greater dialogue and political co-operation in early identification of threats and in prevention, and an on-going combined effort to promote economic and social development.

Unfortunately, we must acknowledge that the understanding between the West and Islam is hindered by two considerable political obstacles: I refer, of course, to the inability to resolve the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, and to the situation in Iraq.

This is not the place to discuss each side’s responsibilities in the daily tragedy which the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians has become. No-one, however, can deny the impact that this conflict has on the Islamic world’s view of the West and on the emergence of new forms of anti-Semitism which must be condemned.

Having wasted the golden opportunities of the 90s to find just solutions to allow the two peoples to live in peace, Palestinians and Israelis embarked at the turn of the century on a cycle of violence from which they have unfortunately yet to emerge.

On the one hand, we have the continuous advance of the Israeli policy of consolidating its occupation of Palestinian territories by expanding the settlements. On the other hand, resistance often expressed in terrorist acts. The result is a stalemate. I cannot believe that either Israelis or Palestinians can resign themselves to living forever in this stalemate that causes so many material and, above all, moral damages to both societies.

The general lines of the solution to the conflict are well-known. They were drawn up at Camp David, improved at Sharm el-Sheik and set out in detail in the recent Geneva agreement – which does not commit States, it is true, but is nevertheless worthy of note. Meanwhile, it is well-known that facts on the ground have hindered the execution of these plans. Nevertheless, I believe that with political will it is not yet impossible to recover these negotiating principles – as there appear to be no alternatives for a lasting solution to this conflict.

Meanwhile we have to start somewhere. Realistically, and in the present political context, the main priority should be the withdrawal from Gaza proposed by Prime Minister Sharon which, according to opinion polls, has the overwhelming support of Israeli society. This withdrawal must be complete, conducted within the broader objectives of the “road map” and accompanied by firm international guarantees regarding the legal status of Gaza, set out in a resolution of the United Nations Security Council. Diligent diplomatic work by the Quartet is needed for that step to be achieved within the established calendar. It should not become yet another of those political mirages or unachievable projects that litter the Middle East peace process We must also ensure that an initiative designed to serve peace does not end by becoming another pretext for war.

As for Iraq, I believe that the evolution of the situation there has unhappily confirmed all the concerns of people who expressed doubts and reservations about the war or, like me, clearly stated their disagreement with a decision that affected the structuring principles of international order. The political conditions under which it began, in fact, continue to affect its development negatively.

Many will now say that is not the time to look back: whatever our opinion of the conflict it is important now, above all, to combine our efforts to stabilise Iraq. Certainly no-one is interested in the chaos present in large areas of the country, whose centuries-old culture, material riches and human capacities promised it a happier fate. We will all stand to win if Iraq arises from its ruins and takes its proper place in the concert of nations.

Subject to violence of different causes and purposes that prevents the establishment of the State and the affirmation of its full authority Iraq has become a focus of instability for the region, a stronghold for guerrillas and terrorist groups who provide the Iraqis with absolutely no positive prospect for the future. In that precise measure, Iraq is today a problem for the entire international community. Its situation reflects a disturbing vicious circle for which there is no easy way out. The fact is that whilst on the one hand the military effort is demonstrating its limitations and even some inevitable perversities, concerning the establishment of essential normality, on the other this normally requires conditions of security that will nurture the country’s political, economic and social reconstruction.

It is therefore crucial to find the way to a consistent political solution in which it will be hard to waive the need for the committed and direct involvement of Arab countries and the UN’s renewed and legitimating support. We must acknowledge that we can and must help Iraq, but cannot of course stand in for the Iraqis to ensure the lasting stability of their martyred country. The international community has an extremely hard task ahead: reconciling ethnic, tribal and religious tensions; helping to increase the internal acceptance of the present interim government, drawn up with the aid of the UN; guaranteeing the electoral calendars and their effective credibility; ensuring the unity of the State; arranging for greater support from the United Nations, namely to achieve a more useful conception and greater co-ordination of the numberless national and multinational aid programmes. We all know that only a transparent and credible political solution will destroy the strategy of those who are committed to a vacuum of the State’s authority and power. To ensure that, however, it is imperative that we win over the vast majority of Iraqis to the political and social reconstruction programme of their country, although other historic experiences have demonstrated that this will only be achieved if the Iraqi people trust in the transitory nature of the current military presence and in a near future of full sovereignty.

It must be acknowledged: the European Union has been incapable of decisively influencing the course of these two crises. The divisions that occurred about the war with Iraq and the primary role played by American diplomacy vis-à-vis Israel have relegated the European Union to a secondary place. However, Europe has a vital interest in the entire problem of relations with the Islamic world, not only for general reasons – it is the most important item on the international agenda with serious implications for its relations with the United States – but also for specific reasons: historic and proximity relations with the south side of the Mediterranean, the vital importance of the Persian Gulf for its energy supply, and the presence of 12 million Muslims in the countries of the European Union.
As opposed to the United States, the European Union’s relations with the Islamic world are not merely a question of international politics. They are also an internal problem that affects the day-to-day life of our populations. The controversy over the use of the headscarf in France, the drama of the illegal immigrants who each summer cross the Mediterranean in inhuman conditions are examples of this. Integrating the immigrant communities in Europe is an important challenge and an issue that will stay with us for the next decades.

The European Union is moving towards a decision of historic importance for its future as a community that is profoundly symbolic for its relations with the Islamic world: I am referring of course to the decision to start accession negotiations with Turkey following the European Commission’s favourable recommendation. I am convinced that the negotiation process will be long, and often harsh and difficult. But denying Turkey the opportunity to open negotiations would be unjust and a mistake, and would give the Islamic world a profoundly negative sign.

The European Union has just enlarged to the north but that does not mean that it will neglect the south, as the Turkey dossier shows. The Union has a very important role to play as a partner for development of the countries of the southern basin of the Mediterranean and in strengthening a climate of political trust and cultural exchanges between the two sides of a sea from which we have inherited a unique civilisational legacy. We must continue to deepen the Barcelona Process, increasing the network of association agreements so that more countries benefit not only from the provisions of those agreements but also from the instruments of the New Neighbourhood Policy.

The need for dialogue also recommends the use and possibly the deepening of smaller forums, in particular the 5+5 format, when greater informality leads to productive discussions. It was in fact a Portuguese initiative that relaunched that forum in January 2001.

On the bilateral plane, Portugal has developed the framework of its relations with its neighbours in the Maghreb, in particular by negotiating friendship and co-operation treaties with Tunisia and Algeria, along the lines of the treaty signed with Morocco. Strengthening our good neighbourhood and co-operation ties with these countries is a constant priority of Portuguese foreign policy.

Like Spain, Portugal has a long common history with Muslim countries. Conflicts spanning centuries gave rise to knowledge and mutual respect which in turn led to mutual esteem and friendship. Portugal today is comfortable in its dialogue with these countries from which it has garnered a relevant cultural legacy. No disputes separate us. There are promising signs of developing bilateral relations. We do not want to turn back. We have a contribution to make so that between the West and Islam we have dialogue and not conflict, information and not prejudice, and co-operation instead of suspicion.

In the discussions arising out of the current international crisis not only the more powerful States have a say. We are all affected by the threat of terrorism, by instability in Iraq – note the rise in the price of oil – by the poison distilled by the conflict in the Middle East, by the phenomena of immigration from south to north, by the cultural and ideological tensions between the West and the Islamic world. All of us with political responsibilities are called on to give our opinion and to take a stand on these major issues of our time. That is what I have attempted to do in this short intervention.

Thank you for your attention.