1.          The OIC-EU Joint Forum was opened with the welcoming speech of Mr. İsmail Cem, Foreign Minister of Turkey. 

Minister Cem, expressing his thanks to his colleagues for attending the Forum that marked the first major encounter of the 21st century between the two Organizations, referred to the September 11 terrorist attacks, where he stressed that this tragedy revealed among other things how vulnerable the basic understanding among different cultures and civilizations was, leading to reactions to identify terrorism on cultural and religious lines. Yet, this tragedy also resulted in a positive consciousness that there was a need for new relationships among cultures to attain solidarity through respect for cultural diversity. Based on this consciousness, it was now better understood that terrorism did have neither a religion nor can be linked to a certain geographical area, and could not be justified on any ground whatsoever. 

            He expressed his belief that humanity would have wisdom and courage for working and living together, thereby eliminating the clash among civilizations. 

            Referring to the concept of “the other”, he underlined that harmony, knowledge and welfare would be enhanced through ways of communication among cultures, providing for common understanding and dialogue. Despite ongoing negative cases, the trend was towards a “conceptual definition” of “the other”, based on a value system, by which the other was defined as someone who violated values by resorting to force, terrorism, occupation, injustice as well as to the negation of universal human rights. 

            Minister Cem concluded by stressing that both Organizations had joint responsibility to contribute to the goal of achieving better understanding and dialogue among cultures. The Forum in this regard should display a strong belief that cultures in their diversity complemented and enhanced each other. 

2.        Following the speech of Minister Cem, Mr. Ahmet  Necdet Sezer, President of the Republic of Turkey, delivered the inaugural address of the Forum. President Sezer underlined that once mutual understanding, dialogue and cooperation were attained, this would help efforts for harmony, peace and prosperity. In this regard, he pointed out the importance of coming together to ascertain the possible medium and long term problems and to seek for solutions to them, for contributing to universal peace and prosperity. 

President Sezer, touching upon globalization and its risks, underlined the importance of tackling these transboundary threats. In this regard, referring to the threat of terrorism, he revealed that Turkey, as one of the longest suffering countries from terrorism, had long supported the idea that terrorism had no religion, no geography nor nationality. And terrorism could not be justified on any grounds. It should be combated, without resorting to double standards, in cooperation and solidarity at international level. 

            President underlined the importance of harmony, tolerance and dialogue for the longevity of civilization and stressed that both organizations had joint responsibility in this process. In conclusion, he expressed his appreciation to Minister Cem for organizing the Joint Forum in Turkey, which possessed all necessary assets for making possible the encounter of all the cultures. 

3.        The Joint Forum later proceeded with the statements made by the Spanish and Qatari Foreign Ministers on behalf of the Presidencies of the EU and the OIC respectively as well as by the Secretaries General of these two Organizations. 

They all expressed gratitude and appreciation to Minister Cem for his timely initiative that made it possible to bring the two organizations together on this very important issue, and they also considered Istanbul as the perfect venue for such an initiative as it was a city embracing all cultures and civilizations throughout history. 

3.1.  Mr. Pique, Spanish Foreign Minister, referring to the September 11 terrorist attacks, stressed that these were not a reflection of the lack of dialogue among cultures; instead, they were simply acts of terror perpetrated by a group of fanatics using religious pretexts. Terrorism was a common enemy threatening the whole mankind. He said he shared the views of Minister Cem that September 11 showed how fragile the understanding was among cultures and civilizations and the only way to overcome this was through promoting mutual knowledge. In this respect, Christian and Islamic cultures could not be regarded as isolated from each other but on the contrary as completing one another. He went on to say that the EU continued its efforts for promoting dialogue among civilizations, giving information on the EU activities in this regard.

3.2.      Qatari Foreign Minister Al-Thani, rejecting the arguments for the clash of civilizations, said that the misunderstanding prevailing among cultures stemmed from historical facts and reasons, and to overcome this it was important to tackle them realistically through tolerance, understanding and patience, in addition to holding such forums. In this regard, he underlined the importance for respecting cultural diversity and avoiding hegemony of one over another culture. Yet, cultural diversity would not be abused to violate human rights.

Minister Al-Thani drew attention to the fact that in the aftermath of terrorist attacks of September 11, the concept of “the other” was increasingly associated with Islam and Arabs which he rejected categorically. Islam and terrorism could not be identified with each other by any means. He also said that the right of self-determination of peoples and the right to fight against foreign occupation could, in no way, be described as terrorism. Referring to the Middle East conflict, he went on to express that focusing only on the clash of civilizations, without paying attention to the solution of chronic problems, the first among which was the “Palestine Question”, would not be helpful. 

            Minister Al-Thani concluded by stating that dialogue could only be possible through communication. Thus, his country attached importance to the continuation of this dialogue process started by Turkey and would be pleased to host the next meeting among the troikas countries of both Organizations. 

3.3.      Mr. Solana, Secretary General of the European Council, pointed that it was a cliché to associate Europe only with Christianity because the developing culture in Europe encompassed all civilizations and religions. Similarly there was no one single Islamic civilization. Thus, the dialogue among civilizations  was not between the North and the East, nor between religions. The present dialogue was to aim at promoting tolerance and understanding on the basis of universal values and international law. He also objected the arguments that sought to associate Islam with terrorism. On the concept of “the other”, he referred to the general opinions prevalent in EU and OIC countries that differed from each other on such issues as women’s status and death penalty and stressed that criticism of the EU side on these issues should not be seen as a criticism directed at civilizations. To conclude, he considered that there were three immediate priority areas, in which both organizations could work within the framework of the common political agenda. These were the determination to eliminate terrorism, to help the Afghan people and to end the Middle East conflict. On the latter, he expressed his belief that “two-state” solution was the only solution to peace. 

3.4.      Mr. Belkeziz, Secretary General of the OIC, referring to the tragedy of September 11 attacks, said that perhaps the only positive outcome of these terrorist attacks was the emerging need to bring the East with the West. The West was never so enthusiastic to understand and to know Islam. He also rejected the arguments to associate Islam with terrorism. Referring to the religions, he mentioned that Islam and Christianity had many things in common both as religions and as civilizations. The difference between the two stemmed from the European colonialism in the part.

4.      Following the said statements, 37 Heads of Delegation from both Organizations took the floor. 

During their interventions they all expressed gratitude and appreciation to Minister Cem and Turkey for the timely initiative and considered Istanbul as the unique place to host such a gathering. 

            They rejected the argument of “the clash among civilizations”. They concurred that the tragedy of September 11 revealed the need for a new understanding: Peoples needed to know one another, cultural diversity was a richness and should be preserved and respected. Islam could not be associated with terrorism. 

EU countries and candidates mostly expressed that the West was not opposed to Islam. Again, most of the Heads of Delegation stressed the fact that terrorism could not be justified on any ground whatsoever, while some of them additionally expressed the view that to better tackle terrorism, its causes should also be addressed. Furthermore, most of the OIC delegates referred to the Middle East Peace Process and tried to make a distinction arguing that acts in implementing the rights to self-determination and the right to resist foreign occupation were not considered terrorism.

            The general consensus that emerged from these interventions was that promoting dialogue and tolerance without any prejudice, respecting cultural diversity and working for a culture of cooperation to replace the culture of conflict, through consolidating common understanding were what the OIC-EU Joint Forum could contribute to. For that reason, the follow-up to the Forum was seen as a necessity. In this process, channels of communication and the media in this respect were of utmost importance. 

5.         Apart from these common views expressed by the Heads of Delegation, the other points in their interventions are highlighted as follows:

5.1. Mr. Van Aartsen, Foreign Minister of the Netherlands, expressed Turkey was the right place to hold such gathering between the two organizations as it belonged to both worlds. Referring to September 11 attacks, the impacts of which  were unprecedented and  widespread, he criticized that these terrorist acts were claimed to be perpetrated in the name of Islam. Terrorists made another  futile attempt to 'hijack' Islam  as they did also in other cases before. Fortunately, he said, all countries, irrespective of whether they were of Christian or Muslim denomination, stood  this time against such manipulation and rejected the equation of Islam with terror. He went on to underline that nothing could justify terrorism. He also referred to a need for greater understanding among cultures and societies, for which respect for each other, tolerance and rule of law were key. There he  drew attention to the two-fold nature of tolerance; i.e. both sides should show tolerance to each other to achieve real harmony and dialogue, without any attempt to dominate the other. 

5.2.    Mr. Ismail, Foreign Minister of Sudan, stated that with September 11, the world attention was shifted from globalization, good governance and human rights to the fight against terrorism. Yet, this was a war without borders and without a defined enemy; thus, it was to be very well formulated to avoid injustice against Islam and Islamic countries. He went on to discuss the commonalities among monotheistic religions and the peaceful nature of Islam.

5.3.    Mr. Lagumdzija, Chairman of the Council of Ministers and Foreign Minister of Bosnia and Herzegovina, stated that the first test case to experience the clash of civilizations was Bosnia and Herzegovina during the war in the past. He further drew attention to the social and economic aspects of achieving a real dialogue, expressing without social and economic balances, political dialogue could hardly be meaningful.

5.4.   Mr. Martonyi, Foreign Minister of Hungary, said in the past they defended European Christianity against the Islamic power. Yet, today, they still preserved historical sites of the Ottomans in   Hungary which he described as a symbol of his country’s respect for different cultures. He also referred to the EU, of which his country desired to be part, and talked about his vision on how the EU and Europe in general should be. 

5.5.      Mr. Al-Shara, Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Syria, referred to the importance of the Mediterranean as a “lake of interaction” among civilizations and cultures, making “Europeans” and “Muslims” live side by side. He criticized the USA for lacking understanding about others and for exercising hegemony on them. He was also critical about the role of the international media, which in his opinion, was dominated by the American interests. He went on to refer to the Middle East Peace Process, in which he strongly criticized Israel for its actions against the Palestinian people. 

5.6.      Mr. Papandreou, Foreign Minister of Greece, described terrorism as a scourge to divide peoples. He also stressed in terms of mutual understanding that the EU and the OIC should learn to listen to each other, so as to attain a real dialogue. He described the EU as a body of values, in which human rights, civil rights, combating terrorism, secularity, tackling poverty should be priority areas.  He further stressed the importance of religious leaders in promoting inter-dialogue among religions, provided that they should not play “the role of God”.

5.7.      Mr. Madani, Assistan Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia, rejected fanaticism and talked about the peaceful nature of Islam in-depth. 

5.8.      Mr. Amedo, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of Portugal, stating that global problems needed global solutions, suggested that the questions of why the West “seemed arrogant” and that why Islam seemed to generate extremism should be addressed. 

5.9.      Mr. Abdullah, Foreign Minister of Afghanistan, called the former regime of Taliban in his country the real representative of the clash among civilizations. Similarly, he said that deficiencies experienced in his country in respect of human rights were due to the practices of the former Taliban regime. He stressed the importance of the help of the International Community to help improving conditions in Afghanistan, with which he believed the challenges in his country could be overcome. 

5.10.    Mr. Sattar, Foreign Minister of Pakistan, talked about the true nature of “Jihad” underlying this concept was misinterpreted. Referring to the issue of terrorism, he stressed the importance of reaching a common definition on this term within UN framework. He went on to say that some states diverted attention from their acts of terrorism by labeling self-determination struggles as terrorism which he considered to be inconsistent with the UN Charter. There he referred to the dispute over the status of Kashmir.

5.11.    Mr. Sondergaard, State Secretary of Foreign Ministry of Denmark, pledged his country’s support for furthering the dialogue process during the forthcoming Danish presidency in the EU.

5.12.        Mr. Alaoui, Minister of Islamic Issues of Morocco, underlined that whatever written on Islam within the framework of extremism was wrong. In order to reach mutual understanding, common denominators should be found. 

5.13.    Mr. Kaddumi, Foreign Minister of Palestine, referring to the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, criticized Israel for its excessive policies and said that despite the fact that both sides believed in one god, hegemonic practices deepened the present conflict. He went on to say that if not stopped, the suffering of the Palestinian people due to the continuous denial of  their rights  would be the responsibility of the whole mankind. 

5.14.    Mr. Kharrazi, Foreign Minister of Iran referred to his country’s initiatives for the promotion of dialogue among civilizations as well as President Khatami’s proposal to build a “global coalition for peace”, instead of advancing coalitions for war. On the issue of Palestine, he called for a greater role to be played by the EU in this regard. He went on to criticize the USA for using the pretext of composing against terrorism to pursue its unilateralist policy goals against other countries. 

5.15.    Mr. Guliyev, Foreign Minister of Azerbaijan, referred to his country’s geographical location as a historic crossroad between the East and the West and as a home to all religions historically. He also mentioned the importance of his country for the   mankind. He further expressed that the use of dialogue to conceal the existing contradictions was unacceptable for his country. Some of states, where gaining from conflicts through unlawful ways  and with force, yet still  spoke of, with vicious calls, forgetting the past and starting cooperation. 

5.16.    Mr. Geoana, Foreign Minister of Romania, mentioned his country’s efforts for dialogue and harmony among different cultures, during the Romanian Chairmanship of the OSCE. He underlined that we were all the children of our diverse cultures, referring to the words of Ataturk, founder of modern Turkey, “mankind is a single body and each nation a part of that body. We must never say ‘what does it matter to me’ if some part of the world is ailing. If there is such an illness, we must concern ourselves with it as if we were too suffering from that illness”.  He expressed hope to find the cure for it by acting together. 

5.17.    Mr. Al-Sabah, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the State of Kuwait, touched upon the peaceful nature of Islam as well as the plight of Palestinian people criticizing the methods of Israel that he described as acts of terror. 

5.18.    Ms. Hennicot- Schoepges, Minister of Culture and Higher Education of Luxembourg, referring to “the other”, said that everyone had the right to be the other. What was important to recognize and respect “the other”. She also touched upon the women’s rights and status and praised for the EU to be the model for promoting dialogue among cultures. 

5.19.    Mr. Kukan, Foreign Minister of Slovakia, referred to the fact that Europe was no longer populated only by Christians but became a common home for other peoples of different religions. The same was true for Muslim countries where Christian and other denominations were well active. He mentioned his country’s efforts for contributing to peace and stability in the world as a country aspiring for EU and NATO membership.  

5.20.    Mr. Muasher, Foreign Minister of Jordan, described the Forum as the right place for dialogue to be held in an atmosphere that he called “the spirit of Istanbul.”

5.21.    Mr. Hammoud, Foreign Minister of Lebanon, urged for standing firm against building another “Berlin wall” that would separate the West this time from the Islamic world. He also talked about the Arab-Israeli conflict and criticized Israel. He went on to call for a greater role to be played by the EU and the USA in promoting dialogue among cultures and civilizations.  

5.22.    Mr. Passi, Foreign Minister of Bulgaria, said that Bulgaria learned its lesson from history and managed to attain peace in reconciliation. Talking of Bulgarian tolerance, he pointed out the status of minorities in the country which he described as positive and gave information about the Bulgarian policy to grant equal opportunities to all its citizens. 

5.23.    Mr. Khan, Foreign Minister of Bangladesh, while totally denouncing   terrorism, also said that the foremost task was to identify the root causes of this scourge. 

5.24.    Prince Bolkiah, Foreign Minister of Brunei Darrussalam, referred among others to the need to solve the issue of Palestine as an important factor to achieve real dialogue among civilizations. 

5.25.    Mr. Wallace, Minister of state of Ireland, pointed out the experience of his country vis-à-vis terrorism, stressing if the root causes were not addressed adequately, violence would inevitably come out. In this regard, comprehensive dialogue was a useful instrument. 

5.26.    Mr. Mohammad, Special Envoy of Foreign Minister of Malaysia, expressed the importance of a learning process between the East and the West for attaining a real dialogue. He also underlined the necessity of defining terrorism more precisely to fight this scourge adequately. 

5.27.    Ms. Andersson, State Secretary of Foreign Ministry of Sweden, refered to her country’s policies to cooperate with other countries in the fight against terrorism, in which she talked about   conditions for the extradition of terrorists and their treatment in the countries where they committed terrorist crimes.

5.28.    Mr. Imanaliyev, Foreign Minister of Kyrgyzstan, talked about the lessons learned from September 11 attacks. He went on to refer to the revival of the historical Silk Road as a new bridge between different cultures and civilizations. He also mentioned his country’s proposal for convening a forum for dialogue between the OSCE and the OIC on the issues of security, stability and sustainable development. 

5.29.    Mr. Kasoulides, Foreign Minister of Cyprus, talked about the challenges against dialogue between cultures and civilizations and about his country’s position in this regard. 

5.30.        Mr. Hussain, Director General of Foreign Ministry of Iraq, talking on behalf of his Minister who was outside the conference room for a bilateral meeting that time, said that violence against states was on the rise in the post-September 11 era, expressing a need for a new, democratic international body to fight aggression, hegemony, occupation and extremism. He also went on to refer to the question of Palestine. He, touching upon his country’s important position in the history as the center of various civilizations and the caliphate once, said that Iraq suffered from an illegal blockade  imposed by the USA and the UK for more  than 12 years, which he regarded as limiting chances for peace in the region

5.31.        Mr. Belkhadem, Foreign Minister of Algeria, drew attention to the impacts of the social and economic imbalances in the fight against the clash of civilizations. He also referred to the Arab-Israeli conflict, on which he criticized Israel’s policies against the Palestinians.

5.32.        Mr. Shalgam, Secretary General of  the Peoples’ Committee for Foreign Liaison and International Cooperation of Libya, suggested that the international community find a common definitions of terrorism within the UN, stating that Libya long suffered from terrorist acts. 

5.33.        Mr. Ertuğruloğlu, Foreign and Defence Minister of  TRNC,  urged for the need to fight stereotypes instigating  both international and intra-state conflicts. He also drew attention to the need to respect for “otherness”. In this regard, mutual respect and cooperation based on equality as well as a concerted effort towards alleviating poverty, economic and political gaps were required. 

5.34.        Mr. Rupel, Foreign Minister of  Slovenia,   talked about a question, which was how differences could be organized and arranged in a world without borders. He also expressed views about the concept of “post-national democracy”.

5.35.        Baroness  Symons, Minister for State for International Trade and Investment of the United Kingdom, expressed the UK’s policies to promote inter-cultural links and cooperation and talked about the  Muslim communities in the UK. 

5.36.        Mr. Abdi, Foreign Minister of Mauritania, referred to a legal action carried against the President of Mauritania by Belgium, which he termed as the manifestation of a racist policy against the people of his country.

5.37.        Mr. Urbani, Minister of Culture of  Italy, described the Forum as a “brave” initiative that was indeed needed, as dialogue among cultures should be tackled bravely. He also mentioned the Mediterranean dimension in promoting dialogue among cultures. 

6.      After the interventions made by the Heads of Delegation, the Forum proceeded with the working luncheon. Mr. Bülent Ecevit, Prime Minister of Turkey delivered a speech on the theme “Political and Cultural Fault Lines”. 

Prime Minister Ecevit,  quoting the words of the famous writer Rudyard Kipling that the East and the West were destined to remain apart and different, stated that this expression reflecting the mentality and strategy of imperialist powers began to lose its validity in the present era. Similarly, the so-called conflict of civilizations was doomed to failure.

            Mr. Ecevit, referring also to conflicts of ideologies, racial hatreds and more importantly religious disputes, underlined Turkey’s unique position in successfully tackling such scourges of the modern times. He went on to state that Turkey’s long-standing integration with European institutions proved that all monotheistic religions, Europe and Asia, and the East and the West could be effectively reconciled. 

            Prime Minister Ecevit concluded by referring to the September 11 terrorist attacks, which were falsefully claimed to be carried out in the name of Islam. The world was saved from splitting out dangerously, thanks to the responsible behaviour shown by both Islamic and Christian countries in condemning these terrorist acts, without equating Islam with terrorism. 

7.         Following the luncheon, the first panel titled "Political and Cultural Fault Lines" was chaired by Austrian Foreign Minister Ms. Ferrero-Waldner. The participants were Prince Hassan of Jordan, French Foreign Minister Mr. Hubert Vedrine and German Foreign Minister Mr. Joschka Fischer. 

7.1.      French Foreign Minister stated that it was difficult to identify the concept of civilization while the idea of "clash of civilizations" was not liked and generally ignored which he called it an “ostrich” policy. He referred to the Middle East conflict as an example and emphasized that the EU and Arabs have different perceptions on this issue. In this context, he argued that, there was, however denied, a risk of clash between civilizations, and this clash could be avoided via a realistic dialogue. He mentioned that he was not referring to the routine rhetoric used at the international fora such as the UNESCO. He suggested that this dialogue could be attained via a real dialogue spirit and proposed "Spirit of Istanbul" to this end. He underlined that such dialogue should be far away from bureaucracy and should be regarded as the outcome of the Joint Forum.

7.2.      Prince Hassan emphasized that Islam was actually "in" the West today and subsequently affected by the West. The "Parliament of Cultures" project he had been working on could support the activities of the Forum while it could also be utilized as part of the Barcelona Process. There existed three fears avoiding dialogue (fear from the other, fear from the folks at home and fear of peace). The motto of "Spirit of Istanbul" was extremely convenient to the atmosphere of the Forum since Turkey had a virtue of being a "melting pot" like the United States. He also mentioned that there were common problems on both the OIC and EU sides. Therefore it was essential to support the moderate sections in the countries concerned in order to provide and maintain this dialogue.

7.3.      German Foreign Minister, touching upon the concept of tolerance, said that this concept was intertwined with respecting different cultures and necessitated dialogue between cultures. He then referred to the issue of foreigners in his country and underlined the existence of 3 million Muslims, most of whom were of Turkish origin. He further stated in this context that there were important debates on the issues such as veils, religious education and animal sacrifices which needed to be addressed within the framework of tolerance and respect for human rights. He stressed that the Muslims in European countries enjoy tolerance whereas Christians mostly were not treated in the same manner in many Muslim countries. He added that the only way to avoid clash between cultures was through learning and tolerance. He also focused on the Palestine conflict and stated that the Palestinian people had a legitimate right to establish their own state while Israel had the right to survive and to safeguard its existence as a state.

7.4.      Pakistani Foreign Minister Sattar drew a parallel between cultural fault lines and tectonic developments, wishing that those lines would not cause catastrophes similar to tectonic ones. He expressed that the inclination to clashes should be prevented on the basis of principles of international law and justice. Referring to the phrases of Rudyard Kipling with respect to East and West, he confirmed that there was truth in these, but underlined that they could remain valid only until the meeting of courageous men. These courageous men came together thanks to the Joint Forum.

 7.5.      Austrian Foreign Minister in her summary pointed out that the slogan of "Spirit of Istanbul" was very convenient to the contents of the Joint Forum. The issue of human rights would be equally important as well as combating against terrorism. Within the framework of dialogue, media and education had special roles to play and the strategy for dialogue between cultures could only be drawn in Istanbul.

 7.6.     Minister Ismail Cem, in his closing remarks, said that important ideas were mentioned in the Panel such as "Spirit of Istanbul". Those thoughts should be openly discussed however tough they were and the Forum should work on the main theme of this panel, "Spirit of Istanbul", in the deliberations ahead.

8.         The panel titled "Confronting Common Challenges in Today's Environment" was chaired by Mr. Kubis, Secretary General of the OSCE. The participants were US historian Bernard Lewis, Egyptian historian Hanefi, Iranian Foreign Minister Kharazzi and Egyptian Foreign Minister Sayed.

8.1.      Mr. Kubis emphasized that feelings such as Islamophobia, anti-Arab, anti-Semitic and anti-US attitudes should not spread. There was no excuse to terrorism and extremism. He also said that terrorists should disown their themes, the conflicts should be resolved and potential problems should be prevented, thus reaching a concept of "us" instead of "the other".

8.2.      Prof. Hanefi, using a highly critical language towards the West, articulated that Islam's contribution to Europe was ignored while speaking about the dialogue between cultures. When the contributions of Islam to West were taken into consideration, one could say that a clash among civilizations did not exist. However, the Palestinian issue still remained unresolved in the era of globalization. He also suggested that, while the previous participants touched upon the idea of taking Universal Declaration of Human Rights as the basis for the parameters of the dialogue between cultures, nobody remembered what France had done in Algeria. Therefore an equal partnership should be established for a dialogue. One could even allege that globalism and Westernization was among the reasons of religious extremism.

8.3.      Iranian Foreign Minister claimed that it was practically impossible for the developed societies to understand the problems of the underdeveloped countries, and stated that for this reason it was important to understand the core issues. The project “Dialogue Among Civilizations” was previously proposed by the Iranian President, Mr. Khatemi and became part of the agenda of the UN. He also said that the ideas voiced up in the US after September 11th were somewhat a messenger of unilateral approaches in international relations and could harm every party concerned. The idea of using power still existed in countries like the US and this was unacceptable, and it was erroneous to see the Muslims as “the other.”

8.4.      Prof. Dr. Bernard Lewis argued that as it was manifested by the “September 11th”, historic events sometimes brought forward the problems dramatically. The cultures which some define as civilizations were in conflict in the past, and those civilizations both in East and West were based on tyranny. He also stated that in today's world terror, tyranny, poverty and ignorance were the gravest dangers. The concept of "the other" had started with the slave trade, however it should not be forgotten that the slave trade was conducted by every society of the time. Tolerance was always better than dominating the other. Yet tolerance was by nature related to bearing the other. Thus mutual respect was much more important than tolerance between civilizations.

8.5.      Egyptian Foreign Minister supposed that indeed an asymmetry existed between the OIC and the EU, Islam was already taking part in the West while the West was taking part within Europe. It was entirely wrong to identify the perpetrators of September 11th with Islam. Egyptian, Roman, Greek and Arab civilizations were in an interactive dialogue. Therefore it could be erroneous to initiate the dialogue between cultures excluding the entire civilizations and basing the dialogue on a sole incident. He also mentioned that "the other" could be taken up independently from the person itself, the real enemy was fear, intolerance and injustice. When the matter was evaluated through the perspective of Arab-Israeli conflict, both sides were forced to know each other since the outbreak of the conflict. One should struggle to know "the other" and this could only be possible by understanding each other. It was, therefore, essential not to perceive tolerance as one's playing with the other's rules. Tolerance between cultures should be based on mutual respect and acceptance of the differences.

8.6.      At the discussion part of the panel, all the participants underlined that the Forum was timely and thanks should go to Foreign Minister Mr. Ismail Cem and to the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs for the successful organization. Various representatives from several countries stated that Islam and Christianity were in need of each other within a secular framework (Azerbaijan); Western media was insulting the entire Islam by using the theme extremism (Bangladesh); dialogue between cultures should comprise the African continent (Senegal); it could be beneficial if the societies would introduce themselves as they were and accepted as they were where increased trade could also play a positive role in enhancing the dialogue between cultures (Tunisia); economy should not   be overlooked in international relations and dialogue between cultures (Malaysia); a new state of mind supported by the state was needed in order to conduct a dialogue between cultures (UAE); a dialogue based on multilateralism could not be secured without applying the principle of reciprocity (Lebanon); international dialogue became a necessity in an atmosphere where the North-South clash was increasing, occupation was itself an aggression and  dialogue could not be established by imposing  of one’s  culture (Syria).

9.         The second panel, "Politics and Media" was chaired by Mr. Amre Moussa, Secretary General of the Arab League. Participants were Slovenian Foreign Minister Rupel, Pakistan Foreign Minister Sattar and Prof. Mr. Thiery de Montbrial from France.

9.1.      Mr. Amre Moussa suggested that, when religion was taken as the point of departure for evaluation, one should realize that there were conflicts not only among civilizations, but within civilizations as well. He referred to Yugoslavia and Northern Ireland as the best examples. He mentioned that the recent accusations against Islam should be clarified since media was misleading the matter. What was in question was the clash with Islam and aggression against Islam. Every form of terrorism was denounced. The problem of identity was a multi-faceted issue. He agreed that Muslims were not perfect and they were in need to change; however this change should not be materialized because of outside pressure, but due to their need  to change.

9.2.      Slovenian Foreign Minister stated that media had an important role to play in the dialogue between civilizations, it should be led towards not confrontation, but accommodation. And historical facts, education, in this context, had a vital role.  Terrorists were violating human rights. The EU had an important position for dialogue between cultures and it would be useful if it could become a centre of attraction.

9.3.      Pakistan Foreign Minister said that in every country there was a certain relation between the state policies and media, giving examples from his country. He also argued that the media should serve the public without giving priority to its own interests.

9.4.      Prof. Montbrial indicated that the objectives of the media should be discussed too since the media itself sometimes sought for power. Sometimes some media personalities could be connected to a certain ideology. The biggest problem of our day was the lack of any regulatory body in democratic countries that could monitor the media. International media should also be approached from this perspective. None of the media organizations could be considered as fully independent. The solution lied in implementing the most liberal policy where the issue had an ethical aspect since the media could publish incorrect or distorted information and there existed no precaution against such an attitude while this issue increased the gravity of the “problem of monopoly” in the media.  He also stated that open minded and critical education remained the most important aspect of dialogue between civilizations and media could be utilized to this end.

9.5.      At the discussion part of the panel, all participants emphasized that the Forum was responding to a certain necessity and thanked Mr. Foreign Minister Ismail Cem for his timely initiative. Various representatives from several countries stated that there existed a certain mind-set in Islamic countries since Islamic world did not have any media organization (Bangladesh); international communication and media sector was entirely at the hands of the West and therefore the debate between the African and Western civilizations still continued (Senegal); it would be useful if the media would have ethics and international transparency (Prof. Dr. Orhan Güvenen of Turkey); the study of the UNESCO towards the reorganization of world media still remained unfinished and because of the media monopolies information is distributed unilaterally (UAE); the concept of independence was relative (Egypt).

10.       The last panel of the Joint Forum, "Who is ‘the Other’? Does it really exist?" was chaired by Mr. Walter Schwimmer, Secretary General of the Council of Europe. The panelists were Mr. Ismail Cem, Mr.Andreas Papandreou, Prof .Dr. İlber Ortaylı and Prof. Fantar.

10.1.    Mr.Schwimmer emphasized that the developments in the Turco-Greek relations thanks to the personal friendship of both foreign ministers partially responded to the question posed by the title of this panel. The question of how to treat "the other" was as important as its identity. The intolerant and racist practices in Europe in the last century had deeply hurt "the other". However the inclusion of the culture of "the other" into "the others" was also first launched in Europe. Certain improvements could be achieved in the field of human rights thanks to the EU membership. It was being recognized that cultural diversity could be a contribution rather than an obstacle. In this context everybody was "the other". What was important was how "the other" was perceived and spoken to since "the other" had various meanings.  Some common points could be determined thanks to this Forum and there might be several question marks for the institutionalization of the Forum at this stage.

10.2.    Greek Foreign Minister said that "the other" had always existed.  The fear regarding the other was widespread after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The important issue was the definition of "the other" and how to respect it. All the societies had a tendency to create a scapegoat. Today there was a dangerous tendency to treat the underdeveloped countries and refugees as scapegoats. He then focused on the Turco-Greek relations and said that both ministers started to make efforts to understand the main problems in a humane and realistic way. The tragedies of earthquakes and the consequent solidarity shown mutually between the two peoples had given the Ministers the necessary messages. Depending on that solidarity they further enhanced the relations. Naturally this did not mean that there is no problem between the two countries. However what they were jointly trying to do was to get deep into the roots of the problems and removing the clichés instead of exploiting the present fears based on those clichés and acting like two saviors. They were exerting efforts for the mutual acceptance of the other in Greek and Turkish societies and for the integration of them into the societies they were living.

10.3.    Turkish Foreign Minister stated that the concept of “the other” was first introduced by Dr. Edward Said, who could not unfortunately attend this Forum due to health reasons. This concept was a necessity for some circles rather than an abstract concept. The other could be perceived in the form of a regime, a totality of relations, political blocs and even nations.  “the other” was always treated as “another” as someone, sometimes as nations, to be ignored, cornered and overlooked. “The other” was from time to time used for domestic consumption or to divert the attention from internal problems to outside.  In this framework, the definition of the other was easy, the other could be used for self satisfaction throughout history like in the slavery system. 10 years ago Bulgaria was “the other” in the Turkish public opinion. However today four countries, Turkey, Bulgaria, Greece and Romania, met on the margins of the Forum and decided to launch a joint study to support the NATO membership of Bulgaria and Romania. Likewise, 5 years ago it was Greece, which was perceived as “the other” in the Turkish public opinion. However, this also changed. In other words Turkish public opinion was so open to change in this regard. The definition of the other was very important and it should be defined according to some common values.   Therefore it should be defined not according to what it was, but what it did. In this context the other could be defined as the one resorting to occupation and to violating human rights. It was essential to make efforts in order to reach mutual understanding. The rich discussions and new ideas during the panel were extremely beneficial en this regard. The Forum confirmed the existence of the other at the political arena. It was not necessary for the parties to reach an agreement, but they could try to understand each other.

10.4.    Prof. Fantar said that the ones who did not know their own identity would harm the others as well. Therefore a society should first know and own its very values. Today Islam was explained by other sources rather than Islamic sources.  Plural should be changed into singular via dialogue between cultures. It would be useful if the other could be defined by some contemporary values. The societies should not expect accommodation at their present positions, but every society should first start looking at itself, and improve and change. The criteria should not be what was said, but what was done by the societies.

10.5.    Prof. Ortaylı underlined that there was always an “other” for everybody, according to any criteria “the other” for another was seen as “the other”, this being the oldest and basic problem of humanity. He said from this perspective changing “the other” via missionary activities was not democratic since nobody had a right to change the other. However missionary activities had always been used as a propaganda tool, that was why "Orientalists’ were evaluated as academicians of whom their views could only be asked when deemed necessary. In this framework, he referred to the statements of a Prime Minister of France, a country which carried the thoughts of Islam to France, underlining that Islam was not adequately known in the West were noted with regret. In addition, he suggested that the Orientalists and the Occidentists should mutually know and understand each other, from a certain angle, the other did not exist and everybody was the other, that is why "Spirit of Istanbul" could be an important turning point on this issue. This slogan should somehow be institutionalized, people should know about each other for they needed each other.

10.6.    At the discussion part of the panel, all participants indicated that the OIC-EU Forum was seen as  very  timely  and a convenient opportunity for unearthing beneficial ideas and thanked Foreign Minister Mr. Ismail Cem for his this initiative. Various representatives from several countries stated that terrorism did not have a clear and sole definition. Despite his violations of all basic principles Israeli Prime Minister Sharon was still not considered as a terrorist (UAE); under present circumstances it was an urgent necessity to understand each other (Indonesia); it was of utmost importance to recognize each other, however, nobody was aware of the daily deaths in Africa, for this reason participation from Africa to the Forum would be useful (Guinea); one should focus on the ignored societies (Camerun); the other should be defined as subject, not object, the other should be defined as the violator of rights (Prof. Hanefi); most of the participants at this panel were from the Islamic world, the low level of interest shown to this panel from the EU countries was implying that the West was not displaying the same interest as Islam was showing to the West, Islam was eager to know West, however the same enthusiasm could be observed in the West, this being the real danger (Iran, Lebanon); more attention should be paid at the other in the countries having ethnic problems (Lithuania); the West should know more about the ethnic cultures in Africa (Mali); there was a debate within Islam and West, the concepts such as occupation, resistance to occupation, capital punishment, head scarves should be well defined, this definition would affect the general look to those concepts (UAE); Turkey had once again remained loyal to its role played throughout history, Turkey and Istanbul had been a melting pot unifying civilizations, civilization should begin by coming  nearer to each other and should be launched through education (Tunisia).

10.7.    Minister Cem, in his closing remarks, stated that (in response to a question) the Secretary General of the Organization of African Union was also invited to the Forum, but he could not attend at the very last moment. He also underlined that “Self” could not exist without "the other". This was a result of dialectical reasoning within the context of identity shaping. But, politically “the other” had always been defined with negative values. For this reason “the other” should be defined as the one resorting to terrorism, occupation and extremism as well as to violating human rights. To conclude he expressed his hope that the concept of “the other” would become totally obsolete one day in future thanks to meetings such as the OIC-EU Joint Forum.