Relatório da Aliança das Civilizações + Inserts informativos

Cabe em primeiro lugar, conceituar a Aliança, o que é e quais são seus objetivos:

The Alliance of Civilization (AoC) was established in 2005, at the initiative of the Governments of Spain and Turkey, under the auspices of the United Nations.

A High-level Group of experts was formed by former Secretary-General Kofi Annan to explore the roots of polarization between societies and cultures today, and to recommend a practical programme of action to address this issue. The Report of the High-level Group provided analysis and put forward practical recommendations that form the basis for the implementation plan of the Alliance of Civilizations.

On 26 April 2007, former President of Portugal, Jorge Sampaio, was appointed as the High Representative for the AoC by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to lead the implementation phase of the Alliance.

The AoC Secretariat, which is based in New York, works in partnership with States, international and regional organizations, civil society groups, foundations, and the private sector to mobilize concerted efforts to promote cross-cultural relations among diverse nations and communities.

Based on the recommendations made in the AoC High-level Group Report, the work of the Alliance of Civilizations is structured around the following three objectives:

  1. Develop a network of partnerships with States, international organizations, civil society groups, and private sector entities that share the goals of the Alliance of Civilizations, to reinforce their interaction and coordination with the UN system;
  2. Develop, support, and highlight projects that promote understanding and reconciliation among cultures globally and, in particular, between Muslim and Western societies. These projects should be related to the four main fields of action of the Alliance: youth, education, media and migration.
  3. Establish relations and facilitate dialogue among groups that can act as a force of moderation and understanding during times of heightened cross-cultural tensions.

In pursuing these objectives, the AoC will maintain and demonstrate through its choice of activities a universal perspective. At the same time, a priority emphasis on relations between Muslim and Western societies is warranted given that cross-cultural polarization and mutual fear are most acute within and between these communities and represent a threat to international stability and security.

The Alliance of Civilizations seeks to reduce tensions across cultural divides that threaten to inflame existing political conflicts or trigger new ones.

Working with its global network of government partners, the Alliance promotes policies and initiatives aimed at improving relations between diverse cultural groups. It also works at the grassroots level in society, promoting innovative projects that build trust, reconciliation and mutual respect among diverse communities.

The Alliance works in four program areas to support such projects. These areas are: youth, media, education, and migration.

At a political level, mainly through role of the UN High Representative for the Alliance of Civilizations, former Portuguese President Jorge Sampaio, the Alliance works to build platforms for dialogue among political, religious, media and civil society leaders who are prepared to use their influence in advancing the objectives of the Alliance of Civilizations.

Faço agora, alguns comentários sobre os dois primeiros encontros do Fórum, realizado no Rio de Janeiro em 28 e 29 de maio de 2010.

Nas duas primeiras sessões, foram apresentadas, em linhas gerais, os propósitos e ações a que o encontro se pretende.

A pauta gravitou em torno dos hot topics que envolvem o mundo árabe, como o conflito palestino-israelense, o Irã (e o acordo mediado com aquele país por Brasil e Turquia). Também foram celebradas a diversidade cultural e convivência de diferentes povos em países como Brasil, Argentina, Turquia e outros.

De maneira persistente, criticou-se a idéia de Choque de Civilizações proposta por Samuel Huntington e políticas relacionadas a esta. Vejamos exatamente do que trata essa idéia:

Huntington began his thinking by surveying the diverse theories about the nature of global politics in the post-Cold War period. Some theorists and writers argued that human rights, liberal democracy and capitalist free market economy had become the only remaining ideological alternative for nations in the post-Cold War world. Specifically, Francis Fukuyama argued that the world had reached the ‘end of history‘ in a Hegelian sense.

Huntington believed that while the age of ideology had ended, the world had only reverted to a normal state of affairs characterized by cultural conflict. In his thesis, he argued that the primary axis of conflict in the future will be along cultural and religious lines.

As an extension, he posits that the concept of different civilizations, as the highest rank of cultural identity, will become increasingly useful in analyzing the potential for conflict.

In the 1993 Foreign Affairs article, Huntington writes:

Lista de possíveis civilizações conforme Samuel Huntington

Huntington argues that the trends of global conflict after the end of the Cold War are increasingly appearing at these civilizational divisions. Wars such as those following the break up of Yugoslavia, in Chechnya, and between India and Pakistan were cited as evidence of inter-civilizational conflict.

Huntington also argues that the widespread Western belief in the universality of the West’s values and political systems is naïve and that continued insistence on democratization and such “universal” norms will only further antagonize other civilizations. Huntington sees the West as reluctant to accept this because it built the international system, wrote its laws, and gave it substance in the form of the United Nations.

Huntington identifies a major shift of economic, military, and political power from the West to the other civilizations of the world, most significantly to what he identifies as the two “challenger civilizations”, Sinic and Islam.

In Huntington’s view, East Asian Sinic civilization is culturally asserting itself and its values relative to the West due to its rapid economic growth. Specifically, he believes that China’s goals are to reassert itself as the regional hegemon, and that other countries in the region will ‘bandwagon’ with China due to the history of hierarchical command structures implicit in the Confucian Sinic civilization, as opposed to the individualism and pluralism valued in the West.

In other words, regional powers such as the two Koreas and Vietnam will acquiesce to Chinese demands and become more supportive of China rather than attempting to oppose it. Huntington therefore believes that the rise of China poses one of the most significant problems and the most powerful long-term threat to the West, as Chinese cultural assertion clashes with the American desire for the lack of a regional hegemony in East Asia.[citation needed]

Huntington argues that the Islamic civilization has experienced a massive population explosion which is fueling instability both on the borders of Islam and in its interior, where fundamentalist movements are becoming increasingly popular. Manifestations of what he terms the “Islamic Resurgence” include the 1979 Iranian revolution and the first Gulf War.

Perhaps the most controversial statement Huntington made in the Foreign Affairs article was that Islam has bloody borders”. Huntington believes this to be a real consequence of several factors, including the previously mentioned Muslim youth bulge and population growth and Islamic proximity to many civilizations including Sinic, Orthodox, Western, and African.

Huntington sees Islamic civilization as a potential ally to China, both having more revisionist goals and sharing common conflicts with other civilizations, especially the West. Specifically, he identifies common Chinese and Islamic interests in the areas of weapons proliferation, human rights, and democracy that conflict with those of the West, and feels that these are areas in which the two civilizations will cooperate.

Russia, Japan, and India are what Huntington terms ‘swing civilizations’ and may favor either side. Russia, for example, clashes with the many Muslim ethnic groups on its southern border (such as Chechnya) but—according to Huntington—cooperates with Iran to avoid further Muslim-Orthodox violence in Southern Russia, and to help continue the flow of oil. Huntington argues that a “Sino-Islamic connection” is emerging in which China will cooperate more closely with Iran, Pakistan, and other states to augment its international position.

Huntington also argues that civilizational conflicts are “particularly prevalent between Muslims and non-Muslims”, identifying the “bloody borders” between Islamic and non-Islamic civilizations. This conflict dates back as far as the initial thrust of Islam into Europe,[citation needed] its eventual expulsion in the Iberian reconquest, the attacks of the Ottoman Turks on Eastern Europe and Vienna, and the European imperial division of the Islamic nations in the 1800s and 1900s.

He believes that some of the factors contributing to this conflict are that both Christianity (upon which Western civilization is based) and Islam are:

  • Missionary religions, seeking conversion of others
  • Universal, “all-or-nothing” religions, in the sense that it is believed by both sides that only their faith is the correct one
  • Teleological religions, that is, that their values and beliefs represent the goals of existence and purpose in human existence.

More recent factors contributing to a Western-Islamic clash, Huntington wrote, are the Islamic Resurgence and demographic explosion in Islam, coupled with the values of Western universalism – that is, the view that all civilizations should adopt Western values – that infuriate Islamic fundamentalists.

All these historical and modern factors combined, Huntington wrote briefly in his Foreign Affairs article and in much more detail in his 1996 book, would lead to a bloody clash between the Islamic and Western civilizations. Along with Sinic-Western conflict, he believed, the Western-Islamic clash would represent the bloodiest conflicts of the early 21st century. Thus, the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and subsequent events including the Afghanistan and Iraq wars have been widely viewed as a vindication of the Clash theory.

Core state and fault line conflicts

In Huntington’s view, intercivilizational conflict manifests itself in two forms: fault line conflicts and core state conflicts.

Fault line conflicts are on a local level and occur between adjacent states belonging to different civilizations or within states that are home to populations from different civilizations.

Core state conflicts are on a global level between the major states of different civilizations. Core state conflicts can arise out of fault line conflicts when core states become involved.[5]

These conflicts may result from a number of causes, such as: relative influence or power (military or economic), discrimination against people from a different civilization, intervention to protect kinsmen in a different civilization, or different values and culture, particularly when one civilization attempts to impose its values on people of a different civilization.[5]

Oppositional concepts

Also, in recent years the theory of Dialogue Among Civilizations, a response to Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations, has become the center of some international attention. The concept, which was introduced by former Iranian president Mohammad Khatami, was the basis for United Nation‘s resolution to name the year 2001 as the Year of Dialogue among Civilizations.[12][13].

The Alliance of Civilizations (AOC) initiative was proposed at the 59th General Assembly of the United Nations (UN) in 2005 by the President of the Spanish Government, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero and co-sponsored by the Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. The initiative is intended to galvanize collective action across diverse societies to combat extremism, to overcome cultural and social barriers between mainly the Western and predominantly Muslim worlds, and to reduce the tensions and polarization between societies which differ in religious and cultural values.

Os oradores arrancaram um certo frisson dos espectadores, por vezes, passivos e entediados com o “UN-talk” de celebração da fraternidade dos povos.
Um dos discursos mais ilustrativos dos aspectos mais conflituosos do relacionamento entre as civilizações foi o do presidente da Bolívia Evo Morales que traçou uma escalada histórica para o que chamou de quase aniquilação de seu povo pelos “conquistadores”. Mencionou que os povos originais das Américas eram chamados de incivilizados, lembrando que ainda hoje persiste a classificação daqueles que são “civilizados” e dos que não são, o que considera uma obra de “anticivilização”. De forma mais prática, atacou frontalmente as bases militares (não mencionou, mas todas são norte-americanas) na América Latina, inclusive em seu país.
Os representantes turco-árabes se concentraram em destacar o aspecto não odioso da fé islâmica, dizendo-a um verdadeiro antônimo de terrorismo e ódio. Também puseram em relevo o drama dos Palestinos em Gaza e na Cisjordânia. A Sheikha do Qatar disse é imperativo imaginar o que vai na cabeça dos jovens palestinos que, alienados inclusive de ajuda humanitária por forças israelenses, vêem seu povo perecer sem uma pátria nem direitos humanos e cercados por um muro.
Mais ambicioso foi o discurso do representante da Liga Árabe ao reivindicar um Estado Palestino com capital em Jerusalém. Ele ainda clamou que os Direitos Humanos devem ser realizados na prática e não apenas no papel.
O presidente Luís Inácio Lula da Silva, anfitrião, partiu em defesa de valores universais genéricos, como preferindo se esquivar de mais assertividade. Mencionou os esforços brasileiros pela paz – consoantes com a própria natureza integradora de seu povo. Direcionou suas críticas para os países que, em tempos de crise e poucos ciosos de sua responsabilidade, implementaram medidas protecionistas ou anti-imigração – “transferindo o ônus para os mais pobres”.
Com grande eloqüência, o ministro turco defendeu, em consonância com Lula, um amplo respeito ao TNP, sobretudo no que se refere ao compromisso das potências nucleares de desmantelar seu arsenal. Ambos acusaram essas potências de vindicar sem oferecer contrapartidas.
A grande maioria dos líderes, entretanto, celebrou a entrada dos EUA para a AoC, o que foi creditado à tendência ao diálogo da administração Obama.

Deixe uma resposta

Preencha os seus dados abaixo ou clique em um ícone para log in:

Logotipo do WordPress.com

Você está comentando utilizando sua conta WordPress.com. Sair / Alterar )

Imagem do Twitter

Você está comentando utilizando sua conta Twitter. Sair / Alterar )

Foto do Facebook

Você está comentando utilizando sua conta Facebook. Sair / Alterar )

Foto do Google+

Você está comentando utilizando sua conta Google+. Sair / Alterar )

Conectando a %s

%d blogueiros gostam disto: