THE WILLIAM
JOVANOVICH SYMPOSIUM
COLORADO COLLEGE
September 12-14, 2002
| Hanan
Ashrawi is the founder and secretary general of the Palestinian Initiative
for the Promotion of Global Dialogue and Democracy. “September 11 -- One Year Later: Responding to Global Challenges” took place from Thursday, September 12, to Saturday, September 14. Introductory remarks were made by Lief Carter, McHugh Distinguished Professor of American Institutions and Leadership, and CC President Richard F. Celeste. Ashrawi's speech is followed by a Q&A session. President Celeste read questions from the audience. Lief Carter: Good morning. Colorado College has a tradition (it's many decades old now) of sponsoring exciting and controversial symposium events. The William Jovanovich Symposium, which we begin the event this morning and continue Saturday morning, takes that tradition to new heights. The William Jovanovich endowment for public lectures was established by Dr. Paul Brandwein in 1978 to honor his close personal friend and business associate, William Jovanovich. Dr. Brandwein was a senior executive and vice-chairman of the Board at Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, and author, dedicated teacher, environmentalist; Brandwein taught during summer semesters at Colorado College for 25 years (from 1957 to 1982). William Jovanovich is known as a distinguished publisher, author and editor. He began as a college textbook salesman at Harcourt, Brace & Co. in 1947. Seven years later, Mr. Jovanovich he was elected president of the company, transforming it into one of the nation's leading textbook publishers. Throughout his career, he championed the social importance of education, scholarship and literature. Mr. Jovanovich received an honorary degree from Colorado College in 1966. The Jovanovich endowment has brought to Colorado College and the community of Colorado Springs many statesmen, writers, and educators known for their contributions to society in thought and action and it has provided a forum for discussion of major publications. We are extremely grateful to Mary Brandwein and the Jovanovich endowment for making this major symposium possible. Mary Brandwein is not here. The Symposium has been supported very generously by the McHugh Family Endowment. Jerry and Anabel McHugh are here and I would like one or both of you to stand while we thank you for your own contributions and for the Jovanovich's as well. When I last looked the Colorado College phone directory for faculty, staff and administration had about 940 names in it. Virtually every one of the names in the directory -- every member of the CC community -- from Richard Agee to Margie Ainsworth to Cindy Zomchek to Rita Zook. Every one of these people has altered their schedules, worked extra hours, and experienced the stresses that come with doing an event in the national spotlight. Since it's impossible to thank the many hundreds of you, I would like to thank you symbolically, by thanking just one person. That person is the symposium administrator, Joseph Sharman. He has done it all. He has done so many different things to make this symposium happen, that I can't take the time to describe them. He has done it all on an average of four hours sleep over the last three weeks running. As a symbol of our thanks to the many hundreds of you who have worked hard to make this event possible, I'd like Joseph and his wife Aubrey to come forward or at least stand and accept a small token of our thanks. [clapping] We at Colorado College and we Americans have mourned for and commemorated those who so terrifyingly lost their lives a year and a day ago. Now the time has come to ask hard questions about what we as a species have learned in the year since then. We have the opportunity to hear from 20 speakers in the next 3 days who will address some of the most pressing problems of our time. To initiate these proceedings, I want to read one quote, see if you can guess who said it. "Every past generation has had to disenthrall itself from an inheritance of truisms and stereotypes, so in our own time, we must move on from the reassuring repetition of stale phrases to a new difficult, but essential confrontations with reality. For the great enemy of truth is very often not the lie, but the myth persistent, pervasive and unrealistic. Too often we hold fast to the clichés of our fore-bearers. We subject all fact to a prefabricated set of interpretations. We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. Mythology distracts us everywhere." President John F. Kennedy said these words in his commencement address at Yale in 1962. It is the very first thing you hear and see Kennedy say when you begin your tour of the Kennedy library in Boston. Our species must be able to embrace hard and uncomfortable, and above all, new thoughts. That's the reason for this symposium and it's the reason to cherish and nurture the role that institutions of higher learning like Colorado College play in a civilized society. And now, with no further delay, CC president and ambassador Richard Celeste. President Celeste: To students, faculty, staff, distinguished guests, neighbors, and friends, particularly to those of you who are sharing this occasion with us from Shove Chapel or Armstrong Quad. I want to echo Professor Lief Carter's words of welcome to this Jovanovich symposium. Thanks to you, Lief, and to your colleagues for the hard work of putting these events together. I should point out, because a few of you may not know this fact, Joseph Sharman is a dedicated alumni as well as a dedicated administrator to this. To the members of the Colorado College community, I hope and expect that you will engage deeply in this unique three-day exploration and dialogue. To those of you who may be joining us for the first time, including our distinguished speaker and many special guests, I bid you a sincere welcome. Yesterday, many of us experienced a moving service of remembrance and reflection at Shove Chapel. Today, we turn our attention to how the world has changed since Sept. 11, 2001, and in some ways I suppose, how it hasn't. But, most especially, how we should respond to the challenges that confront our nation and the human family. I want to share these brief thoughts with our students, as we commence this morning, many of you are here on the stage with me. This symposium represents the bedrock of our work at Colorado College, where we devote ourselves together as a community to the effort of teaching and learning. We encourage you to engage in carefully reasoned arguments and debate, to sharpen critical skills and expose what is facile or biased, to hone personal values and to nurture the confidence and ability to articulate these values. To listen respectfully does not oblige us to agree mindlessly. To hear the voices of those with whom we may disagree passionately is the mark of a civilized society, and more importantly, is a cornerstone to our democratic republic. [Clapping] Today, tomorrow, Saturday, and in the weeks ahead, and throughout this year, listen closely, question sharply, speak out forcefully, and stand firmly. Take our college motto to heart -- Scientia Et Disciplina -- acquiring knowledge and living it. I'm pleased to introduce to you today's keynote speaker. Dr. Hanan Ashrawi is both a distinguished academic and a dedicated political activist. Dr. Ashrawi received her bachelor and master's degrees in literature at American University of Beirut, Dr. Ashrawi received her Ph.D. in medieval and comparative literature at the University of Virginia. She returned to her homeland in 1973 and helped build the department of English at Birzeit University, twice serving as chair, and from 1986 to 1990, as dean of the faculty of arts. She has published widely, from poetry to polemics and personal reflections, from short pieces to learned volumes. Her persistent and particular emphasis as an academic has been on the elements of Palestinian literature. Dr. Ashrawi's political involvement began almost simultaneously with her academic career. By 1991, she had become the official spokesperson of the Palestinian Delegation to the Middle East Peace Process, serving until 1993. In 1994, she founded the Palestinian Independent Commission for Citizens' Rights, a unique advocacy organization on human rights in the Arab world. From 1996 to 1998, she was Minister of Higher Education and Research, and since 1996, she has been an elected member of the Palestinian Legislative Council, Jerusalem District. Four years ago, Dr. Ashrawi founded the Palestinian Initiative for the Promotion of Global Dialogue and Democracy, and continues to serve as its general secretary. Global dialogue -- absolutely yes. Democracy -- emphatically yes. I hope that as you open this symposium, Dr. Ashrawi, you can identify constructive and concrete steps that move us away from terror and death of innocence, and toward a more peaceful world, not just in your neighborhood, but beyond it as well. Let's welcome Dr. Hanan Ashrawi [clapping]. Hanan Ashrawi: Thank you very much. I don't know whether to call you ambassador or president now. Which is more important? I guess president of the college is more important. It is indeed a pleasure to be here and an honor to be here. I am deeply humbled by your welcome in more ways than one. I would like also to add my voice to thank professor Lief Carter for this recurrent and very successful event. It seems to me, a symposium like this, in a small liberal arts college is certainly a momentous achievement to bring the world to Colorado Springs, the same way as your President now is addressing the world at the United Nations. So in a sense no matter how small or distant the institution or the place may be, it is really at the center of the universe if it's heart is in the right place. I would like to thank Joseph as well, Joseph Sharman, who has been again indefatigable in his efforts at getting me here and at facing this most concerted campaign to try to silence or intimidate me, and I salute everybody for refusing to be silenced or intimidated. And may I congratulate you all on this, not just wonderful symposium, but this place. I'm deeply impressed by the -- not just the local and the geography -- which reminds me of Switzerland -- but also of the people and the atmosphere, and I thank you for the wonderful weather as well. There is a certain tenacity involved of course in one's refusal to be silenced or intimidated or to succumb to censorship or to accept myths. One has always -- one is always -- called upon to debunk myths, to challenge them, to challenge facile generalizations, pre-conceptions, distortions, stereotypes, and because of this sort of orchestrated effort attempting to distort my, not just presentation, but my person, allow me to do something I've never done before, to begin with a personal statement. I've lived under military occupation most of my adult life. I have been repeatedly beaten up, shot at, interrogated, even imprisoned. I have seen some of my best friends killed. My next-door neighbor's kid shot in the back. I've seen my daughter's childhood totally destroyed, living in fear, being tear-gassed, and living under curfew. I've seen houses demolished, crops destroyed, our infrastructure destroyed. And recently I've lived for weeks under curfew, a prisoner in my own home, without water, without electricity and often without a phone. I've lived under constant shelling -- I've seen the windows and doors of my home (my ancestral home) being blown away. But I'm not saying this to tell you that I'm a victim -- no -- I'm saying this to tell you that despite all these things, despite my living under captivity and seeing the worst horrors of violence, being on the receiving end of the last remaining colonial situation in the world, an occupation, I have never succumbed to hate. I have never allowed hate to take over, and I have never accepted any kind of revenge as a motivation. That's why I'm so surprised at people who don't know me, who've decided that they have the liberty and the license to label and to launch a hate campaign -- not necessarily against me as a person -- those of you who are carrying out these pink cards (I don't know what they say, I can't see, maybe I need glasses) -- but I will tell you frankly, a willing suspension of disbelief is not just a literary device, and don't allow yourself to be used and to become the mouth pieces of those who want to destroy the chances of peace. I have never suspended dialog, since the 1970s, I have had an on-going dialog with Israelis within the peace camp. Even when it was not only not popular but when it was illegal, when we were threatened with imprisonment. There were like-minded Palestinians and Israelis who maintained this dialog. People of principle and courage and those who paid a heavy price for exercising that democratic right to speak out and to engage in this exchange of ideas. And this is what I will defend and protect regardless. [clapping] And I do not believe that violence will solve anything. I don't believe that being a victim [clapping] -- you disagree that violence will not solve anything, you want violence? -- I don't believe that being a victim gives you license to do onto others what was done onto you. And I don't believe that there's an exclusivity of pain or suffering, and I don't believe that there are different values to human lives. There is equal values to all lives. [clapping] So allow me to begin -- and I will improvise, I'm not going to read you a ready-made speech -- to begin by saying that I will focus in an Aristotelian way on what ought to be rather than what is, but perhaps without any type of preaching or lecturing. (I know there are some people in the chapel there, but I am certainly not going to succumb to any temptation to proselytize.) [laughter] Although the temptation is always there, and, as an academic, I always feel that once you give an academic a platform, he or she will lecture -- it's very hard to resist. So I would like to share with you some ideas, and please excuse me, I'm sorry that I'm turning my back to you but I really don't intend it. I know how important eye contact is so I'll try to turn around and look at you once in awhile. I'm sorry that I cannot see all of you, but I have a specific weakness for students -- having been in the university for so long. I believe that the trauma and the horrific events of September 11th have certainly created a new paradigm shift in the world. And I believe that there are global ramifications with a ripple effect that would impact the whole planet. This type of horrific violence could go either way -- could either re-legitimize a pursuit of peace and a genuine address of the causes of grievances and conflict and hatred and extremism and fundamentalism, or it could unleash a new wave of forces of unbridled violence to engulf, to engage all of us in a new era of instability as a license to engage in global wars and military conflicts, rather than to seek just, equitable, and peaceful solutions to outstanding conflicts. This could be, it could be an opportunity for historical redemption. And I believe it should be an opportunity for historical redemption of the Palestinian cause and the Palestinian-Israeli and hence the Arab-Israeli conflict. It could be an opportunity for the rectification of past inequities and injustices, or it could become a rationalization for the revival of the zero sum game. It could enhance the use of power politics, the settling of scores rather than addressing the causes of grievances. This serious global paradigm shift certainly could go either way, and we all have a responsibility to engage and to make sure that it goes in the constructive, peaceful way. The war on terrorism could take different shapes, and we can discuss this later, because terrorism isn't a new phenomenon, and it is not exclusive to any nationality or ethnic group or religion or civilization or culture. Some people are saying that we are witnessing the end of Fukiyama's end of history and a revival of history and intense nationalism. I believe perhaps we could move towards a deconstruction of unfavorable historical legacies, including the legacy of the Cold War, because I believe that the Taliban and the extremism that emerged from that part of the world are certainly a legacy of the Cold War. And again I believe the same can be done in resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. 9/11 was made possible by the worst application of globalization and tools and instruments of globalization that could reach out from the caves of Afghanistan into the heart of the American mainland. Without instruments and tools of globalization, this would not have happened. But it does not mean that we pass value judgment on that. The hitherto inviolable American mainland -- the sense of security and power and so on -- was violated in a most obscene manner by targeting civilians, by targeting innocent people. And it introduced into the U.S. a new sense of vulnerability and loss of innocence. But how do we respond to this sense of vulnerability and loss of innocence? That is the real issue now. Is it by lashing out in pain? Is it by saying that revenge is justified no matter what? Is it by resorting to unilateralism and military means, or is it by understanding that this drawing together of a human community, that there is a shared collectivity -- a shared collective responsibility -- to ensure that this never happens again to anybody anywhere in the world? [clapping] Now globalization willy-nilly has generated conceptual frameworks as well as operational tools, functional procedural approaches that maybe utilized, or at least that could be taken into account, and the quest for peace. Granted there is no blueprint. I've always told my students that. I know it is very popular to major in conflict resolution in the U.S. I've been to many universities from the east coast to the west and in between addressing students involved in peace making and conflict resolution and so on, and I've always told them don't believe textbooks. They change, and they are subjective. There is no textbook solution, there is no real easy blueprint for conflict resolution. There is no formulaic approach, nobody can wave a magic wand and resolve conflicts. Each conflict has its own dynamic, its own rationality, and conflicts are constantly unfolding within emergent realities -- within their own dynamic as I said. In a sense each conflict is unique even though you might find features in common, but they emerge from a sense of injustice and grievance. The solution to conflicts must always take into account the causes and the constituents of that conflict. Therefore, it has to be, to borrow another analogy, it has to be an organic solution rather than an artificial externally imposed solution. And it has to address certainly those conditions that gave rise to the conflict in the first place. That's why I believe that the construct that was set up in the peace process of dealing only with the easy issues and excluding the difficult ones or postponing the difficult issues was the wrong approach to our solution, to our conflict. I believe we should have addressed the core issues. We should have resolved them with courage, and then we should have moved ahead to create new realities, and we will get to that later. In our region the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is certainly the most compelling, the most emotive and the major source of instability. And because it is so complex and multi-faceted, I've always described it as a conflict that has historical dimensions, religious, spiritual dimensions, territorial, geographical dimensions; even existential emotional dimensions; but if we could solve this conflict based on international law and a commitment to justice within an inclusive framework, then no conflict on earth is intractable, [clapping] everything can be solved. And therein lies the test of will -- not just political will but moral will -- and legitimacy and in a new global universe, whether one can take the risks for peace that so many people are willing to take blindly in the cause of war. It seems to me it's much more worth it. Many people told me, "Why do you take so many risks, why are you advocating something which was?" -- I know years ago, decades ago, when we started talking about peace and a two-state solution people thought that we were suicidal -- "You're saying things that are unpopular on both sides," and I said rather than dying as a victim, a passive victim, of a war not of my choosing, I would much rather take risks to live for peace and a cause of my choosing. And I believe this is the real test now globally. If we look at the main features that are being tested now and our new global realities; first of all the global rule of law that everybody talks about to provide a system of accountability and protection, both for the aggressor or the victim, both for the strong and the weak. If we uphold a rule of law within nation states, I believe we should uphold a global rule of law, an international law, which probably has to evolve even further to become a global system whereby states, and state actors as well as non-state actors, are held accountable in accordance with the law and are treated with parity before the law. And this way you have not only parity but you have systems of accountability that are not subjective or selective. There must be also the recourse, which means that you have to have an international judiciary -- that's why I am fully supportive of the international criminal court, and I'm quite disappointed that the U.S. so far has not subscribed to the international criminal court [clapping]. I believe the weak and the silenced and the voiceless and the invisible should also have recourse to this court, and that would hold in check some of the horrendous and moral excesses exercised against the vulnerable, if they know that they will have protection in accordance with the law and that the powerful will be held accountable again in accordance with the law [clapping]. We have seen the international court of justice in the Haag; we have seen special tribunals being set up to address specific issues, and I believe in many cases, if not in all, these have worked. After all Milosevic is now facing a tribunal. And I believe no leader should feel that he or she is exempt from such accountability. And I believe such a system would also provide arbitration in terms of conflicts -- any solutions that are based on international law and legality, an international humanitarian law, because these instruments already exist, we don't need to reinvent them. The fourth Geneva Convention exists and other conventions exists that have to be utilized and they must be utilized, not in a partial or selective or subjective manner, and they must not be subject to interpretation but must be implemented in an impartial, even-handed manner -- the UN Charter and UN Resolutions must apply to all and must be honored by all. So when you talk about Iraq being held accountable, and it should be, and the Iraqi regime certainly should be held accountable, what instruments do you use, what recourse do you have? And what means are available for the international community as a whole to address the situation where the Iraqi people are the main victims? And of course the first global endeavor has been and continues to be human rights. After all, the call for the universality of human rights was the first global universal call, wasn't it? Where human rights are applicable to all cultures, to all states, to all nations, to all individuals, to all groups. And the whole argument of cultural biases and subjectivity has been debunked again and exposed as specious, so this genuinely global call must continue to be adhered to but must also be developed within institutions and instruments that are made available to all. Which takes me to the second question of intervention, the nature of intervention, the legitimacy of intervention, who decides, when, in what manner, and what is the responsibility of power in that case? Now we've always said in an abstract way we always look for preventive, protective, pre-emptive, positive, constructive intervention because no conflict should ever take us by surprise. If we bother to look -- with candor and honesty -- at situations around the world, I don't believe that conflicts emerge out of nowhere and surprise us. All the elements, all the signs, all the components are there, and we have to deal with them. And we deal with them in a positive manner, in a constructive manner by dismantling those components that would aggravate the conflict to become outright military confrontation. No, I do believe in engagement and intervention because I believe not only in the responsibility of power but in the human community where we are indeed in many cases our brothers and sisters keepers, to provide a collective system of empowerment and protection simultaneously. There is a sense of interdependence and mutuality here, and again must not be exercised with selectivity and subjectivity. But then what are the limits of intervention? This is a serious question, which will take me later on to the issue of sovereignty and how we deal with it globally these days. It seems to me when you take upon yourself the responsibility of empowering the weak, of building from the ground up democracies, of attempting to address disparities and injustices, then this is the type of engagement and intervention that is needed so badly. You don't wait until it becomes a situation of hostilities and conflict and then you can do nothing about it except by military intervention. I think military interventions should be the last resort, and in most cases military interventions have not worked. They may work temporarily, they may subdue people temporarily, but ultimately, even in the worst military situations, people have to sit around a table and engage in dialogue and negotiations and reach agreements that they will sign on to and that they will honor [clapping]. And that's why I believe in intervention as a means of empowerment, again especially of the weak and especially here, which is one of my own, I would say, obsessions: empowerment of women and empowerment of the young [clapping]. Part of the problem is the exclusion of most of societies, particularly traditionally, patriarchal, third world countries where the women are excluded and where, of course, traditional norms and patterns of authority and government with the mentality of proprietorship, rather than service, prevail. These are essential reasons why we continue to see regression or a recession in democracy -- a resistance to a human based development program. Because you exclude human beings and you feel you have a monopoly on power by tradition, by inheritance, then it seems to me, to hold onto that power, that you are willing to violate not just the rule of law but the rights of your own people, and this has been a serious problem in the rest of the world. And of course with the Third World and the Arab world in particular you have very high percentage of young people coming up who feel disenfranchised, who feel excluded, and who need to be part of the decision making. And this is one way of addressing and redressing internal injustices. Again the question of intervention and neutrality. I don't believe there is such a thing as neutrality. Maybe I believe in evenhandedness, but in the face of injustice, in the face of pain, in the face of suffering, you cannot say, 'I remain neutral.' However, you have to have clear definitions -- you cannot single-handedly determine what is unjust. So in a sense, engagement is the antidote to mindless neutrality or escapist neutrality; but evenhandedness is what is needed in mediation for peace making. And I believe that peace making needs effective third party mediation and involvement. In particular now, where we see the timing is essential in contemporary realities, there's an acceleration and condensation and compression of time, and the gap is rapidly increasing and widening between the new haves and have-nots, which will create new grievances and new schisms that may be hard to heal later on. So we need to act with the proper timing, with the proper speed. And this has to be also governed by a global code of ethics, a value system which is not again facile, which is not the lowest common denominator, which is not based on, which would counter, I would say, the devaluation of human lives and degradation of human rights. There is, I maintain, an ethical component to the logic of peace. It requires a sense of values that is consistent and that -- as you know, principles have to be consistent -- especially in a situation of disparity of power or asymmetry of power, you need to insure that there is parity of rights. It is after all human imperatives and, of course, it must be firmly grounded in tolerance, pluralism and acceptance of differences. The fourth point is the waning of the nation state, so called, and the redefinition of sovereignty and the spillover effect of conflicts and of domestic realities. Of course, we know that territorial boundaries are no longer limits to behavior, that conflicts can be -- can cross boundaries -- that are not limited to the definition of the nation state itself. You have also intra-state and inter-state players and conflicts. It's like saying we don't want to violate sovereignty when I remember that the most, to me, the most blatant case is a case of Algeria, when there were some serious crimes being committed and massacres within Algeria, and the Algerian government said, 'This is a domestic issue. We are a sovereign state, nobody should intervene.' In the meantime, hundreds of thousands of innocent people were killed, and sovereignty was used as an excuse to prevent intervention and protection of lives. It's like seeing, you know, a domestic scene where a husband is battering a wife, and he says, 'This is a domestic issue, you cannot violate my sovereignty at home.' No, the law says that you can. But how do you intervene? And how do you protect the weak? That's the question -- not by inflicting more pain. Anyway the issue of the nation state cannot be dropped immediately because they still exist and they are still emotive forces and powers, and the question of self-determination still remains -- the question that is vital and important, and we cannot dismiss it. You cannot deprive people of self-determination because now we are going into the third millennium, and, therefore, we will choose people and certain groups to deny them that right. The Palestinians have always yearned for self-determination, independence, freedom, a life of dignity and recognition. And this is a right that is universally recognized with a few exceptions here. [clapping] This right must be also recognized as the key, the key to the solution providing the whole region with stability, with peace, with security, because there is an absent state -- there is a long festering wound -- once that is solved, once that is healed, it seems to me that a comprehensive and lasting peace is achievable. And this has become recognized, of course I can enumerate numerous UN resolutions, the last being 1397 about the two-state solution and the Palestinian state, 1402, 1403 from the Security Counsel asking on Israel to withdraw. But still some countries are treated as countries above the law. However, [booing and clapping] we believe that there should be parity, there should be.... Don't you find that demeaning to yourselves -- I think if you just have that saying that says "I disagree" with everything, you've closed your minds -- and closing your mind is not a way, but never mind [clapping and booing]. Not only won't I be distracted -- I wasn't distracted by bullets, I will not be distracted by signs [laughter]. I just appeal to you to listen. It's important, you might have something to learn. While I'm talking to you here, I have invitations from students, from Israeli universities asking me to address them, and I've addressed many Israeli universities, and they want to listen, because by creating a common discourse, a common language, you overcome not just those stereotypes but precisely those forces that want to perpetuate the conflict. [clapping] You're sitting here wanting to keep us in conflict. And that takes us to the question of identity, authenticity and cultural affirmation. I don't believe that a global rule of law or human rights and so on are culturally biased. But I believe also that there is a question of identity that is important. And I believe identity is the other side of the coin of globalization. Globalization never meant and should not mean uniformity or a monolithic approach to reality. We should celebrate our differences. We should accept and enjoy authenticity and cultures and differences [clapping]. And if we want to engage in a free and fair interactive global cooperation, we must accept and celebrate this rich fabric of diversity and recognition of differences, particularly when it is the source of self-evaluation and self-value. I cannot indulge in the negation of the intrinsic value of the other -- how you define yourself, how you find your own value. I cannot negate that under the guise, that we are all part of a global human reality -- of course we are, but what makes us human is that we have so many differences and that we can live within a harmonious framework based on recognition and respect for our differences. [clapping] That is why I find the fallacies of the simplistic polarization very dangerous. The universe is not the world. It is not simplistically polarized. We don't have devils and angels here. We don't have only good guys and bad guys. There are no people who are absolutely perfect and people who are absolutely evil. You might find people more evil than others or more good than others, but there's a complexity there of civilizations. But I believe there are many who would like to transform these realities and the tragedy of September 11th into a simplistic, reductive and destructive clash of civilizations. [clapping] Anyway this is not a Manichean universe, even though many people would like to think so, and nobody has a monopoly on the truth. Now the question is again whose narrative prevails, who determines the discourse and whose version of reality would prevail? This is a serious question in view of the knowledge of evolution -- I don't have time to go into that -- the IT revolution, many of you are in IT. The fact is there are new sources of leadership, new sources of power, which includes possession of the facts, which includes ability to intervene and sometimes to even manipulate the facts, as we have seen in this processed language and talking points and distortions and so on. You think if you hire a great PR company, if you have the funds, the money, than you can taint people's perceptions. No, it seems to me people will have access the way I've had access to speak out, regardless of all the attempts at demonization, dehumanization and of course maligning the Palestinians and the individuals. So there is no way you can hide nowadays -- the crimes of the past, ethnic cleansing. In '48 there was ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians [booing and clapping], so all those crimes cannot take place in the dark anymore. You cannot destroy over 500 villages, raze them to the ground, and say it didn't happen, because the cameras will be there. Maybe they will give you a different spin the way you hear it these days. This is all self-defense, and the Palestinians are the culprits. But even the most sophisticated, manufactured, fabricated spin and distortion cannot withstand the truth for long if you have the instruments of knowledge and of information, and you have to use them -- and you mustn't ever be silenced or intimidated because the lie will prevail then -- the truth has to come out and has to come out through people who will not be silenced. [clapping] Now again when we talk about IT as being a source of democratization because it will serve the people's right to know and so on, at the same time it can be used to distort if one does not deal with the instruments of knowledge carefully. If the dominant power decides to shape the discourse, decides to exclude other points of view, then of course it will be tainted and of course it will self-perpetuate the conflict. This has often been described glibly as the media war. I think its become much more dangerous than just the media war because that shapes attitudes, perceptions, and in democracies, your attitudes and perceptions shape decision making and influence decision making. And in the presence of a major super power, the super power, one has to be very careful in exercising this power, and therefore full knowledge must be achieved before. And we do need to establish common terms of reference, and we need to have an inclusive, an interwoven, set of discourse, and in our dialogue we've always attempted to establish the common terms, common diction -- not the diction that makes me different, that make us at odds with each other, excluding each other, but the language that we share. What are those terms -- not just terms of reference but those actual terms that would bring us close together that have a shared and common meaning? It is very important to look for this type of language that is inclusive rather than exclusive and divisive, and then you can engage in a dialogue that is meant to achieve results. Again that gets us also to the question of unilateralism, bilateralism and multi-literalism. I don't believe that there is any such thing as a unilateral peace. Nobody can decide that he or she or they can impose a unilateral peace or that peace can take place by default. The only unilateralism we see is the imposition of the will of the strong on the weak, in our case, or you see it as unilateral acts -- criminal acts -- that we've seen in the World Trade Center or even in Oklahoma in the Oklahoma bombing. People who give themselves the right to unilateral actions regardless of the law and regardless of others are people who generally are willing to go outside the law and beyond the law. And I believe that there has to be a global investment -- multilateralism, of course, that is based on institutions that work. Now I tell you the UN is not perfect, and I know that we're the first to recognize that it's not perfect, but so far it is the source of legitimacy that must be addressed. And that's why multilateralism in a sense provides people at least with a global consensus, with application of the law, and of course will guarantee not necessarily the lowest common denominator, as I said. Bilateralism sometimes works, sometimes doesn't -- we don't have time to go into that -- but when you have again an asymmetry of power, bilateralism is always subject to this imbalance in power, and you need genuine mediation and collective responsibility. When we talk about multilateralism, we also talk about the multidimensional, multi-tiered collectivity. Governments alone cannot be held responsible, cannot be the sole powers, the sole arbiters, because motivations of governments certainly tend to be self-interests and what keeps me in position of power. So I don't think by any stretch of the imagination can we accuse any government of being motivated by a sense of altruism and idealism. Therefore powers -- governmental powers -- should be checked by a multi-tiered approach with a system of governance that would involve non-government actors and players whether NGOs, civil society organizations, whether private sector engagement, grass roots engagement -- the people have the right to be part of that agenda -- and not just through traditional means. [clapping] That's why when repeatedly we asked for protection for the Palestinians and we didn't get it from any government, people who are courageous and brave from the rest of the world, including the U.S. -- the grassroots international protection for the Palestinian people, the International Solidarity Movement -- these are people who put their money where their mouth is so to speak. Individuals who took risks and who came to a situation of war or conflict and of danger and who are there by the thousands, and they made a difference. They saved and they are saving many lives, so the level of activity and action differs from governments to people in general. Those people are free to act, and you need a constituency for peace. The public has not only the right to know from our experience -- part of the one aspect of the weakness of the peace process was that it was conducted in an abstract isolated manner, that the people did not own the agenda so to speak. So the public has the right to know and to participate, and they must have the conviction and the persuasion that this is their endeavor. And since they are the ones who pay the price of the absence of peace, unlike those of you here who are trying to prevent peace from happening (booing), they are the ones who pay the price of peace, and they are the ones who have to sustain peace once we arrive at it. So it must be a conscious choice. It must be freely adopted and deliberately pursued. And it is again a democratic enterprise, not personalized, not to serve the careers of a few. Yes, I must conclude -- that requires also a redefinition of security. What is security, and is it defined only by military means? I know that there is an ongoing discussion. That's why I'm talking and speaking headlines, on human security and a more expansive and inclusive form -- a redefinition of security that would involve personal, historical, legal, territorial, economic security and not just security based on military definitions and military means -- and this is the type of security that will be part of the prevention of the eruption of conflicts. I will have to condense here and just say that there are certain things that have to be avoided -- the immediate resort to violence and military action must be avoided. Of course I firmly believe that there is no absolutist or ideological solution. And in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict I do not believe that God takes sides or that God should be brought into the conflict to take sides [clapping]. Because we all know that fundamentalism and absolutism would lead to this claim that you have divine right, and therefore it would lead to the total obliteration of the other. There are no partial or temporary or selective solutions -- one must work for a comprehensive, inclusive and permanent solution. And in the end, we must all engage in this redefinition of enemies and allies, of friends and foes. I believe globally that there are enemies that we can identify and work to defeat, including poverty, including illiteracy, degradation of the environment, diseases that are prevalent and re-emerging. These are global enemies we can identify and deal with [clapping]. And of course in that pursuit there are allies that again cross borders and ethnicities and religions and nationalities -- and as I said earlier, terrorism is not exclusive -- it is not a national, or cultural, or religious, or ethnic phenomenon. And I believe we can face these global enemies, not with weapons of mass destruction, but perhaps we should start utilizing tools of mass constructions, because these tools are capable of preventing conflicts and bringing about a more comprehensive peace. But no matter what the nature of the conflict is, be it ethnic -- and there are many different types of conflicts -- the essential ingredient remains: the good old-fashioned ingredient of justice. There must be an end to the victor/vanquished formula, and peace is not just a gift bestowed by the strong on the weak. It is an empowerment of both. Ultimately I believe that peace is the most basic and the most pervasive and the most compelling human right. Thank you very much. Question and Answer SessionPlease note that President Celeste asked questions written by students, faculty, and community members.President Celeste: Have Israelis and Palestinians become dependent on their conflict for their sense of identities? Is it easier to keep fighting than to change? What are the particular stresses being experienced today by Palestinian youth, and how do you see their social, philosophical, economic future as compared to other generations? Dr. Ashrawi: Very good questions. I find the question on conflict extremely disturbing in many ways because it does have an element of truth. It's like asking people whether they've become professional victims, and yesterday I said the mentality of a victim is a very unhealthy mentality. When you get locked into your own pain, your own sense of victimization, you deny others pain, and then you give yourself the excuse and the license to do everything to anybody else because you've suffered. And I feel the same thing. We are in danger of entering into that era where the conflict defines people on both sides. I know that in governments' cases -- yes I know the more extreme, the more hard-line, the more right wing the government is, the more it feeds fear, insecurity. I've seen this during the days of Netanyahu and Sharon, that the more you raise fear, distrust, hostility, and so on, the more you exploit it to stay in power because then you are the source of security and safety. And you thrive on that kind of fear. The same thing happened -- I said peace was the greater threat to the Arab regimes because Arab regimes always use the conflict as a rationalization, as an excuse to stay in power. [clapping] So by looking at an external enemy then you justify your own violations and you maintain a status quo that is unjust. Now this is a political maneuvering, exploitation of the conflict, but when it reaches into the existential issues of identity, then this is very, very serious. I would like to change the terms of reference of identification from a conflict situation where you identify yourself only in relation and you get attention only in relation to that conflict -- or whether you are willing to accept, and in many cases to strive for, the blissful anonymity of being able to lead a normal life. President Celeste: Could you address the second part of that, and that is this sort of this generation of Palestinian youth? Dr. Ashrawi: This is certainly a traumatized generation, and I am worried about youth on both sides because we've discovered a resurgence of the racism, the dismissal of the other on both sides, and we're trying very hard to counter those. Among Palestinian youth right now they're suffering a multitude of injustice. On the one hand the traditional system, a system of power in Palestine -- and I'm the first to criticize the Palestinian authority [clapping] -- that has attempted to hold onto power and to exclude the others, particularly the youth, and we are trying very hard to undo that. But schools have been closed for a long time. Now under curfews schools are closed, people cannot go to universities -- many universities have been closed or off limits. Birzeit has been on again off again for many years. It was closed during occupation, the early occupation for four years. So in a sense there is no normalcy. There are no handles for security that tell you that you can take your schools for granted, your universities for granted. They've seen their own homes invaded, violated. Their own parents killed or arrested or humiliated. They cannot do anything about it so that the traditional handles, again the sources of security -- the family, the parents -- have been destroyed. There is no normalcy under occupation. It's an abnormal situation. So as a result I believe that we need a massive program of rehabilitation and of counseling. We have the highest level of nightmares, bed-wetting, involuntary movements, and so on among children because of this sense of vulnerability and insecurity and lack of any type of protection. That means that our educational system has suffered, the future of our youths is at stake, our generation -- in addition the 'brain drain' because the educated and those who have other options are leaving, and that's very serious. So we are aware of all the problems, but we are unable frankly to handle all of them simultaneously. President Celeste: What is being done to make the Palestinian Authority truly democratic? Dr. Ashrawi: Well, one thing we could withhold the vote of confidence and legislate a counsel. It just happened, and so now you have no Palestinian government right now fortunately. We will see what the new government is like when it is formed. President Celeste: Next question sort of builds on that: Can Arafat control Hamas and the others with respect to attacks on Israelis if he wanted to? Dr. Ashrawi: At a certain point years ago I would have answered this question in the affirmative, and because he did, and he used even means of control that we didn't approve of, like suspensions of political rights, detentions, suspension of due process and so on. Right now, I can tell you it's very, very difficult to control anybody because first of all, he doesn't have his own security forces anyway, and I don't believe that security is a means of control. If you want a democracy, then persuasion and respect for democracy would be the means of collective control. But to use the police to use the security to try to batter people into submission so to speak will not work, it will backfire. Also, extremism on one side feeds extremism on the other, and I believe that one has to address the language of extremism and violence on both sides in order to diffuse the situation. Now how can he control Hamas? I think the only way is by one showing that the alternative works, that violence will not work, that targeting civilians and innocent people will not work. And also by building an active and viable and vibrant democracy that will allow for peaceful dissent rather than for exclusion and violent dissent. And I think without genuine reform -- institutional reform, democratic reform -- and a respect for the rule of law in Palestine, you're not going to get anywhere, unfortunately. President Celeste: Excuse me if I interject just as clarification -- do you see the action that was taken yesterday by the legislative authority as a step toward democratizing the process? Dr. Ashrawi: Yes I was going to vote against this government if I were there. So I am happy that my colleagues did and that this government had to resign. Because I believe that nobody is above accountability, and they have behaved so far as though they are above accountability, and we hold them accountable -- the people -- we are the source of their legitimacy, not anybody else's approval. So we should have held them accountable. We have, and I'm glad that they have had to resign, but now the real test is what new cabinet will be formed [clapping], that is the real question. We need to see people who are honest, who have integrity, who are democratic, who will represent the will of the people and protect the rights of the people. President Celeste: Is there any viable alternative to two separate nations -- Israel and Palestine? Dr. Ashrawi: Two separate states, yes. I believe that the chance for a two state solution is still there, the opportunity is still there; however it is rapidly diminishing because of the expansion of settlements, the on-going land confiscation. This would make the two state solution -- I've always said Zionism taken to the extreme would self-negate because the more land you take, you have to take more people with the land, and therefore you cannot have an exclusively or predominantly Jewish state if you take all of Palestine. You will have to have the Palestinians with it, and we are not ready to disappear, and we're not going to be expelled, and we may have -- I mean we are not all Jewish. We have Christians, we have Muslims and we have Jews, so that in a sense will lead to a self-negation of Zionism if you continue to take more land and more people and so on. Now it's their problem if they want an exclusive state. I certainly would like to see a tolerant Palestinian state of all three religions, and those who have no religion, if they want to, it should be a pluralistic state. However it has to be territorially viable to exist. If you continue to chip away, and to take more territory, and you transform it into a series of [inaudible] or reservations, it won't be viable, and certainly it won't be a source of stability and peace. There are people who talk about a one state solution, -- historically remember they talked about the one non-sectarian secular Palestinian state in the late sixties -- of course this was rejected by the Israelis. Now there are people who are saying that it is already too late -- that maybe we should just sit down and allow history to take over and allow demography to take over. I know the labor party, when we started talking with them about peace, their main motive, and I'm sure Professor Doron would talk about this, was demography because they felt that there is no way that they can maintain Zionism and the state of Israel and its Jewish character and at the same time maintain occupation and so on. President Celeste: I'm going to intrude, if I may. You had spoken about unilateralism both in a geopolitical context but then in a personal context, where people put themselves above the law. How do you address directly the issue of suicide bombings? Dr. Ashrawi: How do I address? I think it is absolutely tragic and unacceptable [clapping]. We have tried through persuasion, through dialogue, through public appeals, through meetings; we have tried to show not only that they don't work but that they are morally reprehensible [clapping], and there is no justification for doing onto others what was done onto you. When people tell me our civilians have [booing] been targeted, I keep saying that's no excuse to target their civilians. I know many men, women and children (over 250 Palestinians children were killed recently by terrorists), but it doesn't mean that that gives you license to go and kill their children or their women or their innocents. But it doesn't just apply to Palestine and Israel. I think suicidal bombings take many different shapes and forms and not just necessarily a person who's willing to turn his or her body into a -- we say 'a poor man's equivalent of the F-16 or F-15' -- but I don't believe that any type of suicidal action and mentality would produce any kind of result whether through using your body as an instrument of violence or whether using an army as an instrument of violence or whether using anything else. It's a mentality that must be countered -- not just individual peace. [clapping] President Celeste: I appreciate the interaction and I hope that we can respectfully let our speaker address her opinions, others have theirs, and you've had an opportunity -- outside you'll have an opportunity again -- we respect that. I have a couple of questions and I'm sure they are collecting more that come afterwards, if you don't mind standing. I know we are running out of time. I'm going to squeeze a little bit. I want to move off of the issue of directly Israel and the Palestinian situation right now. It seems America is getting closer and closer to action against Iraq. What repercussions do you foresee in the region, particularly on Israel and Palestine? Do you think an attack on Iraq will increase or decrease terrorism? Dr. Ashrawi: Yes, I really wish I had the answers in a crystal ball. Most people talk about action, the first question was action against Iraq, and the other was an attack on Iraq. I assume you mean a military action against, military attack against Iraq. I believe that historically, military actions have not succeeded in solving all problems. And as I said earlier, you need a diplomatic and a political course, too. The Iraqi people are already suffering because they have a repressive regime like the Saddam Hussein regime, and they're the ones who have paid this decade or more for the sanctions imposed on Iraq, because of the actions of a regime like the Saddam regime. And I believe they are the ones who are going to pay the price of any military invasion, not the regime that has the bunkers and the money and will protect itself and will maintain itself in power. That has been its main driving force, to stay in power -- not to protect the people, not to serve their interests. I'm afraid that such an attack might unleash different forces that would be hard to contain in the region. There will be a ripple effect, I know. But I don't know what kind, I cannot predict. There are many regimes in the country, in the area, whose legitimacy does not come from the people, as you know, and who have relied on the U.S. and other countries for their legitimacy. And historically, these regimes were put in place by the West, not by their own people. Saddam was a client of the U.S. when it was convenient, wasn't he? Others were placed, I mean, the Taliban were trained and given funds by the U.S. because in many ways they fought during the Cold War, and I've talked about the legacy of the Cold War, against the Soviet Union when they invaded Afghanistan. So let's not have the remedy be worse than the disease, and then we will saddle future generations with problems that they will have to handle. (clapping) But I want to say very frankly that the Iraqi people are the ones who have to change their own government, their own regime, and hold that government accountable. They can only do that if they have, if they are allowed to breathe, but too immediately I believe that the Iraqi regime has to open up, and has to accept unconditionally all forms of UN inspection. [clapping] President Celeste: You've been patient so I'm going to give you a group of four questions [laughter] that I believe are related, and so I'll try to go through them quickly, and then I'm going to give you the last question, which is in a sense a softball, but not a softball. When people say that it is or is not about religion, how do you respond? Is recognition of an Israeli state by the Palestinian authority a necessary pre-condition for the eventual conflict resolution? Will the resurgence of fundamentalism allow this? Please tell us what a peace with Israel would look like to you. Dr. Ashrawi: These are four questions and more. President Celeste: I'm giving them because I think there's a sort of coherence to them, I hope there's sort of a coherence to them [laughter]. And there was a question about sort of walking away from the peace process a couple of years ago, maybe where in the process, if you could touch on what you think where the peace process lost its momentum. Well, go ahead, and I'll give you the softball question right at the end. Dr. Ashrawi: Is this what's in store for your students at the college? President Celeste: We have something called a Block Plan here, and instead of teaching over a whole semester, we do it in three-and-a-half weeks, so the classes are three hours long… Dr. Ashrawi: Poor things. All right, I understand the motives. Now when people try to use religion to justify conflict and to perpetuate conflict, that is when I really get angry because this is not a religious conflict. It is not a conflict between Christians and Muslims, or Jews and Muslims, or Muslims and Christians and Jews, it is not. Palestine has always been pluralistic. We've always had three religions in Palestine. And we are pluralistic so I don't believe that you can start reciting holy texts and bringing in the Koran or the Bible or the New Testament to justify geopolitical decisions that your are taking currently on the basis of self-interest or power by saying that 'God gave me dispensation' or 'I own absolute truth' because anybody who claims to own absolute truth is certainly going to lead us all into destruction. Because the clash of absolute truths means that there has to be an absolute loser as well as an absolute winner. That means you have license to do whatever you want because God told you so. And I don't believe God selects either individuals or different religions to give them total license and absolutism. So those who use religion, it seems to me, are abusing religion and are really not providing themselves or us with the handles to solve the conflict because once you say it is a God-made divine conflict, then of course only God can resolve it. What do we do with legality? What do we do with international law? What do we do with political solutions? Then you have to wait for a divine solution. I'm not being facetious. Genuinely, I think those who try to inject a fundamentalist, absolutist approach in conflict resolution are contributing to the non-solution of the conflict and are aggravating it even further. The resurgence of fundamentalism -- ironically, I find this a global phenomenon. I've seen Muslim fundamentalism, Christian fundamentalism, and Jewish fundamentalism claiming absolute truths, and all three are equally destructive. [clapping] So the antidote, of course, is tolerance, is pluralism, is recognition of difference, is creating a secular system that is genuinely democratic. Separation of church and state for heaven sakes, it's very simple. As the recognition of Israel as a state, a national pre-condition, well we the PLO has recognized Israel as a state. The PA has recognized Israel as a state and has negotiated with it and signed agreements with it. The PNC has recognized Israel, which has the full parliament in exile, so it is not a question. I have always said recognition is not a sort of political abstract exercise. Maybe philosophically it has more to do with the Greek sense of self-recognition and the recognition of the other -- that there is a mutuality. This is the recognition that we have to look at: people recognize each other formalistically, but do they behave in that way? That's the real question. Has Israel recognized the Palestinian national identity as a neighbor? Now some people say 'yes' and some people say 'no.' Have the Palestinians recognized Israel in terms of this internal recognition? Many people have come to terms with the existence of the state of Israel. There are many who recognize Israel because they know Israel, as I wrote in the Madrid speech, "We've seen you at your best, and we've seen you at your worst, and you have nothing to hide from us" -- in the sense that the occupier cannot have secrets from the occupied. So in that sense, there is that type of recognition, but how do you translate that into operative principles when it comes to negotiations and when it comes to forging new sets of relationships? That's the real question, that's the real challenge. Can we shed the mentality of rejection of exclusion on both sides? Can we shed the mentality of racism and domination or control that emanated from a long-term situation of occupation? These are things that we have to deal with. But formalistic recognition has been there for a long time, and it's there in the books and legally. How do we go beyond that and forge agreements that would create new sets of relationships? This is the real challenge. The nature of peace with Israel to me is very simple. Implement UN resolutions, accept the 67' boundaries. Israel will have 78 percent of historical Palestine as its boundaries as a state, recognized within the region. Palestine will be on 22 percent of the remaining historical Palestine, which is the West Bank including East Jerusalem and Gaza. We have to have a fair and just resolution to the Palestinian refugee question -- over five million -- that has to be resolved on the basis of international law and precedent, and they have to have the right, of course, to choose, but I'm sure if there's a will there will be a resolution, and it has to be. Listen all, there is no way, no way, in which this conflict can continue. It has to be resolved. The price has been enormous and tragic. And anybody who has any sense -- moral commitment, political understanding -- will do whatever is possible to end this conflict, to end this occupation and to give both peoples room to live, to prosper, to grow, and to put an end to the war mongering and the politics of control that we have seen for so long. [clapping] President Celeste: I want to say to those who've asked questions -- and there are dozens that I haven't gotten to -- I apologize for that. I've tried to be representative in asking the questions that were put forward by you as an audience. What do you think we as college students can do to further world peace and our understanding? Dr. Ashrawi: Wow! That is a very important question, but that's what you're here in college trying to learn and to get to. Now if I could tell you what you can do I'm sure I'll have prophetic status [laughter]. But what's important is to do what you are doing, to get to the truth to have the courage to seek the truth, to have the courage to engage and to question and all these qualities that you talked about -- the critical skills, not to take things for granted, not to accept stereotypes and labeling, and not to accept the status quo as something that is permanent, but constantly to be a force for change and to stand up. I've always maintained that individuals make a difference. I have acted as individual, I've been independent. I've seen individuals make a difference. We work within a collectivity, but it starts with one person saying, 'No, this is not how it is' or 'No, I will not be silenced or intimidated' or 'Yes, I will act on something' and 'Yes, I will seek to make a difference and to change.' This attitude is the most important thing. Other things, facts are available, readily available -- it's what you do with them. It's how you build yourself as a person, with the courage, with the honesty, with the integrity to do something about it. That's what you can do, and I hope that we can network -- at least maybe network with Palestinian students, with Israeli students who also want to be able to understand that there is a three-way conversation going on and not just a lethal dialogue of confrontation, but a genuine dialogue. © 2002 by Colorado College |
Description | Home | Participants | Contacts | Transcripts