Keynote Speech by the President of the Republic of Slovenia, Dr Danilo Türk, at the Living Together Summit in London, organised by British Council

London, 12.3.2008  |  speech

Honourable Lord Kinnock, Chair of the British Council,
Honourable Ms Maud de Boer-Buquicchio, Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe,
Excellencies,
Ladies and gentlemen,

Europe is, quite rightly, called »The Old Continent«. One of the reasons which make this designation accurate is the long and diverse experience Europe has accumulated in the management of coexistence of various languages, cultures, religions and other human identities. In its long history, Europe has always been a place of diversity. Unlike in some other regions of the world melting-pot theories never worked here. People have had to live together in diversity and manage their differences.

The record which has thus emerged is mixed and has changed over time. In some parts of Europe there were periods when different cultures, religions and civilizations coexisted peacefully. A good and well known example is the medieval Iberian peninsula, which flourished as a result of interaction of Christian, Jewish and Muslim cultural and religious traditions. However, that situation came to an end by the expulsion of the Jews and, later, the Moors.

The defining moment in Europe came about two centuries later, following the wars of religion. The treaties of Westphalia of 1648 established the principle of territorial sovereignty as the basic organizing principle of Europe. The entire subsequent political development has revolved around that principle. Its consequences were far reaching. Territorial sovereignty could not do justice to all ethnic and religious groups. The emergence of the phenomenon of religious, ethnic and linguistic minorities was a necessary consequence. With time, the phenomenon of minorities has become ever more diverse. Religion, initially the most important agent of identity, was later joined by linguistic and ethno-cultural factors. Historically, the prevailing concept of minorities in Europe has developed on the basis of their indigenous character. In the 19th and 20th centuries they have been described as national minorities and, in many cases, considered as an international problem.

More recently another problem emerged. Migrations have produced large immigrant communities, in particular in the more affluent parts of Europe. Legal instruments designed for national or other indigenous minorities which, one has to admit, are neither many nor very effective, have proven insufficient for the management of the new needs created by new immigrant populations.

Westphalian principles continue to be of fundamental political importance. The emergence of the European Union has not produced a departure from the world shaped by those principles as yet. Kosovo can be seen as a case of how, even in the 21st century, the Westphalian reality is still haunting us. Likewise, the situation of immigrant communities in many cases continues to leave much to be desired. In these circumstances policy makers need additional tools, two of which are provided in the concept of this conference. First, we need a carefully researched presentation of facts and, second, we need a new conceptual framework for discussion.

The Migrant Integration Policy Index offers such a well researched presentation of facts.
The concept of intercultural dialogue is the appropriate conceptual framework for discussion.

Therefore, our conference is well equipped for the task of elaborating useful policy recommendations.

Ladies and gentlemen,

Like many other addressees, I was thrilled when the British Council approached me last year with the explanation of the methodology of the Migrant Integration Policy Index. In my previous experience, as the UN special rapporteur on economic, social and cultural rights, some two decades ago, I learned to appreciate the importance of the careful use of social indicators in an effort to obtain an accurate picture of the implementation of human rights. In fact, any discussion on policy of implementation of human rights has to take advantage of two basic techniques: legal standards and socio-economic indicators. These two techniques have to be applied in a proper combination. The clearer and the more specific the standards, the easier it is to judge the actual reality vis-à-vis the normative prescription. In such situations the need for the use of socio-economic indicators is limited. On the other hand, in areas of implementation of human rights where legal standards are too general or too diverse, there is a need to measure progress by means of a bigger variety of social and economic indicators.

This is not as technical as it may sound. It is clear that in the area of the human right to fair trial the picture of implementation can be obtained on the basis of normative standards and actual judgements of courts and tribunals. The need for indicators going beyond the judicial statistics is low. On the other hand, in the area of non-discrimination in employment, which is a fundamental and internationally protected principle, one needs to analyse a wide range of socio-economic issues affecting the implementation of the human rights in question.

The Migrant Integration Policy Index constitutes a successful attempt to measure a number of indicators and allow the judgement on the level of achievement in the area of integration policies. It uses over 140 policy indicators. This demonstrates a remarkable level of sophistication. The resulting picture of the situation of migrants in the 28 countries surveyed is very clear and allows us to compare their situations. The choice of policy areas is wide and representative: labour market access, family reunion, long-term residence, political participation, access to nationality and anti-discrimination. These are areas of critical importance to migrants and areas where policy making by the governments in question is vital. Without a sustained governmental effort, none of these policy areas can show success. This is also why the identification of the best and the worst cases is particularly helpful. Governments and others can now compare each of the policy areas in each of the countries surveyed as well as their overall performance.

A country may show very good results in such areas as labour market access and family reunion, while the restrictive attitude towards political participation and access to nationality would still indicate a conservative policy-making and persisting reservations as to the full integration of immigrants into the society in which they now live. A serious policy discussion can only start from such a diagnosis.

Anti-discrimination is one of the most important and the most difficult policy areas addressed by the Migrant Integration Policy Index. The complexity and sensitivity of this area cannot be overemphasized. In fact, anti-discrimination can hardly ever succeed to the full. There is always a possibility, theoretical at the very least, that the issues of discrimination will not be paid adequate attention to on time - or that the level of reasonable differentiation which the legal system of a country generally allows will produce an opportunity for discrimination based on race, religion, ethnic origin or immigrant status. And the results are inflammable. No wonder that the most recent UN Conference on racial discrimination, held in 2004, ended in acrimony and that the quinquennial review due next year is not expected to be any easier.

Policy measures which can help the process of integration of immigrants as well as the elimination of discrimination are varied and have to be put together in the right combination, depending on the circumstances in the country in question. But some elements have wider application. The experience has shown that ethnic minority led businesses provide not only employment but also a significant contribution to the economy of the countries of immigration. The governments on their part can make a contribution by proper regulation, by training programmes and by general support for entrepreneurship. Liberalization of services would provide an added opportunity in many European countries.

Economic prosperity and upward social mobility for immigrants are the key to successful management of ethnic relations. At the same time, they provide a point of departure for a systematic policy of anti-discrimination. Education is the key for success of such a policy. A good system of public education and access to the universities go a very long way towards the establishment of real equality of opportunity for immigrants and other minorities and for their integration in the wider society. Once persons belonging to these communities succeed, their success has to be made visible. They should be able to appear on TV and in other media and be seen as an example of success. This will enable the understanding within the general public that diversity and integration are compatible and that non-discrimination is a civic virtue. Nothing succeeds like success. And nothing looks better on TV than the success of those who started on the margins.

Obviously, success stories will only be one element of the public discourse. Their impact in the shaping of the public is far from decisive. The reality is that immigrants are often used as scapegoats in public debates. Such a practice often reveals persistent prejudices against minorities or immigrant communities and requires serious political response. And it is also important to avoid the trap of treating ordinary social problems affecting immigrants as failure of integration. Careful delineation between the two issues is hard to achieve, in particular in the media, which usually favour clear cut and simple explanations. For this reason it is necessary to develop the understanding of issues in a tolerant and, if the need be, protracted discussion. TV talk shows, which have become fashionable in almost all European countries, provide a useful tool for that purpose, in addition to other, less visible, but still very useful forms of public debate. And again, in all the discussions about integration and anti-discrimination it is important to demonstrate specific stories of successful integration. They must not be overlooked or dismissed as something atypical. To the contrary, it should be explained that even if examples are small, positive change most often starts with small steps, and they deserve support. In this regard too, anti-discrimination and support for integration constitute an important civic virtue.

Ladies and gentlemen,

I referred to some of the issues which this conference will have to address. I have focused on issues directly affecting the individuals, i.e. persons belonging to immigrant or minority groups of different kinds. However, one must not overlook the collective dimension. One of the topics suggested for discussion later, in working groups, relates to the issue of negotiating cultural identities in complex societies. Cultural identities have both individual and collective dimensions. One of the major difficulties in this context continues to be whether the collective dimension of a group's cultural identity necessarily requires a degree of political recognition. Is it necessary to recognize the group's status at the political level? Does this recognition require a legal definition of special status of the group in question? Or is it enough to explain that the right of individuals to form their associations freely takes care of their need to nurture and develop their own culture, their tradition and their approach towards the wider society?

Choices such as these are never easy to make. The reality that ethnic identities bind immigrant communities together into cohesive social groups must not be ignored. On the other hand, it is also necessary to understand the diversity within such groups, the differences of opinion with regard to their traditional culture and with regard to their attitudes towards the wider society. Sometimes these differences become dramatic, in particular with regard to traditions affecting the position of women and girls within the family and within the ethnic community. In such situations solutions lie in the process, in a democratic and deliberative dialogue and not so much in the prescription per se. Without a deliberative and democratic dialogue it becomes impossible to manage cultural identities in complex societies. I hope that the discussion in these two days will shed additional light on the issue of democratic dialogue, its preferred forms and its potential.

Let me conclude. Democratic dialogue is the essence of progress - in the areas to be discussed at this conference and in society in general. This conference itself is a form of such a dialogue. I wish you success and I am convinced that you are prepared to make a very meaningful contribution to the intercultural dialogue conducted within the European Union.

Thank you.