Address By Rawlings At The Jeddah Economic Forum

Address By H. E. Jerry John Rawlings, Former President Of Ghana At The Jeddah Economic Forum,

TOPIC: FINDING COMMON GROUND IN DIPLOMATIC DIVERSITY

JEDDAH, SAUDI ARABIA, 11 FEBRUARY, 2006

Mr. Chairman,
Your Excellencies,
Distinguished Guests,
Ladies and Gentlemen.

Economic and Financial powers will rise and degenerate, military powers will rise and degenerate unless there is a very strong and reliable umbrella of faith under which we can all function, we risk a serious degeneration in terms of basic human values.

The Powers that be need to re-imbibe fundamental morals into the exercise of political power, the absence of which translates into unethical business ethics.

A poor global international leadership will continue to have a negative and a multiplying effect on Africa and the 3rd world just as a healthy international leadership slows down our decline.

I hope to make another intervention on Monday when I can dilate and share experiences on Africa?s potential miracle within the orbit of her capacities and abilities.

(1) History records that ever since the emergence of nation states, their relations with one another have more often than not been steeped in disagreement stemming from the unavoidable quest for political power and economic advantage. They therefore fought many wars, often leading to the relocation of assets and a geo-political re-arrangement of their respective sub-regions after the subjugation of one by the other. However, as time passed, leadership in the same states, after the bitter lessons of violent wars, came to accept discussion, negotiation, accommodation and treaty obligations as the best means of accommodating neighbours and adversaries and thereby maintaining the peace necessary for socio-economic progress.

(2) The same history records that states have always employed basically two methods only for ordering their relations with one another. They have sought settlement either through negotiations or by the use of force. Over time, however, the indisputable advantage of dialogue and negotiation, or what is generally referred to as diplomacy, has assumed pre-eminence over wars and other forms of violent conflict, precisely because violent disagreements demand too much of a state?s human and material resources.

(3) The eventual choice of dialogue and negotiations, epitomised by the creation and functioning of the United Nations since 1945, has been premised on the fact that diplomatic diversity is a welcome fact of international relations in which its key players are enjoined by the United Nations Charter to seek common ground through pacific means in all deliberations.

(4) Over the six decades of the world body?s existence this objective has, in most cases, been made possible by a strict adherence to the charter principles of the sovereign equality of states and the need to reach accommodation and compromise for the good of all.

(5) Through the strict adherence to these cardinal principles of the United Nations charter, the international community has, by and large, avoided international wars and other forms of violent conflict in the post-war years, thereby creating the environment for political, economic and social progress in larger freedom.

(6) The impressive record of the international community since World War II is however being marred now by the lack of faithfulness in some of the major players in international politics to the principle of the search for common ground in international relations.

(7) Disturbingly, this prospect has been coterminous with the advent of the new international political order that has left the world under the leadership of the only remaining super-power. The situation is of concern because the attitude of the only remaining super power towards some of the states which do not share its foreign policy objectives has been less than democratic and sometimes a threat to international peace and security.

(8) The region of our present meeting, the Middle East, has coincidentally become the testing ground for the international community?s will to resist domination by any power and to retain the principles of equality in diversity and the abhorrence of the political bullying syndrome. This posture of Third World countries especially is to avoid the disturbing reality of the double standards that appear to be the order of the day.

(9) It is also evident from the cursory look at international politics around us that certain powers are engaged in subjugating the will of those states that are of different religious and cultural tradition from their own. Their peoples assume an unfortunate air of superciliousness in their relations with developing and other non-Christian countries that is reminiscent of the past age of legitimized discrimination.

(10) In this context, the international community must emphatically reject the unwarranted stygmatisation of any culture or religion only because they are imperfectly understood nor accepted by militarily and economically significant states of our era. For as long as such foreign culture or religion does not threaten peace and security, their selection for discriminatory targeting is definitely wrong.

(11) Similarly, the principle of guilt by race or religion should be also unacceptable. Such orientation runs counter to the principles and objectives of the United Nations and places both practitioner and victims on a sure way to political tragedy. Political, religious and cultural diversity can be managed advantageously ONLY WHEN THERE IS MUTUAL RESPECT AND SENSITIVITY.

(12) Secondly, the Charter of the United Nations emphatically prescribes, in a lay-man?s language the principle of what is good for the goose being equally good for the gander. In other words, the equal treatment of countries is a sine qua non of international relations and cannot be sacrificed on the altar of common cultural or religious heritage.

(13) In this regard, the management of the difficult relations between Israel and its Palestinian neighbours cannot give comfort to those who cherish accommodation, compromise and equality of treatment. There can be no doubt that the glaringly biased attitude of some European and North American governments towards the Israeli treatment of Palestinians will neither bring peace nor a durable solution.

(14) Foreign occupation and the bantustanisation of territory of political opponents are contrary to the tenets of the United Nations and must be disapproved of wherever they occur. It is difficult to conclude that Israeli violence on their Palestinian neighbours answers to the demands of justifiable use of force. But, where are the governments of the west on this violation of the principles of the charter? Both Israelis and Palestinians must learn to accept diversity and tolerance in order to be able to live peacefully together.

(15) Similarly, one has to point out to Palestinians that the sufferings of the past and the condoning silence of the western countries can never constitute a valid basis for a policy of wanton violence and extremism. In the present context of the democratic process having brought electoral victory to the HAMAS, Palestinians have to quickly re-think their position and strategy for fighting occupation and injustice in order not to throw away this political opportunity

(16) Furthermore, the gathering clouds in the relationships of western powers and Iran in this region, where the sovereign right and equality of that country is being denied because its nuclear ambition lacks political-legitimacy does not only constitute a threat to international peace and security but has also brought to the fore another problem which the international community will have to find a quick answer to.

(17) Many of us are more than persuaded that transparency and consistency in the relations or treatment of states in this sub-region will be the answer to the disagreements of the area. To permit Israel and others ownership of peaceful nuclear technology but deny it to Iran on account of on-going disagreements with that government is to me immoral. Some of us remember only too clearly the encouragement and resources given by the West to Iraq to commit aggression against Iran in the 1980s. They even influenced the processes of the Security Council then to support the bid to punish Iran.

(18) That attitude of the West turned out to be a short-term cutting of their noses to spite their political faces which rather gave rise to an indirect endorsement of dictatorship and some serious geo-political problems in the region until now. One hopes that history will not repeat itself and that the only way to ensure peace will be for all sides to adhere strictly to the principles and ethics of the United Nations charter.

This adherence does not, I must hasten to add, free Iran from its contractual obligations towards the world body and its international partners.

(19) One cannot talk about seeking common ground or consensus in a diplomatically diverse world without alluding, at the same time, to the plight of the followers of Islam and Arabs generally in non-Arab countries, especially of North America and Europe.

(20) Although the heinous crime of the 9/11 terrorist attack in New York in the US cannot be accepted nor tolerated and must be unreservedly condemned by all peace loving countries, the ensuing stigmatisation of all Arabs and their culture and therefore their selection for discriminatory and degrading treatment in some western countries in the name of fighting terrorism, should be of serious concern to the international community as a whole.

(21) The current reaction, for example, towards cartoons published in a Danish newspaper which have offended Islam worldwide, is a case in point. Christians have no problem with cartoons depicting God as an old bearded man sitting on a cloud. Fine, that is their cultural approach. But to ignore the sensitivities of another religion, and then to defend it under the name of freedom of speech shows a regrettable lack of respect.

Having said so let me remind my fellow Muslim brothers and Sisters that Even as we demonstrate against Denmark let us remember they belong to the few bold Scandinavian group of countries who the campaign against the ultra right elements of the west costing the life of Olof Palmer contributing to the international effort to end Apartheid regime.

The Persecutions and killings is still the painful reality in Palestinian ? Israeli relationships. The Scandinavian group also spares no effort in their diplomatic efforts to end the heavy handed treatment of the Palestinians - let us therefore not blame the Danish citizenry because of a few primitive-minded ones.

(22) Mr. Moderator,
Let me state a personal conviction that the new millenium we have just entered into will be the defining era against double standards by political players, for, the international community has gone very far in learning its lessons of the equality of states, their entitlement to equal treatment and the categorical rejection of the principle of enlightened despotism in international relations.

(23) Ladies and Gentlemen,
Since the foreign policy outlook of any country is the sum total of varying factors of its geography, history, culture, politics, economy and other such important attributes, it goes without saying that no two countries are the same when it comes to the formulation and articulation of policies in respect of its neighbours and other friends.

(24) It is a fact therefore that unless states are prepared to accept the phenomenon of diversity and to tolerate and co-operate with one another, relations among them will always be mired in disagreement, conflict and unmitigated tension.

(25) It is only when the principle of the equality of states, without consideration of their geographical location, political, religions, cultural and economic persuasion, is made the vehicle in which international relations are conducted that the world will know genuine peace and security.

(26) This is certain to happen because the finding of common ground or the consensual path, based on commonly accepted principles in international relations, will always remain the only means of preserving our diplomatic diversity for our own peace and security.

(27) Those of you in the middle east are a sum total of your past pains. You have today reached an unprecedented level of progress in various facets of development. Your past and current pains puts you in a unique position to contribute to the restoration of political morality in international politics, provided you, as Arab nations, can restore diplomatic faith and trust amongst yourselves.

I thank you for your attention.