“Dialogue will save us” - Speech by the President of the European Parliament, Martin Schulz, on receiving an honorary degree in Languages and Intercultural Mediation at the Foreigners University of Siena

Magnifico Rettore Cataldi,

Dear Professor Moretti,

Dear Governor Rossi,

Dear Professors,

Dear Colleagues,

Dear students,

I feel very privileged today.

I feel privileged to receive this Laurea Honoris Causa from such a renowned academic institution.

I feel very privileged to receive Rector Cataldi’s words of commendation and the speech by Professor Moretti, for which I am grateful.

And I feel very privileged to be in the wonderful setting of Siena. Even if I am here for less than a day, simply walking through its medieval streets, entering one of the most beautiful and harmonious squares in the world - Piazza del Campo - is balm for the eyes and for the mind. I am here for less than a day and feel extremely privileged; you are here every day, and I hope you are well aware of your luck.

As a German and as a European I also feel at home in Siena and in its Foreigners University. It was in Siena that the first language course for foreigners - Germans in this case - was established in 1588. I hope this language course is still up and running, because my Italian needs some dramatic improvement.

But being in Siena, looking back at its history and its Republic and Lorenzetti’s masterly frescos in Palazzo Pubblico, also provides a crash course in politics. Lorenzetti was a true professor of language. He used the universal language of painting to explain the effects of good and bad government. The message stood as a reminder to the local government, but it remains equally powerful over the centuries to any citizen and to the thousands of tourists who come from countries as far apart as China, Italy and the US to admire the fresco.

This is what I would like to talk about today: the importance of language and dialogue in today’s world and today’s politics. My message is a simple one: we live in a world that communicates faster and more efficiently than ever before, but it is a world where dialogue is becoming ever more scarce and superficial - and this is a danger for everyone.

Before entering into the policy dimension of dialogue, please allow me to start by mentioning a specific, noble and sad example of someone who was an ambassador of intercultural dialogue and whose story has struck and moved me deeply: Giulio Regeni.

Giulio Regeni and intercultural dialogue

Giulio Regeni grew up in Fiumicello, a small village in Friuli Venezia-Giulia. He left home when he was still in high school for New Mexico in the US to study at an international college called United World College, meeting other students of many different nationalities. This must have been an unsettling experience, but it must equally have been an inspiring one. The mission of the school Giulio Regeni attended, the United World College mission, fits well with the spirit of this academic institution.

Giulio Regeni showed unquestionable academic and intellectual talent but, above all, he showed curiosity and an eagerness to understand, learn and share. After obtaining a first class degree for his Bachelor of Arts in Arabic and Politics at the University of Leeds, he went on to study and research social and economic development in the Middle East as a PhD student at the University of Cambridge. He showed a passion for learning about the Arab world and history, and set to work learning Arabic. And when he went to Egypt, he did not settle for prefabricated truths, he went on to study the difficult and complex world of trade unions in that country. He did this at a time when the global and academic discourse seems to run against trade unionism.

After his brutal killing, the international solidarity has been impressive. The messages of sympathy to Giulio Regeni’s family have come from far and wide, and the mobilisation, including online, has been unprecedented. At a time when many in the West want to turn their back on the Arab world, he went on to learn Arabic and understand Arab culture, making friends and breaking barriers. With his research he also showed an inquisitive spirit which went beyond established and convenient truths.

I believe these elements alone offer us a portrait of a man who was not just an excellent student and academic: he was an inspirational figure. A man who showed curiosity, courage and a relentless commitment to dialogue and international understanding.

Today I do not want to enter into the controversial issue related to Giulio Regeni’s heinous and vile killing. The European Parliament has already expressed itself on this issue, demanding that the Egyptian authorities show transparency and collaborate with the Italian authorities on this issue. They have failed the test so far. The European Union and the European Parliament will continue to be vigilant on this. And I would like to say this clearly: Giulio Regeni was an Italian citizen, but he was also a European citizen. And the European Union stands behind Italy in its search for truth. I also join the call asking for “Truth for Giulio Regeni”.

Whoever perpetrated Giulio Regeni’s killing and torture stood at the opposite end of where Giulio Regeni stood: obscurantism, ignorance and opposition to any form of dialogue.

Dialogue vs Terror

Dear Friends,

I wanted to start my speech with a reference to Giulio Regeni, not only to pay tribute to someone I regard as an ambassador of intercultural dialogue, but also because Giulio Regeni’s killing is an omen of the troubling period we are going through.

There are other saddening events which have hit Europe hard. On March 22, Brussels - Europe’s capital - was hit by terrorists, by home-grown terrorists. This act was also a direct signal to Europe and the European institutions.

The objective of these heinous terrorist attacks is simple: to instigate and fan the flame of Islamophobia in order to create a rift in our societies, to divide us and weaken us. Our response to such action must certainly be firmness, it must be increased security, prevention and monitoring, but it must first and foremost be unity.

I am also hearing more and more that Europe should follow the US example in the aftermath of 9/11 and unequivocally choose security over individual freedoms. In my view, the European reaction to terrorism cannot and should not be a copy-paste of the American reaction to terrorism: our reaction must be a European reaction, based on our values, our objectives and our history. I have always thought that we should try hard to escape the contradiction which stems from the claim that “we should give up our rights in order to defend them.”

Let me give you a concrete example: last week during the Strasbourg plenary the European Parliament voted at the same time on two key pieces of legislation: the Passenger Name Record and the Data Protection Package. The European Parliament resisted enormous pressure to waive data protection concerns in the name of security. But our approach - to tie increased security powers for the public authorities to increased guarantees in the data protection dimension - led to a compromise which has created a better deal and - admittedly - a European one.

More measures are needed - but let me highlight one issue: when you hear about national politicians blaming Europe for the evils of this world, try to question them on one issue: “What do you mean by Europe?” Once again it is worth expressing this via an example: the European Union has limited competences when it comes to intelligence sharing. Yes, we have institutions such as Europol, which help with the coordination of different operations, but the gathering and sharing of intelligence takes place first and foremost at the national level. The EU cannot force national authorities to share information, even if this would be the course of action favoured by institutions such as the one I preside.

The fight against terrorism must take place through prevention, monitoring, intelligence-gathering and updated rules and sanctions, but there is one weapon that beats radicalisation before it even takes place: once again I am thinking of dialogue and education, of culture and of knowledge of our cultural heritage.

Everyone in Europe and beyond has become acquainted with Molenbeek, the section of Brussels which has sadly become a byword for terrorist hotbeds and radicalisation. Molenbeek is maybe the most notorious of Europe’s difficult peripheries, but it is unfortunately not a unique case. We are increasingly witnessing the phenomenon not just of segregated societies, but of more and more segregated and alienated lives. Alienation is the first step before radicalisation. If we do not react, we risk drifting towards a society in which there will be more and more cases where the value of togetherness is questioned, where the communal purpose of institutions such as the family, the city, the state and, yes, also the European Union, is questioned. We have to contrast with this horror vacui by filling our public and private institutions with meaning and values, but to define that meaning and those values we can have recourse to only one instrument: dialogue.

The Western world has developed its own enemies to dialogue. One of them is certainly political correctness. Umberto Eco, one of the greatest and most inspiring intellectuals of our time, devoted much energy investigating and questioning this issue. Something that was nobly born as a way of combating racism and xenophobia has grown into an instrument to curtail public policy.

Eco rightly stated that politically correct statements “can represent a way of avoiding unresolved social problems, disguising them with a more polite use of language. If we stop calling people in wheelchairs handicapped or even disabled (they are differently abled) but fail to build them access ramps to public areas, we have clearly—and hypocritically—got rid of the word but not the problem. The same may be said of the replacement of unemployed with involuntarily leisured.” We risk witnessing the same type of reasoning when it comes to our dialogue on the relationship between state and religion.

We need to avoid the banalisation and superficiality of some views of Islam. We have to be able to listen to a debate that comes from intellectuals, writers, and journalists in the Arab and Muslim world like Kamel Daoud or Boualem Sansal, who deal with complex issues such as the division between state and religion, sex and sexuality, in Islam.

We need to be able to dialogue also on these, very contested, issues, respecting each other. Not like some, including in my country, who come up with repellent and idiotic arguments stating that Islam in not compatible with our constitution. We need to be respectful but fearless in dialogue, otherwise we risk encircling ourselves in a contented, but very static comfort zone, which cannot lead to a new, improved change of perspective. We would be like billiard balls on the table, pushed around by events, with occasional but superficial interactions.

Dialogue and the EU

The lack of dialogue has devastating effects at the individual level, but is also a plague for the European Union. Crisis is becoming the word more often associated with Brussels and the European institutions. Newspapers paint a grim picture of crisis both within and at our borders. Whether you look at the financial and economic crisis, the migrant and refugee crisis, Brexit, Grexit, it would seem justified for citizens to be concerned about, if not openly critical of, the state of EU affairs.

Yet, once again it is of the utmost importance to develop the correct intellectual tools and the right diagnosis to fight the problems we are confronted with. If I am critical of a policy of the German government, does this make me anti-German? Not at all. I am the first to stress that the European Union is not without problems, but does this make me anti-European? Not at all - quite the contrary. I want to engage to fix the flaws that are posing a problem for the wellbeing of citizens.

The problems of the European Union have at this moment, in my view, a very specific source: the unprecedented level of inefficiency and the cacophony of intergovernmentalism. The EU supranational institutions in the law-making process, the European Commission and the European Parliament, have built a solid and functioning relationship. The European Council and the Council, the institutions which represent national governments, often seem to be running like a broken clock: legislation can remain stuck, political agreements at the level of the heads of state and government are often poorly implemented and some measures appear truly toxic. The economic and financial crisis has exacerbated the mood and so has the refugee crisis. Why is the EU not capable of reaching a solid and stable agreement with Greece in good time? Why were Member States so reluctant to follow up on their own commitment on relocation and resettlement? Lack of trust and fledgling dialogue are to blame. Dialogue can only truly take place if we listen to each other’s concerns in a genuine fashion.

Many political parties in the Member States use the EU as the scapegoat for all their problems. This is not a new phenomenon, but never before it has been used to such an extent. We see referenda being invoked with the sole purpose of “teaching the EU a lesson”, but EU leaders and politicians are then told to keep out of it and not to debate the merits of such referenda. Some leaders are unscrupulous about the fact that their own governments do not participate in relocation and resettlement or in providing personnel and aid to the countries most exposed to the crisis, but then have no problem in criticising the EU as the source of the deaths in the Mediterranean. Increasingly the EU has come to resemble a room full of deaf people screaming at each other. Dialogue is in very short supply. National governments talk to their home audiences and only few venture across the border to explain or listen.

EU and globalisation

Confronted with such a grim scenario, it might be tempting to give in to pessimism. Reasons abound not only in the EU, but also abroad. We are witnessing a global growth which seems to be losing steam. We are witnessing the growing appeal of right-wing populism, including across the Atlantic. We are witnessing a world where the risks seem to outnumber the opportunities. 2016 will be a very difficult year, but it might also be a very decisive year. If the European Union survives this year unscathed, it might have turned a corner, possibly one of the most difficult corners of its recent history.

It is just so tempting to retreat into our inner fortress and gaze at the events occurring outside. But the European Union was not invented to behave like an ostrich feeling safe with its head stuck in the ground.

The 21st century will be a world of regional powers, of tremendous scale, capabilities and leverage. Tuscan artists, inventors and politicians ignited the Renaissance not simply by looking at the world with different eyes, but also by imagining the world with different eyes, trying to make sense of the future and shaping it.

The European Union was not invented to stop globalisation: it was meant to create a force that, united, would be able to shape globalisation to make it fairer, so that it would be able to adapt to shocks and sudden changes, providing safety and certainties for its citizens. Beware of those who sell you an autarchic idyllic future of the all-powerful nation state. For Lorenzetti these demagogues would have ended up on the wrong side of the fresco.

Conclusions

Dear Friends,

The Italians among you know that an important anniversary is approaching. 25 April is the anniversary of Italy’s liberation from Nazi-Fascism. This is an anniversary to which I am deeply attached. I do not shy away from saying that modern Europe - not just Italy - has been founded on the values of the partigiani and the opposition to Nazi-Fascism.

Europe today is a place for democracy, for inclusion and for dialogue. People here died to give us the freedom we now cherish. We should always honour them by trying to make our democracy stronger and richer.

Dialogue must be part of this attempt. Dialogue is the search for a synthesis: the search for definition of common norms, rules and values which can guide our public and private life. Dialogue is the antidote against any form of radicalisation, because it works like a magnet that always reminds us of our shared humanity. The European Union is first and foremost an exercise in dialogue. The synthesis that we seek through dialogue cannot always be reached. But the exercise of dialogue is what matters most.

You are part of an institution that fosters dialogue. Be proud of being a member of it. I am certainly proud of being part of it now. And I thank you for this, and for your attention.