Monday 15 December 2014

HRH Princess Basmah Bint Saud Speech in Istanbul on 15th of October 2010


Globalization and Security
His Excellency the foreign minister of Turkey, ladies and gentlemen, may peace and God’s blessings be upon you all.
Let me introduce myself, as most of you may be wondering who I am, and what I represent.
First, I’m a Muslim, and second, I’m a Saudi citizen. I’m a universal pacifist who believes that our planet can be shared by all nations, races and religions without wars, and that we can all share the wealth and beauty that God has bestowed on us without discrimination or racism.
I’m honored to have been given the opening word of this conference. I sincerely hope I’ll provide a major contribution and different approach to regional security, and an insight to what we can contribute as journalists and scholars who’ve taken the time and effort to come here today.
If ever globalization and the rapid pace of development in societies worldwide suggested a loss of individualism and identity, it is clear that we as members of the human race have resisted that out of deep attachment for our origins.
If globalization and the internet have meant an increase in knowledge about the world, it has not necessarily meant that we are any smarter in using that knowledge for the greater good, nor have we become adept in converting it into trust among countries.
Hence we still have the need to regularly hold discussions about “security” before, during and after conflicts. Today, we are doing so in Turkey.
People seem frequently to ask: Does Turkey face East or West? How can we know where its loyalties lie? This is true of voices both in the East and the West.
Turkey occupies a unique position. I see an ostensibly secular country, a member of NATO in the process of joining the EU, a significant trade partner with Europe. At the same time, Turkey borders Syria and Iraq, has trade and diplomatic links flourishing across the region, not just the GCC, and has a historical relationship with the Middle East like no other.
Many Turkey watchers, myself included, have taken note of the diplomatic activism with which Turkey has approached conflicts in the region, and it is encouraging to see such efforts being made with our Arab brothers and sisters, the beneficiaries of the Turkish diplomatic focus in the Middle East.
You are to be congratulated on the reputation you have developed for being a conduit of peaceful overtures.
It saddens me, therefore, to hear suggestions that Turkey must choose one or the other, the West or the East, as if the perceived strengthening of ties with the Middle East necessarily results in the weakening of those with the West, and vice versa. To me, this merely follows the flawed and costly logic of the so-called War on Terror: “You’re either with us or against us.”
To me, as a global citizen, co-existence and mutual benefit should be able to override suspicion, but of course this is not always the way. Of course, it is Turkey’s willingness to engage with foes of the West that causes eyebrows to rise in their capitals – but I view this is as a strength.
The realpolitik of our international relations dictates that perceptions are all important, and though I would be disheartened if a loss of trust among Western allies resulted from increased cooperation with the Middle East, I as an Arab, a Saudi and a member of the GCC, would assert that there is no need: Turkey should be seen as an honest broker in the Middle East that has certain advantages and confidences that others lack, derived not least from proximity, poise and purpose. I would certainly encourage increased Turkish participation.
But we must deal with the situation how it is, not how we would like it to be. This is an insecure neighborhood, something for which we are unfortunately famous, but we must make best use of all diplomatic tools we have at our disposal to ensure regional stability while managing expectations.
Although Turkey may follow the principle of “zero problems” to guide its foreign policy with its regional counterparts, it is sad to note that some of these places, for whatever reason, have problems with not only their neighbours but citizens also.
I don’t want to get bogged down too much in debates about Israel, but must not that power be accompanied by responsibility? As a nation equipped with power not only greater than the Palestinians but greater than many other nations besides, it is not possible for them to demonstrate commitment to peace by exercising the responsibility they have towards their own people as well others?
The world’s diplomats may conduct “proximity talks”, and come up with “shelf agreements” in air-conditioned 5 star hotels, but every day the ordinary Palestinian looks up and sees the high walls of the ever-expanding settlements built on land that should be where the Palestinian instead enjoys dignity and freedom.
It is possible to demonstrate commitment to peace and to live harmoniously with one’s neighbours, and I am still wondering why the Arab Initiative of 2002 lies gathering dust on some government desk in Israel.
An analysis of security in the region cannot only identify the open wound of Palestine, but it must also address the grievances and individual rights of every citizen in the Middle East. It is not enough to denounce the treatment of Muslims by the West, we must look at our conduct as well. One and all must be humanized.
National stability must surely be the building block of regional stability. It is possible to point at the West and argue that their policies towards the region are designed to promote stability whatever the cost to individual rights of our citizenry. Yes, the free flow of oil and Arab strongmen in power to maintain it suit their purposes, but it is not enough analyse ourselves in reaction to the behavior of others.
Haven’t we learned that through all the messages and messengers of God, there should be equality within any social structure? Though I might add that every human should obtain his due and position in society through his own efforts – but the playing field must be level.
There are many among us who have reaped the benefits of globalization and economic liberalization, but those who have benefitted from the globalizing direction in which the world has turned must in turn pass on the fruits or their hard work and good fortune on to others.
I do not feel Machiavellian by quoting Machiavelli:
“There is nothing more difficult to manage, more dubious to accomplish, nor more doubtful of success . . . than to initiate a new order of things. The reformer has enemies in all those who profit from the old order and only lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit from the new order.”
A healthy economy must be reflected in a healthy political economy. We must take responsibility for our own futures, and accept that political participation is a right for every individual regardless of religion, political belief or what side of the fence we think the individual sits. That they have been born into our countries should be enough to grant them inalienable rights to which access must be guaranteed.
In this, the age of the internet, people worldwide no longer believe everything the authorities say. Yes, the internet also bombards us with a large amount of rubbish and sometimes willful misinformation, but we must view it as a positive influence which empowers the individual, not the authorities. Social disparity is not as accepted as it was. Along with this should come a free press, a symptom of a strong and healthy society, unafraid to monitor the centres of power.
If the times are changing, then so must we, and to start we must release ourselves from these mind-forged manacles that are holding us back.
It’s not enough to talk a good game, nor is it wise to set our sights too high. Nor should we naively assume that growing economic interdependence will necessarily convert into political alliance. We must accept there is no silver bullet that will cure our problems.
As a wealth of nations, we are much better at communicating on a state-to-state basis, though increasingly demand is for good communications among people and groups – non-state actors, in the jargon – who simultaneously have differing but also strong identities other than nationhood. Nonetheless, they are included in our social group and we must a find a way to accommodate all of our people.
Our region needs a reassessment of the relationships between governments and their people, and between governments themselves. Islam’s message seeks to unite the world rather than split it. Reach within to ensure the security of the region. As it says in the Qu’ran: “Repel evil with what is better and your enemy will become as close as an old and valued friend [41:34].”
By ensuring the honesty, equality and prosperity of our systems and citizens, by giving equitable rights to all, by ensuring that everyone has access to the tools necessary for a dignified life, we can progress.
Regional – and global – security will only be achieved when we stop dominating people because of their skin color, gender or religious beliefs. All of us have a responsibility as human beings to help the world achieve harmony rather than war, poverty and ignorance. Only when we fight for the underdog all around the world will we sleep peacefully each night, knowing that we contributed to easing misery rather than creating or sustaining it.
I remain hopeful that stability in our region can improve, and call on all of us, not just Turkey, to take the diplomatic initiative to achieve this. This starts with an honest look at ourselves. Perhaps next time we meet we shall not be discussing conflict alone, but progress as well.
God be with us, but it is foretold in the Quran that God’s hand will only be with those who unite for humanity and world peace. May the peace and mercy of God be upon all of you.

No comments:

Post a Comment