Index 
 Previous 
 Next 
 Full text 
Procedure : 2005/0203(COD)
Document stages in plenary
Document selected : A6-0168/2006

Texts tabled :

A6-0168/2006

Debates :

PV 31/05/2006 - 20
CRE 31/05/2006 - 20

Votes :

PV 01/06/2006 - 7.6
CRE 01/06/2006 - 7.6
Explanations of votes

Texts adopted :

P6_TA(2006)0234

Verbatim report of proceedings
Wednesday, 31 May 2006 - Brussels OJ edition

20. European Year of Intercultural Dialogue (2008) (debate)
PV
MPphoto
 
 

  President. The next item is the report by Mrs Hennicot-Schoepges on behalf of the Committee on Culture and Education on the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue (2008) [(COM(2005)0467 C6-0311/2005 2005/0203 (COD)] (A6-0168/2006).

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Andris Piebalgs, Member of the Commission. Mr President, I should like to express my gratitude to the Committee on Culture and Education, in particular to Mrs Hennicot-Schoepges, and to the other committees involved, for all the valuable comments on and amendments to the Commission’s proposal concerning the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue.

I am very glad that the European Parliament shares the Commission’s view on the importance of intercultural dialogue and the priority it should be given in the European Union.

The Commission welcomes the majority of the amendments. The Commission is particularly sensitive to the call for strong cooperation with civil society and to the emphasis on the role of education. We also applaud the emphasis on the contribution of different cultures and expressions of diversity to the heritage of the Member States, as well as to European identity. We are very much in favour of ensuring continuity with the European Year of Equal Opportunities For All in 2007. The Commission is also in favour of a reference – preferably in a recital – to the fact that intercultural dialogue embraces dimensions related to religions and beliefs.

However, the Commission would like to express some concerns relating to a couple of the amendments. Firstly, we cannot subscribe to limiting the resources for the communication and information campaign to EUR 2 million. Experience gained from previous European Years shows that these campaigns are crucial for achieving the awareness-raising objectives, and evaluation reports have always pointed to scarcity of resources as an issue in this respect. The Commission could show some flexibility vis-à-vis its original proposal of a EUR 4.5 million budget, but certainly not on such a drastic cut.

Another financial issue is the level of co-financing of the actions at national level, which an amendment proposes to increase to up to 80%. As already stated, due to the limited budget of the Year, this change would significantly reduce the number of events that could be co-financed, as well as the commitment of partners at national level. The original proposal for 50% cofinancing is the standard formula which has been retained for all previous European Years.

A number of amendments introduce a discrepancy between the geographical scope of the Year, which is limited to the European Union, and some new objectives and actions to be carried out with respect to third countries. The Commission proposed to concentrate the specific instrument on the Year of Intercultural Dialogue within the European Union, while committing itself to developing a parallel effort for the dialogue in, and with, third countries on the basis of external relations instruments.

Some amendments include problematic references to several very concrete actions. The Commission is of the opinion that the Year should be a bottom-up process, where projects and initiatives come from our partners, in particular from civil society. Given the limited number of initiatives which can be supported, the introduction of references to precise actions within the legal basis would hamper the creativity of our partners and lead to implementation difficulties.

Last, but not least, the Commission understands and appreciates the will of the European Parliament to be closely associated with the process. Unfortunately, it cannot support the amendment suggesting the participation of representatives of the European Parliament in the Advisory Committee. Comitology is a highly codified matter. It is our wish to adhere to the existing rules. Thank you for your attention.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Erna Hennicot-Schoepges (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, thank you for setting out the Commission’s views so clearly. First of all, I should like to thank my fellow Members who have assisted me in this task, all the committees which have submitted amendments and everyone who has given me advice.

The Commission’s initial proposal was undoubtedly extremely wide-ranging, somewhat opaque and rather long-winded, but its aim was to be general in nature. The question Parliament has to consider is: can we express aspirations and launch an initiative for intercultural dialogue without extending the subject in advance to the issues that really interest us, and also without discussing thorny issues such as inter-faith dialogue?

We sought to clarify a number of things in our text. Firstly, reference is made in Article 2 to the European Union’s common values. In adhering to the Charter of Fundamental Rights, we make it sufficiently clear that our common basis and the one we have all accepted is the one which guarantees non-discrimination between the sexes and equality of opportunity in all its aspects. It is unnecessary to keep repeating it.

There is also the issue of extending the action beyond 2008, and stimulating dialogue across the large range of initiatives already underway in Community programmes. There is no doubt that education will be of vital importance here, not to mention the involvement of civil society; cooperation with all parts of civil society is essential. It is obvious that the media will have a major role to play and we must use the opportunity of the large-scale gatherings and emblematic events planned for 2008 to combat, in particular, the trafficking of human beings and enforced prostitution.

It is also necessary to include other international organisations, such as the Council of Europe and Unesco. That does not mean that intra-European dialogue must not occupy centre stage, merely that we must take into account the joint actions already launched by Unesco. On this point, I would draw attention to the vote on cultural diversity, when the 25 spoke with a single voice.

On another point: the Internet portal will have to be developed and, when the Commission says that it cannot agree with a lower budget for communication and information, I would ask the Commissioner if the overall budget could not be increased. Our Committee on Culture and Education has already pointed out to him that a budget of EUR 10 million is extremely small to achieve the objectives set for this year. We know that culture is always the poor relation in budgetary terms. In these circumstances, your comment that you would like to revert to the initial budget is unsatisfactory. We would ask you to make a further effort in terms of the overall budget, so that we can increase the amount devoted to communication and information.

In relation to the dialogue with the religious world, I have to point out, here, Mr President, that only yesterday the President of the Council and the President of the Commission launched a debate with the representatives of religious communities on the issue of fundamental rights and mutual respect. Despite that, Parliament is asked to refer to that aspect only in the recitals, whereas in my view Parliament must also be ready to engage in that dialogue. We can no longer keep such taboos in our society. We must move forward and tackle the difficult issues. Religions and their rejection are a key factor in the process of social identification, integration and exclusion. I would emphasise, with the support of my colleagues, the importance of this aspect of intercultural dialogue in the broader sense.

Finally, Mr President, we must not overlook the fact that concrete actions will undoubtedly be a way of stimulating attention. Why not create a dialogue prize in Parliament, like the Sakharov prize for human rights? Why not organise an intercultural forum in Parliament to round off the year, thereby giving Parliament the visibility it merits on these issues?

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Patrick Gaubert (PPE-DE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, I should first of all like to congratulate the rapporteur for her excellent work and for the importance she attached to our collaboration.

The European project derives its richness from the cultural diversity of its Member States. Thus, intercultural dialogue is now, more than ever, a process to be encouraged. The European Year of Intercultural Dialogue will provide the opportunity. To achieve this, I envisage a two-way communication.

European citizens must be able to gain access to the cultures of other European and non-European countries, particularly their neighbours. In parallel there is a need to increase awareness among the rest of the world of the cultures and values of the Union, in order to foster mutual understanding. Similarly, intercultural dialogue has to be a driving force for the social integration of immigrants.

As shadow rapporteur of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs for the European Year in 2007, I would emphasise the importance of cohesion and consistency in the actions to be undertaken in 2007 in support of universal equality of opportunity, and would also stress the importance of cohesion in the initiatives forming part of the 2008 cultural dialogue, as these two years complement one another. I would also invite the Commission and the parties involved – in particular civil society, as the Commissioner has said – to take the opportunity of the major events planned for 2008, such as the football World Cup or the Olympic Games, to make the public, and especially the target group of young people, more aware of the importance of intercultural dialogue.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (PSE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Budgets.(PL) Mr President, the idea that 2008 should become the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue emerged in connection with the EU’s enlargement to include 10 new Member States, which have added cultural, linguistic and religious diversity to the Community. This initiative is entirely appropriate to the challenges faced by Europe today, and it fully addresses the need for multi-level dialogue with a view to building mutual understanding based on respect and tolerance.

Unfortunately, this noble idea has not been backed up by an appropriate budget. EUR 10 million divided by 27 countries, with no additional support from the Member States, will not pay for any high-profile or truly valuable cultural events. We should, however, hope that with the appropriate use of other programmes intended to fund cultural actions, and by involving representatives of civil society, non-governmental and religious organisations, schools, universities and especially the media, we will be able to join forces to achieve the ambitious aims for 2008 despite the modest and nominal budget. This would serve to make it a dialogue, rather than a money-saving cultural monologue.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE-DE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality. – (EL) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to start by thanking the rapporteur and draftsmen, because their work has highlighted all the aspects and possibilities of the Year of Intercultural Dialogue.

This initiative is directly interconnected with all the internal and external challenges of the European Union. Indeed, maintaining and strengthening the multicultural aspect of Europe is a decisive factor for its integration. At the same time, a dialogue of cultures and citizens from around the world – because it is the citizens who are the vehicle for the culture – is needed for peace and equilibrium.

The tradition of the European Union and our development goals are such that we need an open society of dialogue seeking common values with the citizens of other countries in our Member States in order to achieve mutual understanding, mutual respect and less discrimination.

On behalf of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality, I should like to stress the importance of our working within this framework in order to combat the discrimination suffered by women and to encourage their participation in all activities and initiatives relating to intercultural dialogue.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Doris Pack, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank my honourable colleague, Mrs Hennicot-Schoepges, for her outstanding work. Without wishing to cause offence to the Commissioner, I would like to say that she has very much enlivened what was originally a rather administrative proposal. But the Commission’s proposals always do leave room for improvement.

The European Parliament is a democratic forum in which political debate relates to the lives, everyday existence and concerns of the people. The geographical area of the European Union has not only seen the construction of cathedrals but was also the scene of the French Revolution and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen as well as the birthplace of the rule of law and of the welfare state.

The EU has a common cultural heritage and respects cultural diversity. That is why I wish to stress most emphatically that interreligious dialogue must be a major part of intercultural dialogue. If we want to promote intercultural dialogue, as we should, but fail to mention interreligious dialogue, then we are betraying it. We should see it not as a hindrance, but as a challenge, or even an opportunity to better our mutual understanding and to live together in harmony.

Given the current grappling with Islam, now is not the time for us to be ignorant of our roots, to deny and to disown them. We have our backs to the wall in this respect. We should speak confidently; only then can we enter into dialogue.

Education must also play an essential part in the action, on the European level as well as nationally and regionally. Civic education and initiatives designed to promote understanding of others in their diversity are a contribution to constructive and effective dialogue. Educational institutions in particular must play a role in this European Year. The European Year of Intercultural Dialogue also presents the opportunity to distribute teaching and learning materials on the various cultures.

Intercultural dialogue is extremely important politically; it is, however, only meaningful once it includes interreligious dialogue and education. Only then can it bear fruit, and only there lies the soul of such dialogue.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Maria Badia i Cutchet, on behalf of the PSE Group. (ES) Mr President, I would like to thank Mrs Hennicot-Schoepges for her work on this report. Tomorrow we will approve the report on the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue (2008), an initiative that will undoubtedly promote dialogue amongst all cultures and people of different origins residing in the European Union.

2008 will contribute to integration and cohesion within our societies, as well as peaceful governance throughout the international community. The aim is to make it possible to turn this diversity into an opportunity for everybody. The States and all competent levels of administration should promote educational policies based on values and respect for the diversity and equality of people, eradicating the prejudices that are often the cause of distrust and xenophobic attitudes. A firm and responsible approach is therefore required, aimed at promoting knowledge, cooperation, respect and mutual understanding.

This dialogue, however, must be based on the conviction that culture is made up of a whole range of very diverse values and traditions – including religious traditions – and respect for all cultural sensitivities and all religious beliefs, and I believe that the latter are a private matter for each individual.

This programme is clearly directed towards the members of the European Union, but, as I have said, in view of its importance in terms of world governance, it should complement the only world-level project for promoting intercultural dialogue that exists within the framework of the United Nations: the Alliance of Civilisations.

As you know, it was an initiative of the Spanish Prime Minister, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, and the Turkish Prime Minister, and it currently has the support of the United Nations as a whole.

I am convinced that, when this programme is applied, this complementarity will become clear, because in reality the two programmes must work together.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Jolanta Dičkutė, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (LT) The implementation of the programme for the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue will help to achieve the fundamental obligation of the European Union – to enable Member State cultures to flourish and highlight Europe's common cultural heritage.

As far as Lithuanian culture is concerned, I could give many examples which would interest every curious European. I will mention just two – cross crafting and the song festival traditions of the Baltic States, both included in UNESCO's cultural heritage list.

This project is also important because of demographic changes in Europe. As a result of emigration, we already have whole communities of Lithuanians in the United Kingdom, Ireland and Spain. These communities are quite closed. The cause – a lack of information and opportunities to become acquainted with the traditions and cultural differences of these countries.

I believe that every state must create conditions for residents to get to know the rich cultural heritage of the whole of Europe and common European values. This experience is essential if we want to strengthen active and open European citizenship.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Bernat Joan i Marí, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. Mr President, I wish to begin by thanking the rapporteur, Mrs Hennicot-Schoepges, for her work and for the way in which she performed it, by holding a dialogue with several Members and considering the different points of view. It has been a very good experience from which we have all benefited.

It is important to recognise cultural diversity in Europe – within each Member State, each society, each region and each nation – in order to achieve unity with diversity. That is our European point of view. We can only build European citizenship if we recognise this diversity and if everyone agrees on the same common project for Europe.

On religion and intercultural dialogue, we should understand that the recognition of religious values can only come through intercultural dialogue. Cultural diversity includes religious diversity, which must therefore form part of that dialogue.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Zdzisław Zbigniew Podkański, on behalf of the UEN Group. (PL) Mr President, intercultural dialogue is only possible when cultural diversity is defended and promoted, and when we regard European culture as the totality of its different cultures, different nations and different environments. Attempts to create a so-called ‘European culture’ as a universal and uniform culture for all will bring more losses than benefits.

The desire to eliminate the languages of nations which are smaller and thereby weaker within the European Union from the list of official languages and from legal communication, including business communication, is extremely detrimental to cultural dialogue. A particular aversion to the Slavonic languages and cultures can be observed. Evidence of this can be seen for example in the voting in the European Parliament on the report on the promotion of multilingualism and language learning.

It is often forgotten that languages and traditional culture are the mainstay on which national cultures survive and develop. There is a chronic lack of funding for protection of this wealth in the European Union. Funds are however available for large projects and for professional cultural events, whose scope sometimes even extends beyond Europe. In order to initiate a lasting cultural dialogue, equal opportunities and cultural partnership need to be maintained.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Nina Škottová (PPE-DE).(CS) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Year of Intercultural Dialogue is intended to help to foster harmony in the multicultural societies of the EU Member States. I would therefore have expected the proposal to place a major emphasis on involving the citizens in such dialogue. The way in which the project budget has been structured, however, does not suggest that that is the case. A total of EUR 10 million has been allocated, and structured on the basis of three types of action, according to level: points A) and B) at Community level together account for around EUR 7.5 million, or 75% of the budget, whereas point C) for actions at national level, provided they offer added European value, will only receive EUR 2.5 million. The sums awarded per State amount to EUR 100 000, that is to say, only 1% of the project budget will be earmarked for each State. The way in which the budget of this project has been structured would strongly indicate that the oft-proclaimed and highly ambitious ‘main aim of the project, to promote dialogue among all cultures and among everyone living in the European Union,’ will be difficult, if not impossible to fulfil. The reason for this is simple – a lack of financial resources to establish wide-ranging dialogue between people at national and at bilateral and multilateral international levels. Such contact could contribute most to the development of mutual respect, understanding and admiration on the basis of cultural understanding.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Andris Piebalgs, Member of the Commission. Mr President, first of all I would like to thank you for this debate. It is rather late, but it is a very important debate. I think we all agree on the importance of the intercultural dialogue. I would agree, as usual, that the Commission’s proposals have been improved by the work of rapporteurs and shadow rapporteurs in Parliament and we can be proud of this.

Regarding the budget, even if we were to invest the entire budget that the Community has for this purpose, it would not be enough. The issue is not about money, it is more about the idea, and we should push for financing for this to come from other sources as well. It should not be seen that such action is financed only by the Community budget. We are putting forward as much money as we can afford. I agree that the amount could be larger, but this is the amount of money set aside for this purpose.

At the same time, once again I would like to defend the budget that we have allocated for communication and information purposes. This is a crucial element. What is most important is not so much co-financing, despite that being an important issue, but rather providing information and guiding the process with the Member States involved.

I would therefore ask for your understanding with regard to the amount we attribute. It is not because we do not value this, but because the budget is limited and the Community should not finance 100% of all the actions that the Union is proposing. Other sources should also be used.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  President. The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Thursday at 11.00 a.m.

 
Legal notice - Privacy policy