Speech by Wael Saleh<\/p>\n
27 October, 2023, webinar “The challenges of universal fraternity”<\/p>\n
Translation<\/em><\/p>\n Introduction A geopolitically volatile environment filled with conflicts and fluctuations. <\/p>\n The shift from “globalization” to “buffering” in a networked world.<\/p>\n In our contemporary world, there are multiple types of isolation.<\/p>\n Firstly, geographical isolation or the proliferation of barriers and isolation zones. The third challenge facing human brothers is: International experts confirm that the future belongs to the continent of Asia. This is because 60% of the world’s population is from Asia, 64% of maritime shipments come from Asia, 60% of inventions originate from Asia, and 48% of international students are from Asia. These factors make Asia a prosperous continent capable of surpassing the West burdened with problems. We take, for example, the dialogue between Islam and Christianity, or between Muslims and Christians, to understand and apply this new approach. And we ask the following questions: 2.2 Overcoming Scientific Imperialism and Relativism. 3.2 Post-Arab Spring Studies: A Critique of Post-Colonial Studies. Some members of the post-colonialist movement have taken to adopting the absolute adoption of the statements of Islamist institutions and considering them as the essence of Islam itself, claiming that this allows Arabs and Muslims to express themselves on their own terms, without being judged from a Western cultural and philosophical perspective. They treat Islamism as the sole representative of that culture and religion, as if the various currents, factions, and other groups in post-colonial societies are a singular entity without any diversity. This intervention aimed to contribute to that approach in its own way, through conducting a geopolitical analysis of the key determinants of opportunities and challenges posed by the context of our contemporary world on the document of human fraternity and the application of its principles in reality on one hand, and on the other hand, theorizing new approaches through which we can surpass the traditional approaches that, from our perspective, contribute to perpetuating the obstacles of human brotherhood and dialogue among humans instead of attempting to overcome them. In this context, we looked at new approaches, the most important of which is the “dialogue between ethical-onto-epistemological visions” (Inter Ethico-onto-epistemological dialogue). And from here arises the main question that Diego Sarrio Cocarilla, dean of the Pontifical Institute for Arab and Islamic Studies in Rome, will pose at the opening of the academic conference of the University Platform in collaboration with the Trends Research Center next February here in Abu Dhabi: its utmost importance – “The Document on Human Fraternity: A Roadmap towards a Better Future or an Impossible Utopia?”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":28425,"template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"date_tournage":"","lieu":"","nature_evenement":"","vt_type":"Webinaire","vt_yt_views":159},"video_collection":[869],"class_list":["post-28354","videos","type-videos","status-publish","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","video_collection-webinaires-pluriel"],"date_tournage":"","yoast_head":"\n
\nThe concept of human brotherhood is crystallized in the global bond that connects all humans. It brings together what different religions, political affiliations, ethnicities and races, and social classes have divided. Humans are brothers in terms of gender, sex, and dignity, and everyone aspires to justice, equality, security, and happiness.
\nHuman brotherhood is what can achieve social and global solidarity in the face of common human challenges and support threatened peace in the world, and change the conflictual relationships between religions, cultures, and major civilizations into relationships based on dialogue, convergence, and brotherhood.
\nSince its adoption as a UN initiative following the historic meeting between His Eminence the Grand Imam Sheikh Ahmed Al-Tayeb, the Sheikh of Al-Azhar, and Pope Francis, the head of the Catholic Church, here in Abu Dhabi on February 4, 2019, the “Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together” has played a significant role in promoting understanding between different cultures. It is a call for solidarity among all humans, which is what our world needs most today.
\nHowever, the world today is witnessing profound transformations in the structure of international relations, which will impact the opportunities of that document. Among these transformations are demographic, environmental, and economic shifts. Thus, the world has experienced three significant events in human history, namely the Arab Spring (2011), the COVID-19 pandemic (2019), and the Russian-Ukrainian war (2022).
\nMost international reports anticipate that the world is unlikely to be better than it is now. The systems, approaches, institutions, and regimes that have dominated the world since the end of World War II will be drained and face significant difficulties in responding to “upcoming global challenges,” including climate change, pandemics, economic and financial crises, and the effects of advanced technology. Therefore, conflicts within and between countries are expected to worsen, posing a complex challenge that will reshape the map of international relations and interactions, thus reshaping the world in the coming years.
\nAnd the picture becomes even bleaker as our contemporary world gradually transitions from a state of “globalization” to a state that can be called the “Buffered World” or the “Isolated World.” This is achieved through various forms of isolation, including geographical, economic, digital, cultural, and mental isolation.
\nOn the other hand, it seems to us that the prevailing trend in studies related to the field of human brotherhood is still captive to approaches that have been surpassed by time, and events have proven their inability to address the phenomena associated with human brotherhood, including “interfaith dialogue” or “dialogue between cultures”… etc.
\nIn this context, this intervention attempts to provide a geopolitical reading of the main determinants of the opportunities and challenges posed by the Document on Human Fraternity in our contemporary world, before theorizing a new approach that can maximize opportunities and overcome the geopolitical and epistemological challenges that hinder the establishment of principles of human fraternity and their implementation in reality.
\nIn the first part of the intervention, we will address:
\nThe most important geopolitical determinants of the opportunities and challenges of “human fraternity”.<\/p>\n
\nNumerous serious reports confirm that many countries will face numerous difficulties and challenges in building upon what has been achieved in the past few decades in the paths of human development at the following levels: health, education, and family prosperity. This is due to the difficulties of sustaining or exacerbating difficulties, such as pandemics, slow global economic growth, population aging, the effects of escalating conflicts in many parts of the world, and climate change.
\nThese factors will pose a challenge for governments around the world in providing essential services related to vital areas.
\nIn the field of environment, most international reports, including the National Intelligence Council’s (NIC) report on the shape of the world in 2040, agree that “the physical impacts of climate change are likely to intensify in the next two decades, especially in the 2030s, and the world will witness more temperature rise, severe storms, droughts, floods, and melting of glaciers, accompanied by rising sea levels” in many geographical regions of the world.
\nOn the economic level, the national debt of most countries will increase over the next two decades, and the global business environment will become more complex and fragmented. Global trade will undergo radical transformations and new disruptions in the employment sector, and economic conditions within and between countries will change. We will witness new and diverse trade rules, as well as a wider range of government entities and influential companies.
\nAccording to the report by the National Intelligence Council (NIC), at the individual and societal levels, fragmentation and divisions within communities will increase on various economic, cultural, and political issues. Rapid social and technological changes will make large sectors of the global population resent institutions and governments they perceive as unwilling or unable to meet their needs. People will increasingly gravitate towards groups, organizations, and institutions that are familiar to them and share their traditional beliefs, including identity-based, religious, and cultural groups, as well as interest-based and issue-specific coalitions, such as environmental protection. Growing identity loyalties on one hand, and isolated information environments on the other, will exacerbate rifts within states, undermining their nationalism and civil society, leading to increased volatility.
\nAt the national level, the report anticipates that relations between societies and their governments in most regions of the world are likely to face ongoing tensions due to the increasing mismatch between public needs and expectations, and what governments can and will actually deliver. This wide gap between people and governments threatens further political instability, erosion of democracy, and the expansion of alternative governance providers from non-state actors. Over time, these dynamics may open the door to more significant transformations in how people are governed beyond 2023.
\nAt the international level, the report believes that it is unlikely for one state to dominate the global system or most areas of knowledge. In this context, a wider range of actors will compete to shape the new global system.
\nThe report predicts that in this context, international powers will once again reshape the standards, laws, and global institutions related to international relations. The report also anticipates that regional powers and non-governmental actors will exert more influence and leadership in issues left uncontrolled by major powers, and that these diverse interactions may lead to a geopolitical environment more prone to conflict and volatility, undermining global pluralism and expanding the scope of disagreement between states.
\nAnd undoubtedly, this context will undoubtedly affect the state of human brotherhood, and I do not want to be pessimistic. Rather, I hope that this context will maximize opportunities for human brotherhood, not the opposite as expected.<\/p>\n
\nThe process of “opening” borders, which had made significant progress in turning the world into a small village without boundaries, has now transformed into a process of “hardening” borders, completely contradicting the discourse of globalization. This has created a second generation of walls in international relations that are even more restrictive and rigid than traditional barriers.
\nOne of the prominent examples of geographical isolation or segregation in our contemporary world is the following: the isolation zones between Morocco and Spain, and between North Korea and South Korea, the isolation zones in Tunisia on its southern and western borders, the Saudi wall along the Saudi-Iraqi border, between Greece and Turkey, the “peace line” that separates Catholics and Protestants in Belfast, Northern Ireland, the isolation and segregation zones between India and Bangladesh, the wall around the Ein El-Hilweh Palestinian refugee camp in Lebanon, the apartheid wall in Israel, and the Hungarian wall along its border with Serbia. It is likely that walls, barriers, and isolation zones will continue to proliferate in the near future.
\nSecondly, geopolitical isolation: or isolation without walls.
\nOne of the most prominent examples of geopolitical isolation is Ukraine, which was used by Western politicians as a “buffer zone” between Russian and Western spheres of influence. It can be said that the Russo-Ukrainian war, which ignited in early 2022, is for the Russians a process of imposing a counter-buffer zone against Russia with Europe, but on Russian terms, after the United States ignited Ukraine to a degree that perhaps forced Russian President Putin to invade Ukraine, according to the Russian narrative.
\nThirdly, economic isolation or the art of eliminating economic competition.
\nNew protected areas are multiplying in the contemporary capitalist economy, which is now referred to as “the art of removing competition” or protectionism. This is a result of “the fact that the global economic system has undergone radical changes in recent years, coinciding with major technological revolutions that have had a significant impact on the shape of wars and conflicts, turning them into trade and economic wars practiced by countries against each other.”
\nFourthly, social isolation… or open borders – closed communities or wavering liberalism and immigration restrictions.
\nThe behaviors of rejecting globalization and embracing isolationism quickly shifted from governments and states to the people, with some of them aligning themselves with their governments’ efforts. In turn, they became unwilling to be open to the outside world or to the other residing within.
\nFifthly, cultural isolation or the shift of “Western cultural decline” to a “geographical decline” of Europe.
\nWe can say that the United States of America, along with Britain, are moving towards a phase that reverses the “Marshall Plan”, which was the economic project allocated by the United States to rebuild Europe after the end of World War II. In other words, they are using the rest of Europe as a cultural and intellectual buffer zone in their attempt to shorten the expected “civilizational decline” of the non-Anglo-Saxon West on Europe. The incident of Australia canceling the purchase of 12 French submarines for the benefit of the United States is a prime example of this.
\nSixthly, digital or cyber isolation: from the “Great Wall of China” to the “Great Cyber Wall”.
\nOne of the most prominent examples of “digital isolation” or “cyber isolation” in our contemporary world is the so-called “Great Electronic Wall”, which is a giant digital firewall built between 1996 and 1997 by the Chinese government, with the assistance of several specialized cybersecurity companies. The purpose of this wall is to establish a barrier between the “Chinese Internet” and the “World Wide Web”, allowing close monitoring of the internet in China and blocking unwanted foreign websites through a constantly updated blacklist.
\nSeventhly, mental isolation: or from physical isolation areas to mental isolation areas.
\nOne of the most important methods of mental isolation in our contemporary world is what is now known as “post-truth”, which has been produced by manipulation of information and misleading disinformation. This will remain a major problem and a long-term challenge even in the face of issues of dialogue, human brotherhood, and the strongest democracies, because it isolates citizens from the reality of their country and society, even when it is present within them.<\/p>\n
\n3.1 The Implications of the Western Model in Governance
\nThe decline of the West has become a widely discussed topic in academic circles, and it seems to hold some truth. A recent opinion poll, published in late 2022 under the title “Which populations in the world feel that their country is heading in the wrong direction?”, revealed that 83% of the British, 72% of Americans, 71% of Germans, and 64% of Canadians are dissatisfied with the performance of their governments and feel that their countries are not on the right track.
\nOn the other hand, in the eyes of many non-Western countries, the main reasons for the erosion of the legitimacy of the Western liberal system in the world lie in the absence of further measures by the multilateral institutions in this system to confront the challenges of the world today, which threatens the opportunities for economic development in those countries and the increasing risks of poverty, extremism, and conflict.
\nThere is no doubt that the decline of the global system based on globalization, led by the West, will inevitably lead, even temporarily, to the deterioration of international institutions and increased diplomatic tensions between countries. Therefore, major world powers will increasingly seek to protect themselves from the economic, security, and political activities of their adversaries, which will result in these countries circumventing or bypassing the international norms that were agreed upon. This will diminish the importance of international institutions such as the United Nations and its organizations, as well as other organizations like the World Trade Organization.
\nThe fourth challenge facing humanity at the geopolitical level is:
\nThe shift of power to Asia in a multipolar world.<\/p>\n
\nIn this regard, many literary works state that the world has become multipolar, and that Asia will play a leading role in this new system.
\nAt the end of this section, we would like to draw attention to the fact that the responses of countries to this context will determine the development of the world for at least the next decade.
\nIt seems that the most likely scenarios to occur, based on what has been explained in this study, are further isolation (geographical, economic, digital, mental, and cultural).
\nOnce again, we reiterate that there is no doubt that this context will undoubtedly affect the state of human brotherhood. I do not want to be pessimistic and hope that this context will maximize the opportunities for human brotherhood, rather than the opposite as expected.
\nWe, as researchers, have nothing in our hands except to provide what can be offered in our field, which is knowledge and approaches that can potentially improve the context of human brotherhood in the future.
\nThe second part of the intervention, as we mentioned earlier, will focus on:
\nIn the necessity of new approaches to understand the opportunities and challenges of “human fraternity”.
\nSince the idea of dialogue for human brotherhood usually relies on dialogue between religions or between members of religions, civilizations, or cultures, the desired approach must reconsider the foundations of dialogue for human brotherhood in a way that is consistent with the reality of today’s world and can overcome the contemporary challenges that hinder the realization of the impact of the concept of human brotherhood on the ground.
\nIn this context, we will present a new approach, which is “the dialogue between ethical-ontological-cognitive visions”.
\nInter Ethico-onto-epistemological dialogue
\nAny new approach must overcome obstacles related to other academic approaches, which in themselves represent a hurdle. The most important of these are “scientific imperialism and loose relativism” on one hand, and the occupation of a stream of researchers in post-colonial studies and their misuse outside of their initial noble intent on the other hand, which I will discuss in detail in the remaining time I have.
\nWe now separate the first components of the new approach.
\nTowards a Dialogue between Ethical, Ontological, and Epistemological Perspectives.
\nInter Ethico-onto-epistemological dialogue<\/p>\n
\nDialogue between whom and about what?
\nUsually, dialogic approaches to achieve human brotherhood are based on the idea that “there are blocs that are not only presented as homogeneous and united, but also completely distinct from other blocs.” For example, we find terms like “dialogue between Christianity and Islam.” Is there only one Islam? Can Islam be reduced to one current or even two or three currents? How does Islam generally present itself, for example, as a political religion, as claimed by Islamists and influential factions working in the field of Islamic studies and dialogue studies? Hasn’t there been, since its inception until now, in Islam, currents that call for the separation between the religious and political domains?
\nHave we not learned yet that it is not appropriate to compare Islam, at a specific moment in its development, to another moment in time of a different culture (Christianity) that had already passed that moment long ago? And to paint that culture as if it was born with what it has reached now?
\nIn conclusion, the connection between the political and the religious exists in all religions, as confirmed by writings such as “God’s Revenge: Fundamentalism in the Three Religions” by Gilles Kepel. Fundamentalism in Christianity, Islam, and Judaism has almost the same view of the world and the same hostility towards the separation of religion and state. Additionally, there are other currents in all religions that represent different types of relationship between the religious and the political.
\nIn this context, the question is posed as follows: which Islam and Christianity are we referring to when discussing the issue of dialogue between the two religions? Is there no common ground, despite the religious differences, between the extremists on both sides in their view of the relationship between religion and politics on one hand, and those who believe in the necessity of separating the religious and the political at least in the public sphere on the other?
\nThe effective approach in this context, then, is for the dialogue to be based on foundations other than or alongside religion, such as a dialogue between the moral-ethical and cognitive perspectives found in all religions, cultures, and civilizations in a diverse and varied manner. The truth is that there are multiple moral-ethical and cognitive perspectives within all religions, cultures, and civilizations.
\nLet’s take for example the figure presented before you, which illustrates the relationship between the religious and political spheres within each religion or religious culture. There are three main forms of this relationship: (1) total integration, (2) complete separation (at least at the level of the state), (3) overlap, as depicted in the figure. This is based on the idea that members of a religion have varying interpretations on all issues, with the relationship between politics and religion at its core.
\nThis diagram can help us understand the following:
\nMembers of any religion may need a starting point for dialogue among themselves before or alongside any dialogue with others, even if the dialogue is limited to religious grounds.
\nAny dialogue based solely on a religious perspective (without integrating ethical and cognitive dimensions) is a dialogue that is built on reduction and cannot encompass the full intellectual currents that make up the religious scene within each religion. Therefore, it is not representative and tends to lean towards imaginary stereotyping.
\nThose adherents of different religions who see the necessity of separating politics from religion may be closer to each other than their counterparts within the same religion who see the need for a connection between politics and religion.
\nThe dialogue, from a religious, reductionist perspective, can only contribute to the perpetuation of the problems at hand, making it often an obstacle to achieving the goals of the dialogue.
\nFrom the above, it is necessary to introduce a new legitimacy, such as the dialogue between ethical, ontological, and cognitive perspectives, which seeks to avoid all those apologetic slides and their negative repercussions on the reality of dialogue between humans and on human brotherhood.
\nBut what does dialogue between ethical-ontological perspectives mean?
\nThe term “ethico-onto-epistemology” was coined by the American philosopher and physicist Karen Barad, to indicate the impossibility of separating ethics, ontology, and epistemology when engaging in knowledge production (scientific) and scientific practices, and in formulating theories that explain the world. This approach can also include both human and non-human entities that actively shape the world (artificial intelligence and the environment).
\nThe ethical-cognitive theory of Parad is considered as a “quantum entanglement” that illustrates that dialogue with others cannot be limited to racial, ethnic, or religious perspectives only, nor can a religion, culture, or civilization be reduced to a particular current, even if it seems dominant.
\nIn every culture, religion, belief system, society, or civilization, there are diverse ethical-anthropological-cognitive trends that should be discussed first within each society and then among them at the international level. Moreover, the dialogue should encompass the context and environment in which humans live, enabling us to address topics such as climate, natural resources, artificial intelligence, quantum physics, etc.
\nGiven the available time, I will not be able to explain more than that on this matter. However, I intend to publish a research paper or a short study that delves deeper into this approach on the platform’s website and on the Trends website.<\/p>\n
\nIn our pursuit of maximizing the impact of the Document on Human Fraternity on the reality of our contemporary world, it is also necessary to avoid what we call “scientific imperialism”, which means considering that there is only one interpretation and that all other interpretations are wrong. This is one aspect. And to avoid relativism, that is, not falling into a kind of radical pacifism based on the idea of relativism, meaning the equality of interpretations regardless of their seriousness. According to Bernard Lahire in his book:
\nPlural world
\nThinking about the unity of social sciences<\/p>\n
\nPost-Arab Spring Studies<\/p>\n
\nAbout this deliberate distortion of the noble goals of the post-colonial movement (which was targeted by the founders of this movement, such as Edward Said) into a new form of Orientalism; by continuously framing the Arab and Islamic world in a way that fulfills the ambitions of dominant Western intellectual currents and their imagination and aspirations to impose their narrative, just like traditional Orientalism did.
\nIn this context, I propose what I call Post-Arab Spring Studies, with the aim of overcoming the illusion of modeling that represents a hindrance to any genuine dialogue that could lead to the consolidation and activation of the principles of the Human Fraternity Document. It also gives a real voice to Arabs to express their issues and study their phenomena without any imposed external approaches or methodologies that marginalize them and focus on their past instead of their present.
\nConclusion
\nIn one of his speeches before the French Academy, Amin Maalouf said: “Today, there is a wall in the Mediterranean separating the cultural spaces to which I belong… My ambition is to contribute to its demolition… It has always been the goal of my life and writings, and I will continue to strive for it alongside you.”<\/p>\n
\nInter \u00c9thico-onto-epistemological dialogue
\nPost-Arab Spring studies as an alternative to post-colonial studies.<\/p>\n