Islam and the West: Annual Report on the State of Dialogue

s
Box 3.1
Three Simple Questions
Jan Petersen
Norway’s Minister of Foreign Affairs from 2001 to 2004, Jan Petersen is a member of <strong>the</strong> Norwegian Parliament.
He led <strong>the</strong> country’s Conservative Party from 1994-2004.
It is a crowded field. Countless seminars, meetings, working groups, reports <strong>and</strong> articles deal with interfaith, intercultural
<strong>and</strong> <strong>West</strong>-<strong>Islam</strong>ic dialogue. This is hardly surprising as some of today’s most fundamental challenges are linked to <strong>the</strong>
topics at issue: <strong>the</strong> integration of Muslim communities into western societies, tolerance <strong>and</strong> underst<strong>and</strong>ing, violent
fundamentalism <strong>and</strong> historical injustices.
What has surprised me, as a long-time elected politician, is how little impact all of this dialogue has on <strong>the</strong> political
agenda <strong>and</strong> how little of <strong>the</strong> vast knowledge <strong>and</strong> wisdom benefiting those who participate in dialogue gets through to
awiderpublic.
Why is this? Some answers may lie with three simple questions.
First, why do I meet so few fellow decision-makers in dialogue meetings? Politicians are not easy to engage simply
because <strong>the</strong>ir schedules are too full. But <strong>the</strong>y hold <strong>the</strong> keys to public awareness <strong>and</strong> to political action. Every organizer
should make an extra effort to enlist some politicians in <strong>the</strong>ir work. The dialogue circuit is too full of people too far
from decision-making. In this way, decision-makers will pick up facts that are vital to underst<strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> challenges, such
as how diverse <strong>Islam</strong> really is.
Second, why do I come from dialogue meetings with so few ideas for concrete action? Participating has been a
wonderful learning experience for me. But still, I am frustrated by so much vagueness, so many academic details, so
many fine <strong>the</strong>ological points – so little I can use when I get home to my parliament. Do not expect decision-makers to
attend just for <strong>the</strong> pleasure of some new knowledge. They need that <strong>and</strong> something <strong>the</strong>y can use – now!
It should not be that difficult to focus on issues closer to <strong>the</strong> political agenda – human rights principles, rule of law,
<strong>the</strong> rights of <strong>the</strong> individual <strong>and</strong> democracy, for example. Or perhaps concrete exploration as to why so many in <strong>the</strong>
Muslim world see <strong>the</strong>mselves as victims.
Third, interfaith dialogue is an indispensable part of <strong>the</strong> dialogue, but is it overshadowing <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r aspects? Religion
is a fundamental part of who we are, but perhaps we have a tendency to let religion explain more than it can <strong>and</strong> should.
We politicians – <strong>and</strong> religious leaders as well – should be much clearer on when religion ends <strong>and</strong> where politics begin.
<strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>West</strong>: <strong>Annual</strong> <strong>Report</strong> on <strong>the</strong> State of Dialogue International Politics
29