Nobel Peace Prize Laureates in the Frauenkirche Dresden - Frederik Willem de Klerk

frauenkirche

They are builders of peace: Nobel Peace Prize Laureates. Thus, the rebuilt Frauenkirche in Dresden invites them to share their experiences working towards world peace taking part in a lecture series. In 2017, the former President of South Africa, Frederik Willem de Klerk, presented his ideas on the question "What must we do today to make the world more peaceful in twenty years’ time?" This publication records the speech and other accompanying events such as a schools competition.

FREDERIK WILLEM DE KLERK

Former President

of the Republic of South Africa

ACCOMMODATING

DIVERSITY

Nobel Peace Prize Laureates in the Frauenkirche Dresden—3 April 2017

EN


NOBEL PEACE PRIZE LAUREATES

IN THE FRAUENKIRCHE DRESDEN

2017 Frederik Willem de Klerk

2016 Ahmet Üzümcü

2014 Mohamed ElBaradei

2010 Martti Ahtisaari


Content

INTRODUCTION

04

The Lecture Series

Nobel Peace Prize Laureates in the

Frauenkirche Dresden

Frederik Willem de Klerk

06 The Man who Ended Apartheid

PEACE SPEECH

10

Welcome

Bishop Dr Carsten Rentzing

12

Greeting

Prime Minister Stanislaw Tillich

14

Welcome Address

“Seek the Welfare of the City”

Federal Minister Dr Thomas de Maizière

20

Nobel Peace Prize Lecture

“Accommodating Diversity in a Shrinking World:

the Main Challenge to Peace in the 21 st Century”

Former President of the Republic of South Africa

Frederik Willem de Klerk

PEACE COMPETITION

32

The Peace Competition

“Students Meet Nobel Peace Prize Winners”

34

The Winning Entries

Overview of the Prizewinning Contributions

38

Exploring Visions

Impressions of the Theme Day for the Competition Winners

46

Peace is Synonymous with Happiness

Interview with two Participants of the Peace Competition

IMPULSES

The Importance of Diversity

50 Dr Sylke Tempel †

54

The Contribution of the Economy for

Peace in Africa

Dr Stefan Liebing

2 3


Introduction

The Lecture Series:

Nobel Peace Prize Laureates

in the Frauenkirche Dresden

Sebastian Feydt

Reverend of the Frauenkirche

What do we have to do today to make the world a (more)

peaceful place in 20 years’ time? This guiding question

of our event series had been inspired by a speech in the

Frauenkirche given by the former Finnish Prime Minister

Martti Ahtissari in late 2010. Following this incentive, the

Frauenkirche Dresden Foundation has invited a number of

Nobel Peace Prize Laureates to share their questions and

ideas in this regard.

On the one hand, this event series straightforwardly

personifies the statutable mission of the Foundation. The

Frauenkirche is therein defined as a landmark “urging us to

strive for tolerance and peace between nations and religions”

and as a place teaching us about practicing reconciliation and

understanding. At the same time, such an invitation to the

peace-makers of our time is true to the tradition of Alfred

Nobel and the prize he created: Individuals who significantly

and continuously strive for understanding among nations

and promote peace forums shall be honoured, esteemed, and

supported in their endeavours.

Following prior lectures by Dr Mohamed ElBaradei, the

former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency

IAEA, and Ahmet Üzümcü, Director General of the

Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons,

OPCW, we were honored to welcome the former President of

the Republic of South Africa, H.E. Frederik Willem de Klerk,

to the Frauenkirche in spring 2017. Together with Nelson

Mandela he had received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1993 for

their work to peacefully put an end to the apartheid regime

and to laying the foundations of a new, democratic South

Africa.

A quarter of a century later, similarities between South

Africa and Germany are still clearly apparent. For the

South African Nobel Peace Prize winner they form a bridge

leading to Dresden’s deeply symbolic peace landmark, the

Frauenkirche: Above all an irresistible desire for freedom

moved the people and was—most essentially—the driving

force behind the peaceful political transition of 1989-1990,

both in Europe as well as in the southern part of the African

continent. This desire for freedom led to peaceful revolutions

in Europe and to the fall of the Iron Curtain. To the people

of South Africa it offered a chance to tread a path towards

rebuilding their country in a collaborative and united way.

Apart from his public speech underneath the dome of the

Frauenkirche and personal encounters with experts and

guests of honour it was in particular the meeting with

university and high school students that provided Frederik

Willem de Klerk with the opportunity to discuss with the

younger generation. The core topic of this mutual fruitful

exchange evolved again around the series' guiding question

to define the very specific steps to be taken today to make

our world more peaceful.

The Frauenkirche Dresden Foundation documents—with

tremendous gratitude and great pleasure—with the publication

at hand both the commitment and inspirational ideas of

Nobel Peace Prize winner Frederik Willem de Klerk but also

the contributions made by selected guests at this year’s event.

Most of all, it once again emphasizes the combined efforts of

responsible leaders today involved to strike a chord for peace

in a dialogue with the future generations.

4 5


Introduction

Frederik Willem de Klerk:

The Man who Ended

Apartheid

Grit Jandura

Frauenkirche Dresden Foundation

Over a quarter of a century ago, Frederik

Willem de Klerk held a speech in the South

African parliament which was to bring about

fundamental changes in his country. The speech

had been preceded by a process of inner

recorientation. What followed was a

transformation of society.

The annual opening of the South African parliament had

always attracted a lot of interest but this time—on 2 February

1990—expectations were sky high. Would Frederik Willem

de Klerk, newly elected just two months before, announce

the release of Nelson Mandela?

In fact he did announce this decision. But the plans he

revealed in his landmark speech were more sweeping by far.

The land of which he was currently President was isolated

both politically and economically and in a state of social

upheaval. It required nothing less than what he later termed

a “paradigm shift” to turn around the fate of a proud nation:

So much was clear to this pragmatically thinking and wisely

operating politician.

Yet the vehemence with which he approached and organised

the democratisation of South Africa surprised many observers

and experts. The qualified lawyer who was born 1936 in

Johannesburg was admittedly reputed to be an experienced

politician but was also said to be somewhat of a conservative.

His character shaped by a family with manifold involvement

in the country’s political life, de Klerk was first elected to

parliament at the age of 36 and he was 42 when he first

headed a government department. Under President Pieter

6 7


Introduction

Chapter

Willem Botha he rose in 1985 to the position of Chairman of

the Minister’s Council and in 1986 to leader of the National

Assembly. In 1989 he took over from Botha as party leader

and later as President. As he approached the speaker’s

rostrum in February 1990, only a few people knew of his

growing conviction, reinforced by his Christian beliefs,

that a fundamental change of course would be required.

In his historic speech he articulated the aim of introducing

a completely new and just constitution, under which every

inhabitant of South Africa would enjoy “equal rights,

treatment and opportunity in every sphere of endeavour—

constitutional, social and economic”. He was advocating

nothing less than the ending of apartheid policies.

Announcements were soon followed by deeds: De Klerk

allowed political opposition and freed political prisoners.

He revoked the state of emergency. He suspended the death

sentence and invalidated limitations on trade unions and

the media. It was because of him that 69 percent of the

white population in 1992 voted for the reform process in a

referendum and that a democratic transitional constitution

came into effect in 1993. This constitution was the basis for

the first free elections in 1994 which the ANC won by a clear

margin and which made Nelson Mandela President.

Frederik de Klerk became one of two Vice Presidents in

the “Government of National Unity”. Until his departure

in 1996 he gave full support to the negotiation of the final

constitution which came into force in 1997. The FW de Klerk

Foundation which he still heads today set itself the goal of

achieving acceptance within society for this constitution by

means of ongoing dialogue and concerted effort.

Frederik Willem de Klerk has received numerous prestigious

honours and awards for his work. Particularly noteworthy is

of course the Nobel Peace Prize awarded jointly to him and

Nelson Mandela for their “work for the peaceful termination

of the apartheid regime and for laying the foundations for a

8 9


Peace speech

Chapter

Welcome

Dr Carsten Rentzing

Regional Bishop of the Lutheran Church of Saxony

Chairman of the Board of of Trustees

of the Frauenkirche Dresden Foundation

We do not choose the setting in which our events take

place. Once again we hear terrible news that is being spread

through our country: a cowardly attack in St. Petersburg;

maybe ten casualties, dozens of wounded. This world

and the human heart need peace and reconciliation. Let

us commemorate the victims of today with a moment of

silence.

At this place that bears your name, Lord,

we ask you for your mercy for this world

and for all people. We ask you to give us

the peace in our midst that you promised

to us. Amen.

Excellence Mr de Klerk, Minister Dr de Maizière, State

Premier Mr Tillich, Mayor of Dresden Mr Hilbert, dear

students, ladies and gentlemen,

The Lord says “I will give you a new heart and put a new

spirit in you” (Ezekiel 36:26). With these words of this year’s

biblical watchword I would like to welcome you warmly to

Dresden’s Frauenkirche to an evening that has become a

good tradition: the speech of the Nobel Peace Prize laureate.

After 2010, 2014, and 2016 we again have the pleasure of

welcoming a Nobel Peace Prize laureate who inspires us with

his vision of a peaceful world. This is why it is both a pleasure

and an honour to welcome you, Mr de Klerk, along with your

wife, to the city of Dresden.

A new heart, a new spirit that has been placed within us: It

almost seems as if this year’s watchword had been chosen

for tonight. This is precisely what it is all about: In view of

the speech by the Nobel Peace Prize laureate we welcome a

person who was given a new heart, a new spirit and a new

perspective—first for South Africa and then for the entire

world. Having originally been a defender of Apartheid you

fundamentally altered the course of direction. Unforgettably,

your discussion with the reverend at the sea was where it all

began: the realization “Things cannot stay the way they are”

and the concern “The country could end up in civil war”.

All of this became clear to you and out of this the will arose

to correct the course: instead of apartheid, focusing on the

dignity of every individual; instead of violence, embracing

peace and reconciliation.

Your fellow citizens were motivated to change in favour of

mutual understanding. There is always a point where you

can correct your course and begin anew. Accordingly, during

your time as President of the Republic of South Africa from

1989 until 1994, it was your heartfelt wish that this new spirit

would become the source of hope for your country. Together

with Nelson Mandela you were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize

in 1993. This gave and continues to give us here in Europe,

in Germany and in Dresden courage—especially in times

of global change. As the Chief Curator of the Frauenkirche

Dresden Foundation I welcome you warmly in this church.

We are looking forward to your message of peace tonight.

10 11


Chapter

Peace speech

Greeting

Stanislaw Tillich

Prime Minister of the Free State of Saxony

On behalf of the Saxon Government, I would like once

again to welcome you, President de Klerk, to our Free State

of Saxony. I would also like to add that your visit here in

Dresden is a great honor for us; it is a special occasion for us

to listen to you, your political ideas and your experience.

1989 was a special year in the history of Germany, but also

the history of South Africa. Here in this region, the world

was watching Eastern Germany. Where a spirit of optimism

and change laid in the air, where the end of the Cold War

seemed within reach. Where people had the courage to take

to the streets and to make themselves heard in support of

freedom, democracy, and justice. There were Saxon cities

such as Plauen, Dresden and Leipzig, where this movement

started. It ended in the Peaceful Revolution and consequently

in German reunification, which counts among the happiest

hours of our history. And in these extraordinary times

in 1989 and 1990, the world was also watching South

Africa. Throughout the course of the 1980s, it had become

increasingly clear that the country had to change and that

the system of apartheid did not have a future. You, President

de Klerk, realized that when you became President of South

Africa in 1989. You had the courage to be a leader and to

initiate the change in your country so as to lead it into a

better future. Your speech in Parliament in February 1990,

in which you announced far-reaching political reforms, was

the turning point in South Africa. It was to be a long road full

of challenges, of course. And it was a political task fraught

with great uncertainty. Many people wondered if peaceful

coexistence would be possible after the long history of conflict

in your country.

You, Mr de Klerk, provided an answer, together with

Nelson Mandela, who would succeed you in the office of

president. You trusted in the power of reconciliation and

compromise. The fact that you chose such a path and

led your country into a new and better future is an

outstanding political achievement for which you were

awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1993. One year later,

the first democratic elections indeed marked the end of

violence in South Africa and paved the way for peaceful

coexistence in your country.

This reveals the true power of reconciliation and

compromise, of freedom and democracy. We should always

remember this when we deal with crises and conflicts today

and in the future. This is what we should trust in if we stand

up for human rights within the framework of international

collaboration and a peaceful world. And when shaping

our lives and coexistence here in Germany and Europe,

then respect, tolerance, and openness should guide us,

irrespective of the color of one’s skin, one’s culture, or one’s

religion.

President de Klerk, our countries are united by the time

of change in the years 1989 and 1990. Here in Germany, we

follow the developments of your country with great interest.

Certainly, many of us were impressed with how South Africa

showed itself to be a modern, diverse, and hospitable country

in 2010, when you hosted the Football World Cup. Of course,

South Africa today still faces huge challenges. I am confident,

however, that we Europeans, through good international

cooperation and economic cooperation, can contribute to

meeting them.

12 13


Chapter

Peace speech

Seek the Welfare

of the City

Welcome address by

Dr Thomas de Maizière

Federal Minister of the Interior

Distinguished Mr Frederik de Klerk, Bishop,

Minister President, Mayor, guests,

What was on your mind when you came to the Frauenkirche

tonight? You were probably looking forward to Frederik

de Klerk—meeting the former president of a country like

South Africa, steeped in history, is far from a daily occurrence.

And that is wonderful. And therefore I welcome you

on behalf of the Federal Government, the Chancellor, and

the Federal Foreign Minister. I am very pleased that you

came to Dresden today.

Perhaps you, dear guests, bring other questions and

expectations here tonight to the Frauenkirche. And perhaps

you are also thinking about the motto of today’s event: “What

do we have to do today, in concrete terms, to ensure that the

world is more peaceful in 20 years’ time?”

The Dresden Frauenkirche is unique in many ways. You have

likely learned about it on a guided tour. It has quite a remark-

able dome with eight bells, which give this church its distinctive

voice. One of the bells—the city bell Jeremiah—has a

biblical inscription. And it reads as follows: “Seek the Welfare

of the City”. This quote is more than two thousand years old

and comes from the book of the prophet Jeremiah.

“Seek the welfare of the city.” This is both a mandate and a

warning. Whoever seeks the welfare of the city is willing to

take responsibility. Whoever seeks the welfare of the city is

looking towards the future. And whoever seeks the welfare of

the city is focused on the common good. These three principles

have guided you, Mr de Klerk, in your political career.

The Church of our Lady is also a historical memorial—

especially for our East-West German history. Helmut Kohl,

who, by the way, celebrated his birthday today, delivered a

speech in December 1989 standing in front of the rubble of

the Frauenkirche. This was his key speech on the path toward

German reunification. Merely a 13-hour flight away and

only a few weeks later, on February 2, 1990, you delivered

your famous speech on the abolition of apartheid. It is to this

14 15


Peace speech

Chapter

day simply known as “The Speech”. And shortly aferwards,

you released Nelson Mandela from more than 27 years of

captivity.

Sometimes history presents itself:

in different places,

and in different guises,

but with a similar core.

In two different locations—in Germany and South Africa—

a wall came down; it was dismantled. In Germany, this

was quite literally the case, and in South Africa, it was a

metaphorical wall. But it was no coincidence that these two

historic turning points happened around the same time, as

you have stressed again and again. The point in time to tear

down the “wall” in the heads of the South Africans was also

possible because with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end

of the Cold War, there was no need to fear that South Africa

could become communist after the end of apartheid.

In both countries, it was thanks to the courageous and

unwavering protest of the population—black South Africans

and demonstrators in the GDR—that the walls were

dismantled both concretely and mentally. But in addition

to that, it was also thanks to prominent figures such you,

Mr de Klerk, such as Nelson Mandela, Mikhail Gorbachev,

Helmut Kohl and many others, who recognized the sign of

the times, seized the right moment and acted decisively.

This certainly came with a risk. In both cases, it required

courage and determination to break down entrenched

patterns and structures. And for you, Mr de Klerk, it also

came with the burden of solitary decisions, when even

against objections in your own ranks, you, together with

Nelson Mandela, led your country out of apartheid.

Despite the many similarities that exist between our two

countries, there is one central difference as well: The path

leading out of apartheid was difficult and sometimes violent,

and in some cases it was bloody and difficult. We can

consider ourselves fortunate that the change in the GDR

came about without violence. I am still very grateful for

this peaceful autumn of change. And I think standing in a

church, it is appropriate to say, “Thank God”.

Both histories of dismantled walls also have something else

in common: After the elation, the euphoria, the many tears

of joy, the liberation—the really hard work had only just

begun. As we say, this is when push came to shove. Where

walls made of concrete or laws had been torn down, very

often new walls made of arrogance, prejudice, the disparity

between poor and rich were erected. It takes much longer to

dismantle walls like that. We in Germany experienced that

in the years following the reunification. You, Mr de Klerk,

in the South African post-apartheid state, had a much more

vivid and even more painful experience.

So, how can you overcome such obstacles?

I believe three things can help:

First: We need to trust in young people. It was pupils who, in

Soweto in Johannesburg, took to the streets in the 1970s to

protest against the mandatory introduction of Afrikaans into

their school curricula, thereby articulating a newfound sense

of self-awareness vis-à-vis those in power. In 2011, it was

young Egyptians who started the protests on Tahir Square

and triggered the Arab Spring, regardless of how we may

assess that now. Once again, it is pupils and students who are

taking to the streets in Russia and protesting in favour of a

better future.

It is said, “Revolutions are an affair of the young.” Well, I am

no longer 20. And I am pretty sure that we do not need a

permanent revolution—but perhaps evolution—in the best

sense: in the sense of necessary processes of change. This requires

young people. It requires their ideals and their dreams

to achieve reform. Young people also need to listen to the

message of the bell: “Seek the welfare of the city” and not

just: How can I shape my career in the best possible way.

That is my second point: the willingness to participate in

a reform process, to become engaged even at the risk of

uncertainty. This requires a great deal of courage. It also

means putting aside your own vested interests. It requires

a willingness to work together. That was different in South

Africa than in Germany, but perhaps comparable. To shape

society, to shape the world, to be an agent of change—all of

this requires the willingness to be selflessly committed to

a cause even without knowing whether you will be there,

you face uncertainty as to whether you will ever be there to

witness the fruits of your efforts.

In addition to the many things that fascinate me about the

peace process in South Africa, I would like to highlight one

16 17


Peace speech

Chapter

aspect in particular. And that leads me to my third point:

the great power of forgiveness and reconciliation. It is deeply

impressive to me that, after the first free elections in South

Africa, Nelson Mandela became president and you became

one of the two vice presidents! None of you were in it to win,

to exact revenge, or to settle old scores.

I must confess that, in light of the great pain and suffering

of black South Africans and the great fear of the white

population in South Africa, this fact is almost beyond human

comprehension. Instead of violence, you and President

Mandela trusted in negotiations. You—and I quote your main

lesson—said “Even the worst and most intractable conflicts

can be solved through negotiation—if the willingness exists on

all sides.” Even if the political will to negotiate is still lacking,

you added—and I quote again: “Then you have to concentrate

on trying to create this will by opening up channels for

communication.”

These are lessons that are more topical than ever, and they

apply on a global scale. You and Nelson Mandela and so

many other South Africans are role models in that sense.

The world is changing rapidly. With war, violence, poverty:

More than 65 million people today are refugees. With transnational

terrorism: Bishop Rentzing reminded us of what

happened today in Saint Petersburg. With autocrats, who

seem to dominate the political scene without moderation or

compunction.

Much is left to be done, many things are simmering under

the surface, and others require immediate action. Everyone

in politics and civil society must be driven by the one thing

inherent in all challenges: the constant striving to provide

good prospects and liberty for all, for the common good.

And this brings me to a possible answer to what we must

do today to ensure that the world will be more peaceful in

20 years. Therefore I turn not only, but in particular, to the

young people and say: Take advantage of opportunities!

Do not shy away from visions! Sow the seeds of hope. Seek

conciliatory dialogue with your detractors. Preserve the

will to negotiate again and again and “Seek the welfare of

the city”.

And that applies not only to South Africa, but to any situation

where such challenges must be overcome.

18 19


Accommodating Diversity in a

Shrinking World: the Main Challenge

to Peace in the 21 st Century

Speech by former President Frederik Willem de Klerk

in the lecture series “Nobel Peace Prize Laureates

in the Frauenkirche Dresden

The speech is presented

in the English original version.

20 21


Chapter

Nobel Peace Prize Laureates

Bishop Dr Rentzing, Prime Minister Tillich,

ladies and gentlemen,

Thank you very much for a very warm welcome, for the kind

words addressed to me. I am humbled.

We did what we did in South Africa because it had to be

done. It had to be done for the sake of justice. And it had to

be done to avoid a catastrophe. It is with great thankfulness

that I can say we did avoid a catastrophe; that justice is

reigning in South Africa at the moment. Yes, we are going

through a difficult time again with a political crisis, but

it is a crisis which can be resolved and will be resolved

democratically.

I bring you greetings from the most Southern point of

Africa. I have to speak to you tonight about accommodating

diversity in a shrinking world: the main challenge to peace in

the 21st century.

But let me start out by saying it is a great honour for me to

address you in this beautiful church. The Frauenkirche is a

symbol of the victory of faith and peace over the brutality

and destruction of war. It was rebuilt and reconsecrated after

it had been destroyed in one of the most dreadful episodes

in a dreadful war. It stands as an indomitable symbol of

mankind’s ability to resurrect the best qualities of our

civilization from the ruins and ashes of the worst.

Demography, as they say, is destiny. Much of human history

has been driven by the movement of people and the growth

of populations. Just consider the impact of migrations on

mankind’s history: The movement of tribes from central Asia

against the ramparts of the Roman Empire; migrations of

the Huns and Mongols across the Eurasian landmass; and

the huge migrations from Europe from the beginning of the

16th century which dramatically changed the history and

demography of much of the planet.

Now, once again, in our globalized world, people are on the

move. The dominant image of our time may be the hundreds

of thousands of refugees who each year are risking their

lives in unseaworthy boats to reach Europe. As I speak there,

hundreds of people, huddled together in leaking boats, are

desperately trying to reach the southern shores of Italy, Spain

and Greece.

All of this is happening at a time of the unsustainable growth

of the human population and dramatic changes in life

expectancy and fertility. In 1950 global life expectancy was

only 47 years—by 2011 it had increased to 70. A Japanese girl

child born today can expect to live to 107. An English girl

baby will live till 103. At the same time fertility rates in many

European countries have plummeted far below the levels required

to sustain present populations. At the present fertility

rate, the population of the European Union will shrink by

100 million by the end of the century. In some countries it

will fall by half.

In the coming years more and more refugees can be expected

to seek safety and a better life in the prosperous and secure

societies of Europe and North America. What is already a

steady flow of refugees could become a torrent if climate

change causes a succession of bad harvests in the developing

world. How would Europe react if ten million refugees a

year were to knock on its doors and appeal for refuge? At

what stage would the so-called “lifeboat effect” come into

play: That is the point when those in the lifeboat stop doing

all they can to save and haul aboard shipwreck victims—to

the time when they violently fend them off for fear of being

fatally overloaded?

Everywhere populations are becoming more and more

heterogeneous. It is predicted that by 2050 a third of Britain’s

population will be comprised of minorites. The days of the

single ethnic group nation state are gone. One of the central

challenges in the emerging multicultural world will be the

accommodation of diversity.

Globalisation during the past four decades has led to an

enormous increase in the interaction between people from

different backgrounds, cultures, languages and religions. The

management of the resulting cultural, language and religious

diversity will be one of this century’s greatest challenges—for

the international community; for the European Union; and

for countries like Germany, South Africa and the US.

Throughout the world populations are becoming more

cosmopolitan: The world’s 200 countries now include more

22 23


Chapter

Nobel Peace Prize Laureates

than 6,000 different cultural communities. More than 130

countries have cultural minorities comprising more than

10 percent of their populations. Cultural diversity is being

augmented by new waves of migrants seeking economic

opportunities, freedom and security. Everywhere people are

on the move—and everywhere they are confronting once

homogenous societies with new challenges.

Among these is the impact on cultural identity. We humans

are complex social beings with many important concentric

relationships. We are individuals. We belong to families.

We pursue our economic interests. We belong to clubs and

organizations. Many of us have religious affiliations. We

often belong to distinct cultural groups. We have gender

and sexual orientation. We are citizens of countries and

increasingly we belong to the international community.

All of these relationships are important to us—and some are

critically important. In many, if not most of them, we are

minorities. True freedom consists of our being able to make

lawful choices for ourselves and our families in all these

spheres. The borders of these freedoms should be defined

only by manifest public interest and the point where our

freedoms begin to impact negatively and unfairly on the

interests of others.

For example, I am an individual. I belong to the De Klerk

family. I belong to the Reformed Church. I am a member of a

number of private organizations. I am an Afrikaner. I derive

my language, my history, and my traditions and much of

my identity from all these associations. I am also very proud

to be a citizen of the new vibrant and multi-cultural South

Africa. Like my ancestors since 1688, I am an African—and I

like to think that I am a citizen of the world.

None of these relationships are mutually exclusive. People

can be all these things at the same time. Their reasonable

rights in all these spheres need to be protected. Nor should

they suffer discrimination because of any of these affiliations.

And I firmly believe neither should they be forced to make

a choice to give up one aspect of their identity in order to be

accommodated in another aspect of their identity.

In the same way as it applies to me, my friend and former

colleague, Nelson Mandela, also called himself an African

and a citizen of the new South Africa. He was, however,

also very proud of his identity as a Xhosa—one of the

South Africa’s nine indigenous cultures. He was born and

raised to be the hereditary adviser to the Paramount Chief

of the Tembu, one of the great clans of the Xhosa people.

One cannot really understand Nelson Mandela without

24 25


Nobel Peace Prize Laureates

Chapter

also understanding his cultural roots and the history and

language that helped to form him.

I believe that we South Africans are all richer because of

the cultural diversity that we enjoy. We have a collective

responsibility to show that diversity does not need to be a

source of tension and conflict—but can help to enrich our

lives by providing differing perspectives of the world in

which we live.

Apart from the eleven black cultural groups; two white

language groups and the coloured and Asian communities,

South Africa is now host to as many as five million illegal

immigrants from countries as far away as Somalia and

the Congo. During recent years we have experienced ugly

riots against the new arrivals by South Africans who felt

threatened by competition from foreigners in the local

job market. How are we going to ensure that all these

communities will be able to co-exist peacefully?

There are a number of facets to this challenge. In many

countries, cultural minorities have arisen through historical

processes. They have always lived in the country they inhabit:

They often speak their own languages and have their own

cultural traditions. Ideally, they should have a right to use

their languages; practise their cultures and to have a voice in

the processes by which they are governed.

Other societies have become multicultural through

immigration. Here it is often argued that as a price of

admission to their new societies they should accept the

values of their host countries and learn the languages that

they use. From all this one thing is clear: The management of

cultural diversity is an increasingly important challenge for

countries throughout the world.

Let us look at America. There are now more than 12

million illegal immigrants in the United States. For most of

America’s history, the invariable practice was for immigrant

communities to coalesce around the existing national

identity and to learn to speak English as soon as possible.

On this model the United States was able to develop from

thirteen Atlantic colonies to a continental power in less than

a hundred years. In 1800 its population was only 5 million.

By 1900 it had swelled to 75 million and we know that in

2017, it is more than 250 million. The existing cultural base

of British settlers, American Indians and Afro-Americans

was enormously strengthened by the arrival of widely diverse

European immigrants—Germans, Irish, Italians, French,

Scandinavians and Poles. However, virtually everyone who

arrived in the United States accepted the values articulated in

the US Constitution and quickly learned English.

The United States—and many other countries that

have opened their arms to immigrants—have benefited

enormously from the contributions that immigrants nearly

always make to their new countries. More recently the United

States’ cultural diversity has been further enriched by the

emergence of over 40 million Hispanic Americans as the

largest ethnic minority. They are also the fastest growing

minority and will include more than 100 million people—in

in four Americans—by 2025. Already they make up more

than a third of the populations of Texas and California and

more than 40 percent of the population of New Mexico. But

should they accept the convention that all migrants should

eventually become English-speaking—or will the United

States increasingly have to accept bilingualism and multilingualism?

The accommodation of diverse immigrant groups has also

become one of the most controversial issues in Europe. It

has played a crucial role in recent elections in a number of

European countries—and has now become one of the main

issues of contention within the EU. It has led to some of the

worst riots that France has experienced since the Second

World War—and even in tolerant Britain it is fuelling a

resurgence of far-right nationalist sentiment.

Where does toleration of diversity begin—and end? A few

years ago the European Union’s Justice Commissioner said

26 27


Chapter

Nobel Peace Prize Laureates

that issues of migration should be at the top of the EU’s

agenda. According to the Commissioner, the European

Union needed to strike a balance between facilitating

immigration of sorely-needed skilled workers and controlling

illegal immigration and trafficking. The present work force

is expected to decline by 20 million people by 2030—and

the only way of replacing most of them will be through

immigration.

All of this is, however, part of the broader challenge of

managing cultural and religious diversity in a world in which

inter-communal conflict is the greatest threat to peace and

stability.

Virtually all of the 14 conflicts that currently afflict the world

either have their roots in ethnic and religious differences—or

have been seriously exacerbated by these factors. Too often,

minority communities feel that they are not sufficiently

accommodated, politically or culturally, in the processes by

which they are governed. They feel that their governments

are insensitive to their languages and cultures; that they are

subject to discrimination, repression and efforts to integrate

them forcibly into the majority culture. They quite often feel

as second class citizens.

This sense of alienation often breaks out in conflict, rebellion,

demands for secession and sometimes in acts of terrorism.

Present or recent conflicts in Bosnia, Kosovo, Chechnya, Sri

Lanka, The Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia and Turkey and

in many countries in Africa provide more examples of this

phenomenon. Religious diversity also lies at the root of some

of the ongoing conflicts in the world. Differences between

Hindus, Moslems and Sikhs in India; and Moslems and

Christians in Nigeria and Sudan all create volatile situations

that can explode into violence and terrorism at almost any

time.

One of the great challenges of the new millennium will

therefore be to address cultural and religious alienation and

to devise norms and approaches that will enable different

communities to live together in peace.

The international community will have to pay far greater

attention to this question than has thus far been the

case. Few states welcome international scrutiny of their

relationships with minorities within their borders. On

the other hand, almost one billion people throughout the

world—one in seven of the human population—belong

to ethnic, cultural or religious minorities. Many of them

experience alienation and discrimination. There is an urgent

need for more intense and informed debate on how the

international community should deal with ethnic, cultural

and religious diversity.

The challenge is to devise approaches and to establish norms

that will enable different cultural and ethnic communities to

coexist within the same states. To achieve this, we must reach

broad agreement on the cultural, linguistic and educational

rights that such communities should enjoy. However, it is

equally important to reach agreement on underlying values

that can provide a basis for co-operation and national unity.

The need to promote multicultural approaches in diverse

societies is increasingly recognised by the international

community. According to the United Nations’ Development

Programmes 2004 Human Development Survey,

multiculturalism is the most effective response to the

challenge of diversity.

The UNDP identified cultural liberty as a vital part of

human development. If handled well, it could lead to greater

cultural diversity and enrich people’s lives. However, if it was

mismanaged it could “quickly become one of the greatest

sources of instability within states and between them.” The

answer was to “respect diversity and build unity through

common bonds of humanity”.

The UNDP Survey went on to deal with—and dismiss—

various myths relating to the management of intercommunal

relations and concludes that “policies recognizing

cultural identities and encouraging diversity to flourish do

not result in fragmentation, conflict, weak development

and authoritarian rule. Such policies are both viable, and

necessary, for it is often the suppression of culturally

identified groups that leads to tension.”

As I have pointed out earlier, the key to the maintenance of

peace and harmony in our shrinking global community is

the management of diversity: We need to do much more to

define and protect the rights of cultural, ethnic and religious

minorities throughout the world.

We need to establish an international norm for these rights,

just as we have already done for individuals, for women and

for children.

28 29


Nobel Peace Prize Laureates

Chapter

We need to promote acceptance of the role that education

can and must play in the preservation of religious, cultural

and language diversity. We also need to establish the principle

that states have a duty to support and finance such education.

We need to measure the behaviour of governments against

these norms. If we do so, I am confident that we will soon

discover that the societies that are the worst afflicted by intercommunal

violence are also those that have the least respect

for the rights of their constituent communities.

In the final analysis, managing diversity is about accepting

the need for freedom of choice, toleration and common

values: People should be free to be themselves and to

maintain the many concentric identities that make them

individuals.

Managing diversity is about promoting a culture of toleration

and respect for difference; but it is also about reaching

agreement on core values and approaches that bind people

together.

We have entered the global village. It is exciting; it is

often very confusing; and sometimes a little frightening.

Increasingly, people from different cultural backgrounds

will be rubbing shoulders in the streets, market places and

international companies that make up our global village.

The presence of people from so many different cultures is

one of the most enriching aspects of our new world. But it

will also require us to observe new codes of behaviour and

to acknowledge the multidimensional rights of people—as

citizens, as members of organisations and communities, and

as individual men and women.

I understand that you have a delightful custom here of

promoting the idea of a “wishful world”. You have created

this glass globe that you can see here beside the lectern.

You have invited students from the winning groups to write

personal wishes on origami creations and deposit them in

the globe. All these colourful origami pieces are placed inside

the globe before the lecture. During the year, the globe is

positioned underneath the lantern of the church, visible for

all the visitors of the church and sending out a message of

hope and peace from the next generation.

I hope that the globe this year will include wishes for:

the enrichment of our lives through interaction between

people from different cultures and religions; toleration and

mutual respect; a compassionate commitment to host and

protect people whose lives are being threatened by conflict;

and determination to build a better world where conflict,

injustice and poverty do not force people to flee from their

ancestral homes and the countries of their birth.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your attention.

30 31


Chapter

Peace Competition

The Peace Competition

Dr Anja Häse

For the third time and parallel to the speech

by the Nobel Peace Prize winner, the Frauenkirche

Dresden Foundation launched its Peace

Competition “Students meet Nobel Peace

Prize winners” for young people in the state of

Saxony. The creativity and depth of the entries

submitted were impressive.

Saxony students from grade 9 and above were invited to take

part in the Peace Competition. The question being asked

was consciously integrated in the overall leitmotiv of the

event which is “What do we need to do today to make this

world a (more) peaceful one in 20 years from now?” This was

passed on to the young people as a direct incentive to grasp

their real responsibility for the world of tomorrow. The prize

offered to the winning groups was a personal meeting with

Frederik de Klerk in the Frauenkirche in Dresden.

Nobel Peace Prize winner de Klerk had approached the

Saxon students with the question he himself formulated

for this year’s competition: “All different—all equal: how to

shape a modern multicultural society?”

New ideas and suggested solutions were being sought for

a range of topics that affect young people directly and on

a daily basis. This is a topic that can be approached from

several angles: i.e. analysed from a more distant, historical

perspective or being considered in relation to the global

political situation. Instead all competitors chose a direct

approach reflecting the reality of their own lives. Hence

all three successful entries show a compellingly critical

analysis of their own prejudices and those of others and

develop perspectives of a society in which people of different

ethnicities and cultures live together in peace.

A total of 149 young people from Dresden, Leipzig, Meißen,

Elsterberg and Zwenkau were ready to tackle the challenging

question. At the same time thanks is also due to school heads

and teachers for the support and guidance they gave to the

competition.

All entries were put together by students working in groups

of five to eight people. The 26 entries displayed an impressive

range of creativity in websites, blogs, posters and videos.

The spectrum of competitive entries was rounded off with a

debate, an audio drama, a cover song and a street art project.

Nine jury members assessed the entries. With Ambassador

Dr Georg Schmidt (Foreign Ministry), State Secretary

Dr Frank Pfeil (Saxon Ministry of Culture) and Andrea

Ostheimer de Sosa (Konrad Adenauer Foundation), the jury

was made up of three high ranking experts from the fields

of education and politics, each had one vote. To these were

added one university student vote cast by three students who

also work voluntarily as guides in the Frauenkirche and one

high school student vote. The latter was jointly cast by two

winners from previous years plus one girl who was chosen

based on her committed engagement in the Photographic

Competition “The Diversity of Dresden”.

32 33


Peace Competition

Chapter

The Winning Entries

Grit Jandura

More young people than ever before took

part in this year’s competition “Students meet

Nobel Peace Prize Winners”. The jury praised

their varying approaches to the topic and

named three winning groups of equal merit.

“The intensity and the variety of methods with which the

students have tackled the question put by Frederik Willem

de Klerk is impressive. It soon becomes clear that for younger

generations a key for a peaceful future lies in multicultural

societies“, commented the jury of experts. Two films and one

blog most aptly reflected the broad scope of the topic.

“From a wall to a bridge”

Entry by Chiara Fiebiger, Alexander Rühlow, Emely Otto,

Estelle Pietzonka, Mary Kremtz, Frederik Mallon, Sophie

Ambrosius and Eva Kratzsch from Grades 10 and 11,

Franziskaneum Meißen

In the beginning they are just words: intolerance, tradition,

risk of conflict. More follow. They pile up and block the view.

At the same time young voices read headlines and internet

posts. This is how the film by the first winning group starts,

pointing the viewer unerringly to a view of the world that is

often a stereotype.

The project “From a wall to a bridge” is more than just a

film about the filmmaker’s own experiences with prejudice.

Instead it portrays the individual path of the group of

students away from a confining point of view defined by

prejudice towards an open, tolerant perspective. In the

beginning a wall of prejudices is built based on personal

socialisation, historical contexts and also media reports.

The young people demonstrate how prejudices can become

like a wall that blocks an open view on what is different,

unknown. In this way both they and the viewer discover

that where there is a meeting with and interest in the other

side, the wall is ineffective. A bridge develops out of a part

of the wall.

In their project consisting of a film and a poster campaign at

the high school that encourages self-reflection on peaceful

coexistence in a multicultural society, the students document

their own experiences gathered during an exchange

programme with young Israelis, especially during their trip

to Israel. These experiences illuminated to them the fact

that the wall in our minds can most readily be torn down by

personal contact, by a coming together of both sides and that

this is the only way that we can build the bridges between

cultures that today we need more than ever.

34 35


Peace Competition

“Fear in a multicultural society”

Entry by Rahel Gebhardt, Mia Hempel, Elisabeth Jancke,

Nora Bürkel and Rebecca Rothmann from Grade 11 of the

Evangelisches Kreuzgymnasium Dresden

The second winning entry looked at the question of

scepticism existing about a multicultural society. The five

authors based their search for answers on- and offline on

the observation that the debate taking place on the internet

on the current refugee issue is often anonymous and full

of misgivings. The result is a blog that combines interview

sequences with information based on own research.

Did supermarkets really have to close after a series of raids

by refugees? Did 80,000 refugees arrive in Germany each

month in 2016? Do refugees get 5 euros a day pocket money?

The authors from Dresden found these and other statements

on the net, followed the often heated debates on the subject

and sought to find out what was fact and what was fake news.

To find out they compared widely held suppositions with

the findings and data available. Based on this they talked to

people in the street ranging from customers in a shopping

centre to people taking part in Pegida demonstrations. The

students aimed to find out the extent to which rumours had

spread and whether false information lies behind the fear

of a multicultural society. A video records answers that give

viewers pause for thought and stimulate further reflection.

The jury particularly liked the up-to-the-minute, everyday

angle adopted by the authors in tackling the general theme of

the competition. With the aid of bold and resolute collection,

evaluation and processing of data, they made it possible for

the audience to question their own attitudes and to put their

personal way of dealing with information to the test.

“We are one!”

Entry by Elisabeth Koch, Larissa Witczak, Jessica Thalmeir,

Anne Müller, Julia Clengel and Clara Trautmann from Grade

10, Semper Gymnasium Dresden

In the third winning entry the six authors address the

positive and negative aspects of refugee integration.

Proceeding from the observation that although Germany

is diverse, doubts and resentments do exist, they look for

practical answers to the question posed by the competition

in seeking paths to a functioning multicultural society.

An interview with a refugee family reveals valuable insights

which—with the addition of further aspects—lead the

audience to their own conclusions on how respectful

coexistence can succeed. In the video a young boy describes

his daily life in Dresden: school, football training, a bit of

YouTube, supper and then bed. Immediately it becomes clear

that something that sounds so normal and natural is not at

all like that. The boy fled his Syrian homeland to Germany

with his sister and her small family. He had to leave his

parents behind, he brought with him his dreams and hopes.

The attentive, carefully considered way in which the dialogue

is handled enables the students to reveal insights into the life

of people whose flight is over but whose adjustment to a new

culture is just beginning.

The authors enhance their entry with their own views on

tolerance. In doing so, they cast a sometimes critical look

at the pitfalls along the path towards fostering community

among people of different roots and religions. But the final

words of the Syrian boy that gave the entry its name are moving

all the same: “No matter whether we are Syrian, Afghans

or Germans—we are all human beings, we are all one.”

The entries can be found at:

http://www.frauenkirche-dresden.de/en/peace-competition/

36 37


Peace Competition

Exploring Visions

Dr Anja Häse

Luther Monument

The discussion at the Luther Monument

opens with an examination of to what extent

Luther’s actions as a religious visionary are

still relevant today.

1

The three prize winning groups were invited

to the Frauenkirche to experience a specially

organized theme day. The first part focused

on exploring the church along traces of visionary

thoughts and deeds.

12

2

The restoration of the Frauenkirche demonstrated

impressively what people can achieve when they are

committed to a tangible vision of the future. At that, in this

place of worship and its surrounding area you can find and

follow traces that tell stories of visions. The path of discovery

started at the Luther Monument at the Neumarkt.

outside the church

Luther Monument 1

Installation “Monument” 2

View to the “Flame of reconciliation” 3

10

11

Installation “Monument”

The young people debate whether a visionary

force emanates from Manaf Halbouni’s

installation depicting menace and hope in the

light of the special significance of the site it

occupies.

inside the church

3

Exploring the Frauenkirche 4

1

2

3

In the centre of the nave 5

The pulpit 6

Exploring the lower church 7

Old tower cross 8

Portrait of Hugo Hahn 9

Belfry 10

Path to the observation platform 11

On top of the dome 12

9

4

5

7

8

6

Flame of reconciliation

The conscious remembering of situations in which

we experienced reconciliation in our own lives leads

to thinking about what opportunities there could

be to practice reconciliation ourselves.

38 39


Peace Competition

Exploring the Frauenkirche

Personal experiencing of the church

interior takes place in stillness. A plan

gives concrete suggestions on how to

acquire deeper knowledge.

7

Exploring the lower church

In small groups the students exchange

thoughts in the lower church on what

lasts beyond death.

4

In the centre of the nave

5

The young people send out a sound. In so

doing they try to find out what is at the

centre of their own lives.

6

The pulpit

In the pulpit the young people

experiment with giving a shape to

their own voices. They read texts

aloud—each in their own way.

At the old tower cross

While lighting a candle the young people

think of people who are special for them and

also of those who make life difficult.

8

40 41


Peace Competition

9

Portrait of Hugo Hahn

In front of the portrait of Hugo Hahn,

who, as a pastor in the Frauenkirche,

opposed the Nazi regime, the students

think about where today the courage to

resist is called for.

11

12

Belfry

The students look at the Jesaja peace bell and

read a poem written for this bell describing the

vision of peace.

10

Path to the observation platform

On top of the dome

At the final station of the path of

discovery impressions are put into

words.

The winding way upwards in the interior

of the dome is dedicated to thinking about

personal paths through life in a way that is

future oriented.

42 43


Peace Competition

Chapter

Asking Peace Questions

Dr Anja Häse

What motivates young people to take part in the

Frauenkirche Peace Competition? The confrontation

with the question being asked is challenging,

of course—as is a very special meeting

during the second part of the theme day.

In the Lower Church of the Frauenkirche, the 19 young

prize winners met Frederik Willem de Klerk and personally

received their certificates from the former President of South

Africa. This special honour was recorded in a photograph

and will surely remain for a lifetime as a remarkable memory.

To look into the topic of the Peace Competition certainly

is beneficial with regard to defining one’s own position in a

social and global political context. Beyond that something

outstandingly meaningful and unique is to be won: a

personal meeting with a Nobel Peace Prize winner.

Afterwards the students were able to engage with Frederik

Willem de Klerk in an exclusive interview to ask about his

political work, the motivation behind his decisions, the

convictions which guided him and discuss the topic of

peace. The students had prepared themselves intensively for

this encounter. During the theme day they compiled their

questions and made a selection together to structure the

following conversation. Some additional topics and questions

arose spontaneously.

The young people seized the unique opportunity and

were highly appreciative of the chance to get to know

someone who has written world history. The responses of

the politician showed that he took his young interviewers

seriously and saw them as being responsible for a peaceful

world in the future.

In the evening, the students then sat as guests of honour in

the front rows of the nave of the Frauenkirche to listen to

the Nobel Peace Prize laureate's speech. Not far from them a

transparent globe was placed the “World of Wishes”.

A World Full

of Wishes

The “World of Wishes” is a specially made globe in which

the hopes and wishes of the winners of all three previous

peace competitions for a more peaceful world are collected.

At the evening of the Nobel Peace Prize laureate's speech the

globe is placed not far from the speaker in the nave; during

the remaining year it can be found in the main dome of the

Frauenkirche. In this way, the young people send a symbolic

message of peace from the young generation beyond the

church and via the city of Dresden to the world.

Inside of this “World of Wishes” are colourful symbols.

Alongside orange paper cranes, the international peace

symbol against nuclear war, and multicoloured cardboard

cubes representing the various chemical elements, green keys

can be spotted from this year on.

The symbol of a key was chosen for the Peace Competition

2017 in recognition of Frederik Willem de Klerk’s role as a

key figure for peace in his country and in our world. A key

also ties in with the question put forth by the Nobel Peace

Prize winner, as keys which are similar from the outside and

generally have the same clearly defined purpose nevertheless

open vastly different spheres and areas depending on their

individual cut.

Acting on the idea of themselves becoming a key person, the

young people wrote down their personal wishes for peace

as part of the theme day in the Frauenkirche and made a

corresponding contribution to the “World of Wishes”. This

tradition will be continued by the winners of the Peace

Competitions to come.

44

45


Chapter

Peace Competition

Peace is Synonymous

with Happiness”

The interview was conducted

by Grit Jandura

Eva Kratzsch (17) and Frederik Mallon (16) are among

the winners of this year’s Peace Competition. They created

the entry “From a wall to a bridge” together with six other

students. On the basis of their own experiences it describes

how divisive prejudices are and what is to be gained from

an empathetic approach in interacting with each other. In

the interview they describe how the idea came to them,

what they think about the Nobel Peace Prize and what peace

means to them personally.

Why did you take part in the Frauenkirche Dresden Peace

Competition?

Frederik Mallon: We visited Israel last year on a school

exchange. When we were there we were confronted with the

fact that living in peace cannot be taken for granted.

Eva Kratzsch: Our teacher suggested that we could make

use of the experiences gained from the exchange. At first we

were sceptical as we had a lot of school work on our plate.

But then the desire to show how peace can be achieved was

stronger.

How did you get the idea for your entry, what was the

process of putting together the entry like?

second week putting it into effect. That didn’t quite work out

and the holidays were over sooner than we thought. But we

weren’t discouraged by this and from then on our work was

guided by the motto “diamonds are made under pressure”.

Symbols were very important to us so that a central theme

becomes recognizable. We used cartons which can be stacked

to form both a wall and a bridge. After that we added the

poster idea.

Your entry was not put together by one school class. How

was your team assembled?

Frederik Mallon: At first there were 13 of us who had all

taken part in the German-Israeli exchange. But as the 12 th

grade students were in the middle of their high school diploma

exam the remaining eight students from the 10 th

and 11 th grades got together.

Why did you opt for a video as a presentation form?

Eva Kratzsch: It was clear from the start that it would be a

film. We had some experience from earlier projects at school.

The circumstances were also favourable because we had the

equipment and got support from a friend who knew a lot

about cutting and sound.

Eva Kratzsch: Actually we wanted to do most of the work

in the winter holidays: the concept in the first week, in the

46 47


Peace Competition

Apart from the symbolism of the wall and the bridge, in the

video you make use of statements on tolerance and peace.

What was the motivation?

Eva Kratzsch: We were looking at ways in which we could

best make students and teachers think about peace. When

you’re just walking around the school, you don’t think about

this subject. But when something new appears and is perhaps

displayed somewhere it shouldn’t be this changes. That’s why

we spoke to the school administration about hanging posters

on windows, for instance.

And did the plan work?

Eva Kratzsch: Slogans on the cafeteria windows did attract

attention. A lot of people looked at them and asked us about

them. We were pleased about that because people were

giving it thought.

Are there phrases that you find particularly moving?

Frederik Mallon: I agree with all of them. We did have a

reason for choosing them.

Eva Kratzsch: I was particularly moved by the thought

“Sympathy is the basis of world peace”. Sympathy is the

basis for putting yourself in someone else’s place. That and

tolerance are the most important things.

The competition assignment was set by Nobel Peace Prize

winner Frederik de Klerk. Had you heard of him before?

Eva Kratzsch: A friend of mine had given a talk on him in

her Spanish class. That’s when I first heard the name—but

nothing more.

The Peace Competition would have changed that. What do

you remember most about what you have learned since then?

Frederik Mallon: I am struck by the fact that Frederik

de Klerk did not act in his own interests. Together with

Nelson Mandela he supported the abolition of apartheid

despite the fact that he as a white man had nothing to gain

from this. He could have left the situation as it was. But he

didn’t do that. I think that is great and that’s why he deserved

the Nobel Peace Prize.

Is a prize of this kind still important today?

Frederik Mallon: I’d be inclined to say that we need these

awards more than ever. Peace is always important but we’re

not always conscious of this. So many people ignore the

situation in other countries and say it has nothing to do with

them if, for instance, there’s a war in Syria. That’s why it’s

important to honour people who work for peace.

Nobel Peace Prize winners have great goals that some would

describe more as visions, some as dreams. How do you see

that?

Eva Kratzsch: No matter what you call it, I think it’s an

important achievement that Nobel Peace Prize winners

devote themselves deeply to their causes and in so doing

encourage other people to do some thinking. Of course some

goals will only be achieved in the future and will take energy

and strength. But if, for example, a fully multicultural society

were to be achieved, that would be perfect, wouldn’t it!

What does peace mean to you?

Frederik Mallon: We’ve just been looking at the classical

definition in Social Studies. But for me, peace is much more

than this. Whether or not people can really live together in

peace is something you can’t measure. Everyone should ask

themselves whether they have peace. If that is the case, they

can open their eyes and see how their neighbour is and other

people in the world: Do they have the privilege of living in

peace or are they at war and what can I myself do? For me

that is the take-home message, that from your own peace you

give others the opportunity of adopting it, too.

Eva Kratzsch: Peace means being able to live in safety

and that is a tremendous gift. That is why for me peace is

synonymous with happiness.

What do you associate specifically with the Frauenkirche?

Frederik Mallon: The Frauenkirche is big and beautiful and

impressive of course. But it is also a symbol of peace. It was

destroyed in the Second World War and not rebuilt until

many years later. For me this shows that we should not give

up. There can be a new beginning even after total destruction.

48 49


Impulse speeches

The Importance

of Diversity

Impulse by Dr Sylke Tempel

Chief editor of the magazine IP

Internationale Politik

It is a great honour and pleasure to be here tonight. And

please allow me to say this to you, Mr. President, and I

am certain that everybody in this room agrees: What an

inspiration you are.

When you and the late President Nelson Mandela ended

Apartheid in South Africa; when the people here in Dresden,

in Leipzig, East Berlin and, before them, the workers in the

shipyards of Gdansk ventured into the streets to ask for

freedom and for participation, they brought about a new era

in our history. Being a student of Political Science back then,

I was just as excited as so many about what we thought was

the beginning of a new era after the confrontation between

East and West, between democracies (and their sometimes

far less democratic allies) and authoritarianism. We thought

this to be the beginning of the age of democracy.

And indeed, that is what we saw: States, which for decades

were part of the Warsaw pact and, under the firm grip of

Moscow and their socialist leaders enjoyed only partial

sovereignty, transformed into democratic states that, as

sovereign states, choose to be part of the European Union

and NATO. Democratic movements in other parts of the

world, in Africa, Asia and Latin America asked for serious

reforms.

It has become fashionable to quote Francis Fukuyama’s idea

of an “End of History”, which he understood as an end of

ideological challenges to Western, liberal democracy, as

an intellectual error. A far too optimistic take of what was

to come. I still believe that he was not wrong at that time,

as indeed, socialism as a “counter-ideology” to democracy

had utterly failed, bringing neither justice nor freedom.

But perhaps all to conveniently, we overlooked some major

events of that era. In June 1989, just when protesters geared

up to demand their rights in East Germany, Hungary and

Czechoslovakia, protests by Chinese students who were

demanding the same democratic rights were brutally stopped

by tanks on Tiannamen Square in Bejing. In the early

nineties, we saw the first peace accord in the conflict between

Israelis and Palestinians and finally a peace agreement

between Jordan and Israel—only to be followed by suicide

attacks. While central and Eastern European states turned

democratic or, like the Baltic states Ukraine and Belarus,

independent, we witnessed the beginning of a horrible war

and ethnic cleansing in the middle of Europe in former

Yugoslavia.

Still, optimism prevailed in this era of victory for democracy

which many of us also saw as an era of convergence. After

all, would not globalization bring about greater economic

Unexpectedly, the following article by Dr Sylke Tempel (b.

30 May 1963; d. 5 October 2017) has become her legacy. Her

accidental death has silenced the voice of this outstanding

political journalist, with its firm foundation in the theory

of security policy and foreign affairs. Yet her compelling

commitment to making the complex challenges of foreign policy

accessible to a broad audience, and her conviction that diversity

should be given precedence, live on—as can be seen from the

prefatory remarks documented here.

50 51


Impulses

interdependence and, with growing wealth and a self-assured

middle class, also political convergence? Would former

authoritarian states not, slowly but surely, become “like us”?

We were wrong. Or at least not entirely right. We see new

ideological challenges to Western liberal democracy—even

if none of them, I believe, offers a real alternative. But

each of these challenges reach to the very core of liberal

democracy.

Authoritarianism of course challenges the necessity of a

separation of powers or checks and balances that would

counter an authoritarian leader’s insatiable hunger for power.

In authoritarian states, the believe prevails that identity—the

question of “who belongs and who does not”—can be forged

from above rather than fostered, defined and redefined

in an ongoing, open and civil debate among citizens.

Authoritarian leaders tend to think of “their” societies as

“authentic”, formed by history and a specific culture and

therefore “eternally unchangeable” and preferably closed to

“foreign” influences which are often seen as a threat. In that

sense, Vladimir Putin, who thinks of Western societies as

decadent”, certainly is a typical authoritarian leader.

China challenges the West in a different way—putting in

question the century old believe that democracy cum market

society is an inseparable pair. That innovation is not possible

without freedom. That individualism was at the core of

Western European success.

Finally, political Islam challenges yet another core element of

Western power, namely the separation of church and state,

i.e. the distinction between religious law and worldly law,

between absolute truth that only God possesses and relative

truths or rather evidences that we, as fallible beings, hold

true until proven false.

These external challenges seem to correspond with some

confusion in our very societies: Is it not liberal democracy

just another form of political order, as good or as bad as

any other? Isn’t the process of finding consensus often too

slow and tedious? At times, it seems as if we were suffering

democracy-fatigue. What is our core belief?

That brings me to the topic, that you, Mr President we’re

talking about in your Frauenkirche-speech: Diversity. I was

very grateful to listen to you and to your emphasis on the

importance of diversity. Allow me, please, to share a few

observations.

If we are to cherish diversity as an asset, and it is my deep

belief that it is diversity that makes open societies strong

and resilient, then we also need to understand better what

holds a society together. Or to put it a bit differently: We

need an ongoing, civil, open conversation about what is not

negotiable in and for our societies. In that context, when

we talk about social cohesion in our very own societies, we

mean our “operating systems”, the software of our societies,

our political culture, questions about values and identity.

In light of the ideological challenges we face I would,

however, like to also talk about our “hardware”: the

fundaments and fundamentals of our political order.

And here, at the very core of our political order, I find a

few paradoxes, that have been mastered beautifully—and

mastered only by democracy.

In democracies plus market economies we have to square

the need of diversity of talents and ambitions with the

dream of equality. Socialism propagated the “equality of all

people”, producing a feudalism of nomenclatura instead. In

democratic systems, equality is about equality before the

law. And just as equality is guaranteed by the rule of law, so

is our freedom. So-called illiberal democracies, where the

independence of the judiciary is attacked by irresponsible

leaders, soon cease to be democracies at all. Law, by the way,

is not carved in stone—it is a product of our peaceful conversation

in our society about what we consider to be necessary,

acceptable or just tolerable. This is why our identities

as individuals and as a society as a whole remain fluid and

identifiable at the same time.

In democracies, we have also solved the “paradox of God”.

Contrary to the belief of many, God is not dead as Nietzsche

had famously claimed. But neither is he part of the political

system, because after all, we cannot vote God out of office.

(And not voting in, but peacefully voting out is a core

element of democracies.) That is what the separation of

religion and state, between material and spiritual power is all

about: creating a system, where there is no space for absolute

truths in our political system, but where every individual is

free to believe in those truths as long as it is clear: worldly

law stands above heavenly law.

The most wonderful paradox about democracy to me,

however, is that it is based on a core belief that mankind is

neither good nor evil. It is mainly prone to error. And this

is why we have to build a political order that is dealing with

imperfection. That is based on correction. Democracy is an

order that is built on imperfection—and that makes it the

best political order mankind has invented.

You, Mr. President, put it most beautifully, when you said:

“I did what I thought was right and I had to correct a big

mistake, because otherwise it would have been a disaster.”

Authoritarian leaders often think of democracies as weak.

But the power of democracy is not the power of the sword,

not the power of heroism, but the power of conviction and

the power of a long, sometimes tedious but peaceful and selfconfident

conversation about who we are and who we want

to be, what we agree on and where we disagree, what we

accept and what we need to correct. And most importantly:

The time for correction always is: now.

52 53


Impulses

The Contribution of

the Economy for

Peace in Africa

Impluse by Dr Stefan Liebing

President of the German-African Business Association

(Afrika-Verein der deutschen Wirtschaft)

The organizers have given me a very difficult task tonight,

because I do not think it is even possible to add to what

we have heard in a wonderful speech earlier this evening.

Who would I be to take on the challenge to comment or

add? Since I do not believe I can do that, let me add a few a

few thoughts as to what German industry can do, through

tangible action, to help improve peace on the African

continent.

We have about 65 million migrants that are on their way

from Africa, South to North, as we speak. Many of them

got stuck in refugee camps in Ethiopia; 2 million in Kenya;

in Uganda about 1 million; and many in other places. At

the same time, I think, Mr. President, you rightly said

demographics are key. We expect the population in Africa to

triple by the year 2066 to then 3 billion people. Nigeria today

has more people than Russia. Nigeria tomorrow, in 30 years’

time, is going to have more inhabitants than Russia and the

United States together. And I think we are not aware of what

that means for future refugees and developments in the years

to come.

If you think of Africa as a continent of crisis, corruption,

disease, and missing infrastructure, I guess you would

probably be right. At the same time, if you think of Africa as

a continent of prosperity or growth—6 of the 10 countries of

the world with the largest relative growth are on the African

continent—if you think of a growing middle class of about

300 million people, if you think of more than 100 IT startup

centres and parks on the African continent, you would also

be right. We have both. And I am very much convinced that

the next round of the emerging countries of the world—the

next round of Tiger States—will be in Africa. We might not

know today which countries these will be, we might not

know when exactly things are going to take off, but I am very

much convinced that we cannot afford not to be active on the

African continent.

If we want to abate the refugee crisis that I have just

described, there are two prerequisites:

One is creating security and peace for people. Nobody wants

to leave home unless they are afraid for their lives and those

of their children. Secondly, we need to create jobs and an

opportunity for people to develop their future at home.

When it comes to security, I am not in the position to comment

on that. We have very capable politicians taking care of

this who are also here tonight. Instead, let me speak for one

minute about creating jobs. Interestingly enough, we have

had a success story of German industry over the past

10 years.

54 55


Impulses

Not many people are aware that we have doubled the number

of jobs created by German investors in Africa—200,000

direct, 1 million indirect. We have doubled the trade

volume; we have doubled the amount of direct investment

of Germany on the African continent. South Africa, of

course, plays an important role in this. And, interestingly

enough, today on the African continent, in terms of German

investment, we stand exactly where Germany stood with

regards to investment in China in only 2005.

So the interesting question is: Are we going to repeat the

success story of Chinese growth for German industry over

the next 10 or 12 or 15 years? Are we going to repeat this in

Africa? I believe it is the only way. We do not have a choice.

We need to create these jobs. The developed world needs to

help with capital, technology, and know-how, if we want to

solve the refugee crisis.

I believe we have three pieces of homework, and only if we

manage to complete these three pieces of homework in parallel

will we be successful. Let me start with my own homework.

German industry so far has had a certain misperception

of what is happening in Africa. This has to do with the

famous Mittelstand structure—the structure of midsized,

family owned, world market-leader, niche businesses that

might not have the same strategy teams that British or French

conglomerates have in looking at new markets. So still, we

make business decisions based on what we have seen in the

media. During the Ebola crisis I had a lot of these entrepreneurs

calling and saying, “Can we still go to Johannesburg?”

That only stopped when we told the BILD newspaper that

Munich is closer to Monrovia than Johannesburg is to

Nairobi. But still people think: There is a crisis in Africa;

we should stop doing business there. So we need to change

perception and we need to be more interested in taking risks

on this promising continent. That is the homework for German

industry. And I am glad to see Mr President supports

this view.

There is a second piece of homework that falls to the

German government. I had the pleasure of meeting

Chancellor Merkel and two of the ministers last week to

discuss how, in the framework of the G20 presidency, we

can set a framework that makes it easier for mid-sized

companies to take risks. Renewable energy is something we

are very famous for here in this country. Last year we had

thirteen new wind parks in Africa, none of them developed

by a German investor. Something is wrong here. We need

more guarantees; we need more financing instruments; we

need to find a way of competing with the BRICS countries

that play to a different set of rules in the same playing

field as OECD countries. So, there is a piece of work to

be done in setting the right regulations and the German

government helping us to create jobs on the ground.

And there is a third piece of homework for our friends

in Africa. We still do have corruption, civil unrest, and

difficulties with unstable governments and the rule of law.

I was hosting the president of Burkina Faso here in Berlin

two weeks ago, he was asking for more investors to come in.

I told him, we have African delegations in town every week

asking for German capital. There is huge competition. So the

better the framework is that our friends in Africa set—the

faster they do reform—the easier it is going to be to win

German investors and jobs created by German companies.

If we complete these three pieces of homework together, I am

sure we can make a difference. I am very much convinced we

cannot afford not to pursue this over the next few months.

Let me conclude with something an African friend of mine

has told me recently: “Africa is the continent of the future.

Let us make sure it does not stay that for the next 100 years.”

Nobel Peace Prize Laureates

of the Last 25 Years

2017 International Campaign to Abolish

Nuclear Weapons

2016 Juan Manuel Santos

2015 National Dialogue Quartet

2014 Kailash Satyarthi and Malala Yousafzai

2013 Organisation for the Prohibition of

Chemical Weapons

2012 European Union

2011 Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, Leymah Gbowee

and Tawakkol Karman

2010 Liu Xiaobo

2009 Barack H. Obama

2008 Martti Ahtisaari

2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

and Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr.

2006 Muhammad Yunus and Grameen Bank

2005 International Atomic Energy Agency

and Mohamed ElBaradei

2004 Wangari Muta Maathai

2003 Shirin Ebadi

2002 Jimmy Carter

2001 United Nations and Kofi Annan

2000 Kim Dae-jung

1999 Médecins Sans Frontières

1998 John Hume and David Trimble

1997 International Campaign to Ban Landmines

and Jody Williams

1996 Carlos Filipe Ximenes Belo and José Ramos-Horta

1995 Joseph Rotblat and Pugwash Conferences

on Science and World Affairs

1994 Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin

1993 Nelson Mandela and Frederik Willem de Klerk

1992 Rigoberta Menchú Tum

56 57


Thank you

The Frauenkirche Dresden Foundation

would like to thank for their kind support

IMPRINT

Published by Stiftung Frauenkirche Dresden

Georg-Treu-Platz 3

01067 Dresden, Germany

stiftung@frauenkirche-dresden.de

Managing directors

Reverend Sebastian Feydt

Dipl. rer. pol. Christine Gräfin von Kageneck

Frank Richter

Editor

Grit Jandura

Text

Dr. Anja Häse

Grit Jandura

Graphic design production

ressourcenmangel Dresden

Print production

Druckerei Thieme Meißen GmbH

Special thanks also go to all the staff and volunteers of the Frauenkirche Dresden, whose hard work played a key part in making

this event possible.

Photographs

Susann Hehnen

Oliver Killig

FW de Klerk Foundation

58 59


© 2017 · Stiftung Frauenkirche Dresden · www.frauenkirche-dresden.de

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines