People of different cultures and civilizations undoubtedly need dialogue. “We need dialogue because it is the only way for understanding each other and ensuring peaceful coexistence,” the Secretary-General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, said in his lecture at CDCC, March 3, 2009.

However, what is going on, Ihsanoglu asserted, is not productive dialogue. Addressing a topic “The Muslim World in the Era of Globalization”, Ihsanoglu who is a Turkish historian stated that, “In the Muslim World we have forty years experience of dialogue, but it has not been fruitful. Because, it was not a dialogue. It was two monologues in two opposite directions.” He criticized that many dialogues conducted have not been resulted in any significant change. All sides involved in the dialogues seem still have the same positions after these dialogues—even after forty years. A productive dialogue, he argued, should lead us to be in different positions at the end of dialogue.

This is not, however, an appeal to have an alternative other than dialogue. According to Ihsanoglu, the alternative is a dialogue with a fixed agenda and clear objectives and targets. Such a dialogue requires political commitment on both sides engaged in dialogue.

Responding to this opinion, Chairman of CDCC, Din Syamsuddin, shared the same view. We do need dialogue, he suggested, because without dialogue more conflicts could happen in addition to the existing conflicts. Our main task is to have dialogical dialogue, that is dialogue based on sincerity, openness and frankness to solve any existing problems. In this regard, Ambassador of Palestine, Fariz Mehdawi—one of many ambassadors attending the lecture—added that dialogue needs to be done in a more collective way than in the past.

With regard to interfaith dialogue, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu insisted that there is one important target: historical reconciliation between Islam and Christianity, which is the crux of the tensions between Islam and the West. For a few reasons, such reconciliation should be easier to achieve than one between Judaism and Christianity, he suggested. Din Syamsuddin added that the Muslim World has to give positive response to the emerging tendency of interfaith dialogue and initiative, as well represented for instance in the Muslim Catholic Forum and Congress of Imams and Rabbis.

Specifically, Ihsanoglu praised Indonesia’s success in establishing peaceful relations among different religious groups. “What you have achieved here is what we are trying to reach at the global level,” he said. The concept of living side by side in peace while putting aside religious differences can be easily recognized in Islamic teachings, he explained. Historically, Ihsanoglu said, the Islamic community in the Middle East had lived peacefully for centuries with Christians and Jews, until the age of colonialism and the establishment of Israel. “What you have managed in your country is a tradition of 14 centuries in our part of the world,” he added.

Ihsanoglu also addressed some challenges of OIC, which—with 57 member countries—is the second biggest intergovernmental organization after the United Nations. One of its greatest challenges is to change negative perception on Islam and to make every effort to banish extremism or terrorism resulted from wrong interpretation of Islam.

In dealing with erroneous representation of Islam, what OIC has been doing can be summarized in two terms: moderation and modernization. By moderating and modernizing Muslim society, Ihsanoglu believes, extremism could be marginalized.

OIC itself have attempted to reform itself chiefly in the last four years in order to be more powerful and democratic. The radical reform in OIC has come to a point where it now can be more involved in promoting human rights, gender equity, good governance, science and technology programs, humanitarian aids, and having close relationship with civil society/non-governmental organizations.[]

UK’s Minister of State in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Bill Rammell, delivered a keynote speech on the UK’s Foreign Policy in the Middle East at CDCC during his visit to Indonesia, 10 February 2009. The following is his outstanding speech.

I am delighted to be visiting Jakarta – a city with a history that stretches back nearly as far as London’s – and which is certainly a match in its cosmopolitan feel and the diversity of its residents.

This is a good time to be here in Indonesia.  I honestly believe that we’ve never had a more productive, open and potentially fruitful relationship than the one we enjoy today.

Our two nations may be different in many ways, but there is much we share also.  

Britain and Indonesia are both vibrant democracies, believing strongly in the right to free speech and equality of opportunity.  

We are both multi-cultural, open societies – which not only tolerate people of different faiths and cultures, but recognise the value that those differences bring to society as a whole.  

And both are countries that look beyond their borders, knowing that we are part of an increasingly inter-connected world, and therefore have a duty to contribute positively to that world whenever we can.

It is this third point – playing a positive role in world events – that I would like to address today.

As important as the bilateral relationship is between our two countries, I’m here in Jakarta because of the influence Indonesia has on world events – and because of the example you can provide of a nation that has successfully travelled the long and difficult road out of authoritarianism and conflict.  
Indonesia today is a country where all its citizens can participate in government – from the national and provincial level – to the kelurahan councils where ordinary people have access to the decisions - and decision makers - that affect their lives.

It is a multi-cultural, multi faith society where the majority respect the rights of the minority.  It is a country that has taken its motto: “unity in diversity” to its heart in recent years.

We in the UK don’t have a national motto – but if we did, I could think of no better one for us.  

Unity in diversity is an idea that deserves a bigger stage.  An idea that Indonesia could export to other parts of the world – in the same way that South Africa’s concept of truth and reconciliation has given the world a new tool for handling difficult post conflict situations.  

Can you imagine a Middle East where unity in diversity was the over-riding principle?  Where all Israelis and Palestinians not only recognised each others differences, but also the strength and prosperity they would both gain by living peacefully together.

Imagine an Afghanistan that didn’t have to focus on the suppression of violent extremism, but was able to put all its efforts into building a strong, unified country shaped by the will of the Afghan people.

And an Iraq, where Sunni, Shia and Kurd alike consolidate the democratic progress they have enjoyed of late – and increasingly draw strength and unity from their diversity.

Some may say this is idealistic – but I don’t apologise for that.  

It was a healthy dose of idealism that brought a lasting peace to Northern Ireland.  In the decade since the Catholics and Protestants of Northern Ireland voted overwhelmingly in favour of a peace agreement, the rewards brought by that peace are there for all to see.  

And looking around Jakarta today, at its buzzing traffic and gleaming offices – it’s hard to imagine that little more than a decade ago, this country was in the grip of an authoritarian regime that restricted open expressions of political freedom.

Where once Indonesia seemed destined for disruption and economic decay - you are today being talked of by the likes of Newsweek magazine as “a cohesive, robust and exuberantly democratic…nation”.  

And where, just a few years ago, the lives of people in Aceh were being torn apart by conflict – those same people are now preparing for their second round of elections since the peace agreement.

It took idealism to imagine these changes – and I am sure no end of hard work and tolerance to make them a reality.

It is this mix of idealism, tolerance and hard work that I believe is needed now if we are to see a lasting end to the troubles between Israel and the Middle East.

The brutality of the war in Gaza has shocked us all.  When we see on our television screens the inconsolable despair of parents who have lost children; the shock of families standing among the ruins of their homes; or the fear in the eyes of those within range of Hamas rockets – we would have to have hearts of stone not to be moved.

The UK was active from the start in calling for a cease-fire – both in private and in public.  

We tabled and successfully negotiated a UN Security Council Resolution calling for an immediate halt to the fighting.  The British Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary, along with many others, were tireless in working with the international community to deliver that ceasefire.

We made it quite clear that, while Israel has a right to defend itself against Hamas rocket attacks, it also has a duty to fulfil its international humanitarian obligations whilst doing so.    

We condemn all Hamas attacks on Israeli civilians - but in our view, the Israeli military response was not proportionate.  

We support the UN Secretary-General’s call for a full investigation into the shelling of UN premises in Gaza and call on Israel to investigate fully other serious allegations that international law was broken during the conflict.

We also call on Israel to do more to open the crossings into Gaza, in order to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian aid.

The two most pressing tasks for the international community now are ensuring that the cease-fire holds and continuing the flow of urgent humanitarian assistance for the people of Gaza.

To meet the immediate humanitarian needs, the UK has trebled the financial assistance we are providing for Gaza.  We have pledged £26 million in aid to help provide medical services, food, fuel and vehicles, and to provide much needed support for desperately traumatised children.  

This is in addition to the £243 million we have committed to supporting Palestinian people in other ways over a three year period.

To ensure the ceasefire holds, we are urging Hamas to prevent any further rocket attacks on Israeli towns and villages – and to use their authority to call for an end to terrorist attacks like the one seen in Kissufim last month.  

The indiscriminate targeting of civilians is simply not a legitimate way to show defiance and can only lead to the continuation of a conflict that has shattered too many lives for too many years.

But simply keeping the ceasefire and providing emergency humanitarian aid is not enough.  If we are to see an end to the ongoing personal cost of this conflict, there is an urgent need to find a long term solution to the problems.
I say urgent – because we believe that this particular moment in time represents the best chance in a decade to find a lasting peace settlement.  
Neither Israel nor Palestine will find the peace they both want by waging war. 

It can only be found in a political solution.

We firmly believe in a comprehensive approach – with a two-state solution in Israel/Palestine – underpinned by a broader peace between Israel and the whole Arab world.

We’re not alone in this view.  The Arab League, in a letter they sent to President Obama before his inauguration, outlined to him the Arab Peace Initiative.  An initiative that offers Israel full normalisation of relations with all Arab states, in return for Israel’s withdrawal from occupied land and the creation of a Palestinian state.  

In other words – a 23 state solution: the 22 states of the Arab League plus Israel.

The Palestinian President himself described the Arab Peace Initiative as the most significant of the last 60 years.  Israeli leaders have also indicated that they view this initiative as the basis for negotiations.

And President Obama, in an interview to the Arab TV station al-Arabiya, called the initiative “courageous” and “significant”, and said that Israel would be willing to make sacrifices if there were serious partnership on the other side.
So I reiterate that we need urgent action to reach out and seize this chance for peace.  

We believe that Indonesia can play its part – by leveraging your influence with members of the Organisation of Islamic Conference to convince them to show the same unity in diversity, the same tolerance and willingness to seek compromise that has delivered so much for your citizens over the past decade.
We will do the same in our contacts with Israel, in our discussions with our partners in the EU, and with the new US administration.  

Of course the Middle East is not the only global issue that Indonesia can affect positively.  Like us, you have suffered directly from brutal terrorist attacks targeted at innocent people going about their normal lives.  

Terrorism requires a strong, international political and operative response – so that we not only prevent the attacks, but work also to prevent the sort of extremism that leads to such attacks.

We can do this best by offering an alternative, moderate choice to the one presented by the terrorists.

We are committed to working with Indonesia to prevent people either becoming terrorists, or supporting terrorist activity.

While there is no justification for people committing terrorist acts, we can reduce the environment in which terrorists find it easier to recruit supporters by working to eliminate social disadvantage, inequality and discrimination.
We must also challenge the ideologies that extremists use to justify their violence, by amplifying the voices of the moderates who disagree with these views.  

Indonesia has a leading role to play in the Islamic world – by showing that being a nation with a devoted respect for religion, does not mean you have to pander to those who wish to force one religion, or one version of a religion on others.  

It is important also to look at what attracts people to the extremists – whether it’s quick justice, or a promise to end corruption – and show that progress can be made on these issues without resorting to intolerance and hatred – but through better government providing the services expected by the people.
We are supporting the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan in their efforts to deliver more for their people.  

While our initial involvement in both countries was focussed on dealing with the immediate threats posed by the dictatorial regimes that ran them, our long term aim is to help them deliver stability, security and increasing prosperity for all their citizens.

Long term stability is what we seek in the Middle East, Afghanistan and Iraq.
For if we have a stable, peaceful Middle East, and a settled, moderate and increasingly prosperous Iraq and Afghanistan, much of the political, developmental and diplomatic effort we currently expend in those countries can be turned to tackling the other global challenges we face today:
-    the need to deal with the immediate threat posed by a global economic downturn, threatening the jobs of many;
-    the pressing need to reduce the green-house gasses that threaten our environment – on which Indonesia and the UK find much common ground;
-    and the longer term goal of preventing and resolving conflict wherever it exists.

These are big issues that will require effort from every nation – but more so from influential nations like the UK and Indonesia.

It is only when nations like ours come together – that we can hope to solve the most difficult and pressing problems.  

Only when we find common cause – and pursue that cause with vigour and determination – that we can make a genuine difference.

And only when, as Pramoedya wrote in his Buru Quartet, we concentrate on “humanities’ life…not humanities’ death” that we can hope to convince those bent on conflict that unity in diversity is a better, viable alternative.

I look forward to the UK and Indonesia working ever closer together – understanding each other better – and drawing strength from our differences to realise our shared aims.[]

In cooperation with Muhammadiyah and Cheng Ho Multi Culture Trust, CDCC organized the 2^nd World Peace Forum (WPF) in Jakarta, 24-26 June 2008. This forum brought together 210 prominent religious and political leaders, scholars, civil society activists, businessmen, and journalists from all over the world mainly to address the facets of violence persisting in our world today and search for effective measures to eradicate them. In its opening session, it featured messages from world leaders, i.e. Helen Clark (PM of New Zealand), Jan Peter Balkenende (PM of Netherlands), Kevin Rudd (PM of Australia), David Miliband (UK’s Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs), Mikhail Gorbachev (former President of the USSR), and Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (President of Indonesia), who opened the forum.

The following is the main part of the opening speech delivered by President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono during the 2^nd WPF.

The history of humankind has been a long search for peace, and yet peace has remained elusive as a permanent aspect of the human condition. There are persistent armed conflicts in various parts of the world up to this very day.

And yet peace is by no means a lost cause. Throughout history there have been efforts for the cause of peace that have achieved various degrees of success.

A notable example is the relative peace that the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has brought about through its ceaseless pursuit of political and economic cooperation in Southeast Asia.

Before ASEAN was founded, the Southeast Asian region was an economic backwater. War was raging in Indochina. Indonesia and Malaysia were in a state of confrontation. And all the regional nations were ignorant of one another and had little trust for one another.

But ASEAN changed all that. It cultivated among its member nations the habits of consultation, consensus and mutual accommodation. And it succeeded in engaging in cooperation with external powers on the basis of a code of ethics in the form of the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC) in Southeast Asia.

Today the ASEAN region and the rest of East Asia make up one of the most economically dynamic areas in the world—largely because the guns have been silent. The record clearly shows that ASEAN richly deserves its reputation as a peace worker and bridge builder among nations and between regions.

Within Indonesia itself, peace made a major breakthrough in recent times. Until 2005, it appeared that the separatist rebellion in Aceh would go on forever. But in the wake of the devastation of a natural disaster, my newly installed Administration finally succeeded in persuading the rebels to earnestly negotiate, and in record time we concluded a peace agreement.

That peace agreement has been faithfully implemented, and peace is now holding in Aceh. It promises to be a durable peace that will be attended by the rehabilitation and rebuilding of Aceh from the devastation of the tsunami of December 2004. Moreover, the outlook for the social and economic development of the province has never been brighter.

I can therefore confidently say that there is always hope for peace no matter how impossible the situation may appear. This is true in all cases of armed conflict—even those that are supposed to be particularly persistent and violent because they have assumed a religious nature.

The fact is that none of the world’s great religions teaches violence. And so it occurs to me, as it must have at various times occurred to you, that in many conflicts that are called “religious conflicts,” the true cause is not really religion.

It is often the case that a party to an armed conflict invokes religion to legitimize, to strengthen, and to marshal popular support for its cause, which at the bottom may turn out to be political, economic and social.

Sometimes the causes are legitimate political, economic and social grievances but these grievances become so much more powerful when mixed with religious fervor. That is an explosive mixture.

Invoking its own religion, the other party adopts the same strategy and the result is full blown and protracted warfare, with the original causes of the conflict often forgotten or buried in the subconscious of the combatants.

In those so called religious conflicts where there seem to be no strong underlying political, social and economic factors, then the real causes are very likely to be ignorance and prejudice. Such prejudice is often the result of the promotion of stereotypes. Through propaganda, it is easy enough to create in the collective consciousness of a population a set of mental pictures demonizing any group that is identified as the enemy.

Even in a situation that is originally peaceful, prejudice breeds insensitivity, which in turn can lead to violence in forms that are unpredictable.

For instance, three years ago, a cartoon in a local newspaper in Europe depicted the Prophet Muhammad SAW in a despicably irreverent manner. I am sure you know that case very well: the cartoon was circulated globally through print media and the internet, enraging many people in the Muslim world, leading to riots and widespread acts of violence and vandalism.

That gives us a stark lesson on a particular downside of globalization: that religious and cultural insensitivity in one part of the world can have terrible repercussions in another.

That lesson is not easy to learn. Early this year, a film purportedly on Islam titled “Fitna” was released: it seems to serve no other purpose but to propagate hatred and racism, to incite violence. Naturally, we in the Muslim world condemned that film but fortunately this time, no violence was committed. We responded with judicious restraint.

That, to my mind, points out the very first step toward effectively addressing the problem of violence: the practice of restraint. We should teach one another the virtue of restraint, and then practice what we teach.

But restraint is a short term response. For the long term, we need something more durable. We need to develop a habit of moderation as individuals and as members of groups. We need to foster a culture that gives a premium to moderation and tolerance.

We need to foster such a culture of peace, especially among the young—because the young today will eventually be the leaders of the human race. And now as well as in the future, we need leaders who are skilled in making peace and in making peace work. Our educators are therefore especially called upon to promote that culture of peace among the youth.

When I speak of leaders, I do not refer only to formal national leaders. I refer to everyone in a leadership position—in society, in the community, and in the family. I also refer to academic leaders and I especially refer to religious leaders. When there is solid leadership in the cause of peace, then a solid followership for peace can be created and built up.

The leaders can achieve this through dialogue, through inspiring words and through the force of their personal example. They can also put into good use what has been termed the technology of peace.

Over the decades sociologists, political scientists and men of various disciplines working in various institutions have developed a great body of knowledge on how to achieve peace and make it durable. This body of practical knowledge—which involves, dialogue and negotiations, confidence building, conflict resolution, peace keeping and peace building— is often called the technology of peace.

This technology of peace has figured in a way that is crucial to the negotiations that led to peace in Aceh. That same technology is being developed in ASEAN through its drive towards becoming a Security Community.

As to the technology of peace keeping, I am proud to say that Indonesia has considerable experience gained through participation in numerous peacekeeping missions under the banner of the United Nations. We are ready to share that experience with others.

Like all technology, the technology of peace will not be sufficiently effective and its benefits will be limited unless it is guided and inspired by positive human values. Foremost among the values that promote peace are those of moderation, tolerance, accommodation, compromise and mutual respect.

In this regard, we all have a great deal to learn. We who make up the community of nations must learn to be more sensitive and considerate of one another’s values. We who make up the various communities in the human race need to know and appreciate one another better. We need to respect what others hold as sacred. That means dialogue—the kind of dialogue that Indonesia has been trying to promote among faiths, civilizations and cultures.

And when we have learned, through dialogue, to appreciate one another and respect one another’s values, then we can work together. We can help one another to solve the problems that confront us all. We can help one another to address the political, economic and social grievances that are the root causes of many armed conflicts.

Instead of drawing battle lines against one another, we can build communities together. And when we can do that, we are well on our way to attaining durable peace.

For in a situation where social, political and economic grievances have been effectively addressed— in a situation where ignorance and prejudice have been banished through dialogue and community building, conflict cannot thrive, least of all religious conflict. This is true of the world at large, of regions, nations and neighborhoods.

This is also true of the individual. It is at that level, after all, that we must start to address the problems of ignorance and prejudice, because that is where the seeds of massive violence are planted—in the secret chambers of the individual human heart.

Listen to this. It is one of my favorite anecdotes:

An old man once told his grandson: ''A terrible fight is going on inside me -- a fight between two wolves. One is evil, and represents hate, anger, arrogance, and intolerance. The other is good, and represents peace, love, humility, tolerance, understanding, kindness, empathy, generosity, and compassion. This same fight is going on inside you, inside every other person too.'

The grandson then asked: ''Which wolf will win?''

The old man simply replied: ''The one you feed.''

We are here in this Forum to starve the wolf of hate— in ourselves and in our communities. We are here to feed the wolf of peace, love and compassion—in ourselves and in our communities, in our nations, regions and the world at large.[]