Suchergebnisse

On the occasion of the fifteenth century of the hijra, many scholarly publications will deal with various aspects of Islamic history, among which is the contribution of the Arabo-Muslim culture to Western civilisation. Philosophical and scientific contributions have already been discussed many times. The legacy of Islam in the field of international law has, however, not yet been studied at length.

IT IS SIGNIFICANT THAT THE FINAL ACT OF THE EUROPEAN SECURITY Conference, which was designed to promote the expansion of cultural exchanges, did not ay any special attention to the very institutions which are best fitted to achieve that expansion. The centres, which are only one instrument among many, could be an important stage in the development of cultural relations because they are probably the best-known and the most permanent form of cultural exchanges. But such was the lack of consensus among the signatories that no mention was made of them in the final Act. The debates were in fact marked by a violent disagreement between the USSR and France. Both advanced arguments which corresponded more to the 'national' cultural tradition than to the ideological cleavage in Europe today. Those who took part in the negotiations were aware of the abstruseness of the texts. They were therefore able to search out in the final Act the compromise which had been agreed on but which had been so watered down that it is difficult to see to what it refers. For example: 'The participating States express their intention … to envisage other appropriate measures which would permit where necessary by mutual agreement among interested parties the facilitation of access to their respective cultural achievements in particular in the field of books'.

Traditional cultural centers, which could be an asset to the improvement of cultural relations, were not included in the Final Act of the European Security Conference. Political disagreements prevented any consensus from being made. Most cultural centers represent their national cultures by teaching languages, distributing literature, showing films, & giving performances, lectures & exhibitions. They usually depend on government institutions for assistance. Exchanges of centers are most often made between countries with similar political, social, historical, & linguistic backgrounds. All European countries except the USSR feel cultural centers are useful, but disagree on the ways in which they are effective. Some of the problems include the limitations of geographical area & audiences (usually educated urbanites), the inevitable propaganda used for pursuing international policies, the expense, & the fact that they are used only for disbursing information. Although the traditional center may seem outdated, it does, however, provide an opening for a country to begin getting involved in cultural exchanges. The philosophical approach to culture is different in Western Europe & the socialist countries. The former favor the pluralistic approach, while the latter have determined culture to have a social function. Greater freedom of expression should be allowed for successful exchanges, with the allowance that anything considered subversive by the host country be voluntarily withheld. There are three kinds of cultural exchanges: unilateral, the diffusion of pure propaganda; bilateral, an exchange of ideas controlled by government; & multilateral, a true exchange of ideas without propaganda. In the last form, cultural centers could be truly significant. The idea centers would be places for debate, in which anyone could participate. At Helsinki, the Soviets & the French disagreed the most vehemently, but with one common belief, the primacy of the state in cultural relations. It is time for experimentation to take place in the development of new cultural centers. Those who signed the Final Act of the European Security Conference agreed to look for new methods. C. DeCicco.