PAST IAC DOCUMENTS ON ETHICS

The Rome Statement (1987)

Consultative Meeting on the Interrelated Questions of Peace,
Development, Population and Environment

La Civiltà Cattolica, 9-10 March 1987, Rome, Italy

PREFACE TO THE ROME STATEMENT
Takeo Fukuda
Honorary Chairman, InterAction Council

My greatest concern has been and is the difficult situation the world faces. Whether one looks at the world politically, militarily or economically, problems abound. And physical conditions surrounding our life, including population, development and environment, also present us with unprecedented crises. We simply will have no future, if we failed in our responses to these precarious settings. They require perseverance and determined efforts on our part, if we want to leave the world safe for our posterity. 
  Starting with such awareness, I convened in 1983 the InterAction Council with over two dozens of former heads of states and governments to consider how these problems can be solved and to act upon our convictions. While incumbent leaders are also concerned with these problems, they are preoccupied with daily events and are constrained by their respective national interests. I felt that former leaders with abundant experience which provides a certain dimension of wisdom, should not be complacent. The InterAction Council has had five plenary sessions and many special study group meetings. And we have had considerable impact on the world. 
  But I thought further. I have long felt that world peace and welfare of mankind concern religious groups as much as political figures. Would it not be significant for political and religious leaders to gather together and discuss the problems and issues of mutual concern? I felt that an understanding could be obtained from religious groups and that a certain common denominator might be found. After all, the importance of human being is universal. 
  So, some of the InterAction Council members met with leaders of five major religions of the world in Rome in the spring of 1987. It was agreed that the world’s situation was such that there was no future for mankind, if we failed to take up the challenges presented to us and if there were no room for political and religious leaders to jointly contribute to solving some of these problems. It was enormously gratifying for me to confirm that a broad agreement was reached on the fundamental difficulties of the world by representatives of the groups conventionally considered to have such divergent and even confronting views. 
  The agreement reached in Rome encourages us to continue our efforts. The meeting was an unprecedented effort in the human history and a very valuable one. I know that continued efforts to seek the meeting of minds will bring joint actions. I am grateful to have confirmed my belief with my own eyes and I offer my profound appreciation to providence. 

PREFACE TO THE ROME STATEMENT Helmut Schmidt
Chairman, InterAction Council 

Since the deep impressions which my conversation with Anwar el Sadat in the mid-seventies left on me - and especially after reflecting more about Sadat - my curiosity for the religious, philosophical and ethical tangencies and correspondences among the cultural areas of this world has become ever greater. Without mutual understanding it is difficult to serve peace. 
  But whether in Palestine or any other place of the world, it is difficult to imagine the idea of an “eternal peace” (as propagated by Immanuel Kant) to become reality. Of course, most people accept the moral value of this goal. Nevertheless, it also seems one can deduce from history that there is a high probability for further conflicts that will be solved by arms also in the future - in spite of a League of Nations or the United Nations and in spite of a far reaching cartel of the world powers. 
  Yet, the fact remains true: the earlier and the more often conflicts are defused and transformed towards compromises before leading to international use of force, the more there is a hope to evade wars. Or, in reverse: the more people resort to religious, nationalistic, racial or ideological radicalism and fundamentalism, the lesser will be their mutual understanding and the greater the probability of use of force and of war. 
  It was the wish for mutual listening, which brought together religious and political leaders in Rome. We did not only convene as Muslims, Jews and Christians, as Hindus and Buddhists or as free- thinkers, we also came as democrats and communists, conservatives or liberals; we came from utterly different dictatorships or utterly different democracies; we came from all the five continents of the world; we were black, brown, yellow or white. Despite those enormous differences, we did not only understand each other, we even agreed on deadly important questions. 
  It may seem simple to agree upon the wish for peace. But it is difficult - and this goes equally for religious and political leaders - to tangibly serve peace in our daily actions and omissions. It also may be relatively simple to realise that the world’s population explosion, which so far could not be slowed down, will in a few generations not only mean great economic suffering for billions of people, but also will mean an energy consumption that inevitably will change the chemical composition of the troposphere within a few decades and result in a greenhouse-effect leading to catastrophic consequences for an even greater number of people. Yet, in our daily actions and omissions, it is difficult to work for a slowing down of the world’s population growth and to make family planning a purpose for billions of human couples. 
  It was an important signal that leaders of all religions as well as political leaders from all quarters of the world acknowledged the importance of family planning. Many other leaders must also be made aware of this importance. 
  Scarifies are not unilateral. To give is to have. At the end of the 20th century, the threats to humanity can only be avoided by solidarity. 

STATEMENT ON GLOBAL ISSUES 

INTRODUCTION
For the first time in recent history, political and spiritual leaders from all the continents and five major religions met in Rome at the invitation of the InterAction Council. Over two days, the participants engaged in a discussion on world peace, the global economy and the interrelated areas of development, population and environment.
  The leaders agreed that humankind is confronted by the greatest set of crises in history, yet measures adequate to meet them have not been defined or devised. Unless there are effective and correct responses to the challenge presented by these crises, there will be no enduring future.
  They further agreed that, in addressing these problems, there are many areas for cooperation between spiritual and political leaders in their shared devotion to moral values, peace and human well-being.
  The initial exchange of views resulted in striking degree of common perception, evaluation of present dangers and recognition of a need for action built on a widely shared ethical basis.
  The leaders assembled in Rome agreed that such contacts must be continued by the InterAction Council and others at the global and regional levels, involving political, intellectual and scientific leaders, and should influence, with the support of the media, political decision- making processes. 

PEACE

Today, peace has lost its true meaning in a world which since World War II has not seen a single day without war, conflict, poverty and wide scale human and environmental degradation. Ethical principles shared by all participants led them to conclude that genuine peace can only be accomplished through an ongoing process of dialogue and receptive understanding permeating all areas of society and international contacts.
  All participants, therefore, welcome efforts to bring about disarmament. The United States and Soviet Union should honour their treaty commitments to achieve cuts in strategic weapon levels and continue negotiations aimed at even further reductions. Policies, of countries like the People’s Republic of China and Argentina, to cut their military budgets provides examples for progress.
  Scientific and engineering resources and capabilities presently devoted to the arms race should be redirected to the solution of global problems threatening human survival and welfare: the development of alternative energy resources and new transportation systems and technologies to mitigate the effects of impending climatic changes; the further exploration of the decay of the ozone layer; the prevention of a continued decline in the number of biological species; and measures to counter the threats to the biosphere. 

WORLD ECONOMY

For moral, political and economic reasons, humanity must strive towards a more equitable economic structure reversing the present appalling poverty which afflicts vast numbers of human beings throughout the world. Change can only be accomplished through a series of decisions and dialogue predicated on enlightened self-interest on the part of the industrialised and mutually supportive policies on the part of the developing countries. 
  The debt crisis with its ominous consequences must be resolved with a sense of urgency. Debt servicing cannot be met at the price of suffocating a country’s economy and no government can morally demand of its people deprivations incompatible with human dignity. All parties involved must make a tangible contribution and honour the moral principle of burden-sharing.
  Emergency assistance programmes are an indispensable part of ensuring the survival of many people and communities currently enduring abject poverty. There is a paramount need for fostering a sense of global solidarity for survival. 

DEVELOPMENT - POPULATION - ENVIRONMENT

It was stressed that moral values for the family in the future and the recognition of the common responsibility of women and men are indispensable in dealing with these issues. Rapid population growth in many developing countries vitiates any advance in development. This fuels the vicious cycle between underdevelopment, population growth and the erosion of human life-support systems. Responsible public policies require systematic projections of population, environmental and economic trends with particular attention to their interaction. 
  Cognizant of the different approaches of religions towards family planning policies and methods, the leaders yet agreed that present trends make the pursuit of effective family planning inevitable. The positive experience of several countries and religions should be shared and scientific research into family planning should be accelerated. 

PARTICIPANTS OF THE CONSULTATIVE MEETING
WITH THE SPIRITUAL LEADERS 

IAC MEMBERS 
Takeo Fukuda　　　　　        Former Prime Minister of Japan, Honorary
　　　　　　　　　　　           Chairman of the InterAction Council and
　　　　　　　　　   　            Chairman of the Consultative Meeting in Rome.

Helmut Schmidt　　　　        Former Chancellor of the Federal Republic of
　　　　　　　　　　　           Germany, Chairman of the InterAction Council


Jenoe Fock　　　　　　         Former Chairman of the Council of Ministers of
　　　　　　　　　　　           the Hungarian People’s Republic


Malcolm Fraser　　　　          Former Prime Minister of Australia


Olusegun Obasanjo　　          Former Head of the Federal Military
　　　　　　　　　　　　         Government of Nigeria 


Misael Pastrana Borrero          Former President of Colombia


Maria de Lourdes Pintasilgo　  Former Prime Minister of Portugal 


Bradford Morse　　　　　　　 Former UNDP Administrator,
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　 Honorary Member of the InterAction Council 
  
SPIRITUAL LEADERS 
Dr. A.T. Ariyaratne 　　　　　 Buddhist, Founder and President of the
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　  Sarvodaya Shramadana Movement, Sri Lanka 

Prof. K.H. Hasan Basri　　　  Muslim, General Chairman of the
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　  Majelis Ulama (Council of Islamic Scholars), Indonesia


Rev. John B. Cobb　　　　　Methodist, Visiting Professor at the
　　　　　　　　　　　　　    Harvard Divinity School, United States of America 

Franz Cardinal Koenig　　　 Roman Catholic, Archbishop Emeritus of Vienna,
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　 Former President of the Pontifical Secretariat for
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　 Non-Believers, Austria 

Mr. Li Shou-Pao　　　　　　Protestant, Vice-Chairman,
　　　　　　　　　　　　　   National Committee of the Three-Self and
　　　　　　　　　　　　　   General Secretary,
　　　　　　　　　　　　　   National Committee of the Young Men’s
　　　　　　　　　　　　　   Christian Association of China,
　　　　　　　　　　　　　   People’s Republic of China


Dr. Karan Singh　　　　　　Hindu, President of the Virat Hindu Samaj, India
  
Prof. Elio Toaff　　　　　　Jewish, Chief Rabbi in Rome and Member of the
　　　　　　　　　　　　　  Italian Rabbinic Council,
　　　　　　　　　　　　　  Member of the Executive Committee of the
　　　　　　　　　　　　　  European Rabbinical Conference

Mr. Lester Brown　　　　　Expert, Representing the Scientific Community,
　　　　　　　　　　　　　  President of the Worldwatch Institute 

In Search of Global Ethical Standards (1996) 

Report on the Conclusions and Recommendations
By a High-Level Expert Group on

IN SEARCH OF GLOBAL ETHICAL STANDARDS

Chaired by Helmut Schmidt
22-24 March 1996
Vienna, Austria 

Introduction
As human civilisation advances into the 21st century, the world is entering a period of transformation at least as profound and far reaching as that of the industrial revolution. Globalisation of the world economy is matched by globalisation of the world’s problems - population, environment, development, unemployment, security and moral and cultural decadence. Humankind is crying out both for justice and for meaning.
 
The physical changes in technology and the applied sciences have far outstripped the ability of our institutions to respond. The state is still the main instrument for translating collective will into concrete action but everywhere the concept of state sovereignty is under siege. To repeat the well-known phrase the nation state is too small for the big problems and too big for local problems. The multinational corporation enjoys unprecedented opportunities as world trade and investment expands but corporate leaders now face agonizing questions about corporate responsibility in unfamiliar areas like human rights. Religious institutions still command the loyalty of hundreds of millions of people but secularisation and consumerism command even more support. The world is also afflicted by religious extremism and violence preached and practiced in the name of religion. The use of the word “fundamentalism” in this regard is a misnomer, because religious people everywhere believe deeply in the fundamentals of their faiths, but most religious people also reject violence and believe that force should never be used to advance their cause. So the world is in flux. Where do we turn?
 

Concrete Recommendations
To promote the dissemination of ethical norms, the InterAction Council recognises that sovereign states are still the primary vehicles of change. Granted that the sovereign states are the main target, we should also pay due attention to the role of electronic mass media and the possible transnational organisations that are increasingly gaining power on the global scene.
 
To ensure some significant degree of success in promoting a global ethic, it is essential and perhaps crucial that religions of the world with divergent belief systems and regions of influence should be able to cooperate closely in persuading the sovereign states and various relevant institutions to help realise this goal. This would serve at least two important functions. On the one hand, this collaborative effort will demonstrate that different religions can indeed meet with open minds in reaching an agreement on the urgency of the problems humanity faces today, and on the role of ethical standards and norms required to combat this world crisis. On the other, the mere fact that all the religions of the world have been able to work in concert to promote global ethical standards will ease the task of disseminating such norms throughout the world.

Meetings of the world religious leaders could facilitate the cause of global ethics. Such meetings can specifically urge sovereign states and their leaders, educational institutions, mass media (TV, video, etc.), as well as their own religious institutions, to adopt and promote by every means possible a consensus on the global ethic. It should be stressed that such gatherings should include representatives of religions, making sure to include women. Existing global religious organisations could facilitate such meetings.
 
Recommendations by these groups should be directed mainly to the people in decision-making positions of government, education, mass media, non-governmental non-profit organisations, and religious organisations of each sovereign state. These have direct or indirect involvement with propagation and inculcation of the global ethical standards and norms contained in the recommendations and other basic information related to world religions.
 
If religious leaders accept the invitation of the InterAction Council to meet, the world will welcome a discussion of a concrete action plan to promote the dissemination of the global ethic. While not exclusive, elements of such a plan could include: 

• ・The compiling of a common code of ethics which could then be
• 　put in booklet form and disseminated across the globe.

• ・In addition to this general code of ethics, specific codes of ethics
• 　should be promoted for the professions, business, political parties,
• 　mass media and other critical interests. Such codes of ethics will
• 　contribute to self-regulation.

• ・Suggestions to the world’s leaders that in 1998, the 50th
• 　anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
• 　the United Nations should convene a conference to consider a
• 　Declaration of Human Obligations to complement the earlier
• 　crucial work on rights.

• ・Development of a global educational curriculum that would
• 　include the best contributions of the world’s religions and
• 　philosophies. Such a curriculum should be available to every
• 　educational institution and it should be accessible through the most
• 　current communications technologies - the internet, educational
• 　television, videos, radio, etc.

• ・To broaden understanding and to combine the intellectual
• 　resources necessary for the development of such a curriculum, the
• 　United Nations should consider establishing as part of the U.N.
• 　University system a World Interfaith Academy that would bring
• 　together scholars, students and leaders of the world’s faiths.

The Need for Global Ethical Standards
As Aristotle taught us, the human being is a social animal. Because we must live in society - because we must live with each other in harmony - human beings need rules and constraints. Ethics are the minimum standards that make a collective life possible. Without ethics and self-restraint that are their result, humankind would revert to the jungle. In a world of unprecedented change humankind has a desperate need of an ethical base on which to stand. 

The world’s religions constitute one of the great traditions of wisdom for humankind. This repository of wisdom, ancient in its origins, has never been needed more. Ethics should precede politics and the law, because political action is concerned with values and choice. Ethics, therefore, must inform and inspire our political leadership. Education at its best opens up human potential to understanding and tolerance. Without ethics and the teaching of right and wrong, our schools become mere factories mass producing labour soon to be obsolescent. Mass communications is one of the most powerful mediums in influencing the mind and behaviours of human beings but the violence, degradation and triviality of much of the media pollute the human spirit rather than elevate it.

To respond to this world of change each of our institutions needs a re-dedication to ethical norms. We can find the sources of such a re- dedication in the world’s religions and ethical traditions. They have the spiritual resources to give an ethical lead to the solution of our ethnic, national, social, economic and religious tensions. The world’s religions have different doctrines but they all advocate a common ethic of basic standards. What unites the world’s faiths is far greater than what divides them. They all advocate self-restraint, obligations, responsibilities and sharing. They all advocate the virtues of humility, compassion and justice. Each assesses the maze of life and in its own way discerns the patterns which give meaning to the whole. To solve our global problems we must begin with a common ethical base.


The Core of a Global Ethic

Today humanity possesses sufficient economic, cultural, and spiritual resources to introduce a better global order, but old and new ethnic, national, social, economic and religious tensions threaten the peaceful building of a better world. In such a dramatic global situation humanity needs a vision of peoples living peacefully together, of ethnic and ethical groupings and of religions sharing responsibility for the care of earth, a vision which rests on hopes, goals, ideals, standards. We are therefore, grateful that the Parliament of the World’s Religions, which assembled in Chicago in 1993, proclaimed a Declaration towards a Global Ethic which we support in principle. 

There have been landmark advances to strengthen human rights in international law and justice beginning with the United Nations adopting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, strengthened by the two Human Rights Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and Social, Cultural and Economic Rights, and elaborated by the Vienna Declaration on Human Rights and Programme for Action. What the U.N. proclaimed on the level of rights, the Chicago Declaration confirmed and deepened from the perspective of obligations: the full realisation of intrinsic dignity of the human person, the inalienable freedom and equality in principle of all humans and the necessary solidarity and interdependence of all humans with each other, both as individuals and as communities. Also we are convinced that a better global order cannot be created or enforced by laws, prescriptions, and conventions alone; that action in favour of rights and freedoms presumes a consciousness of responsibility and duty, and that therefore both the minds and hearts of women and men must be addressed; that rights without obligations cannot long endure, and that there will be no better global order without a global ethic. 

The global ethic is no substitute for the Torah, the Gospels, the Qur’an, the Bhagavad-Gita, and the Discourses of the Buddha or the Teachings of Confucius and of others. A global ethic provides a necessary minimum of common values, standards and basic attitudes. 

In other words: a minimal basic consensus relating to binding values, irrevocable standards and moral attitudes which can be affirmed by all religions despite their dogmatic differences and can also be supported by non-believers. 

In affirmation of the Chicago Declaration, which for the first time in the history of religions formulated this minimal basic consensus, we recommend two principles which are vital for every individual, social, and political ethic:
  

• 1)  Every human being must be treated humanely.
• 2)  Do unto others as you want others to do unto you.
• 　  This Rule is part of every great religious tradition. 

On the basis of these two principles there are four irrevocable com- mitments on which all religions agree and which we fully support: 

• ・a commitment to a culture of non-violence and respect for life,
• ・a commitment to a culture of solidarity and a just economic order,
• ・a commitment to a culture of tolerance and a life of truthfulness,
• ・a commitment to a culture of equal rights and partnership between
•    men and women. 

Cognisant of the different approaches of religions towards family planning policies and methods, it was agreed that present population trends make the pursuit of effective family planning inevitable. The positive experience of several countries and religions should be shared and scientific research into family planning should be accelerated.

Education, at all levels, has a crucial role to play in inculcating global ethical values in the minds of the younger generation. From the primary school to the university, curricula and syllabi should be restructured to include common global values and to promote understanding of religions other than one’s own. Educational programmes should inform values like “affirmative tolerance” and curricular materials should be produced accordingly. The development of the aspirations of youth should be a major emphasis. UNESCO and the United Nations University and other international bodies should work together to achieve this objective. The electronic media should be enlisted.

We note the ongoing participatory process, initiated by the Earth Council and Green Cross International to develop an Earth Charter. We welcome this initiative as an example of an effort to involve the world’s religions and other groups in defining the basic change in values, behaviour and attitudes of government, private sector and civil society, needed for a shift to a sustainable development.

Because respect of life is a core ethical commitment, combating the scourge of war and violence must be at the top of the world’s priorities. Two issues in particular smut receive immediate attention: the trade in small arms, semi-automatic weapons must be curbed and the easy availability of such weapons must cease. And like small arms, landmines have destroyed a score of innocent lives. This problem is especially acute in Cambodia, in the former Yugoslavia, in Africa and in Afghanistan. The systematic removal and dismantling of landmines is an urgent need. 

List of Participants 

InterAction Council Members

Helmut Schmidt, Chairman
Andries van Agt 
Pierre Elliott Trudeau
Miguel de la Madrid Hurtado

Experts

Mughram Al-Ghamdi, Dean, The King Fahad Academy, London
Michio Araki, Professor, University of Tsukuba
Shanti Aram, President, Shanti Ashram Coimbatore, India
Thomas Axworthy, Executive Director, CRB Foundation
Abdolijavad Falaturi, Director, Islamic Scientific Academy and
　　Professor, University of Cologne
Ananda Grero, former Judge of the Court of Appeal, Sri Lanka
Kim Kyong-Dong, Professor, Seoul National University
Cardinal Dr. Franz König, Vienna Austria
Hans Küng, Professor, University of Tubingen
Peter Landesmann, Professor, University of Vienna
Liu Xiao-feng, Academy Director, Institute of Sino-Christian Studies,
　　Hong Kong
L.M. Singhvi, High Commissioner for India, London
Majorie Suchocki, Dean, School of Theology at Claremont, USA
Shizue Yamaguchi, former Member of Parliament, Japan (Observer) 

Journalist

Flora Lewis, International Herald Tribune

A Universal Declaration of Human Responsibilities (1997)

DRAFT UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF
HUMAN RESPONSIBILITIES

Proposed by the InterAction Council
1 September 1997

Introductory Comment

It is time to talk about human responsibilities 

Globalisation of the world economy is matched by global problems, and global problems demand global solutions on the basis of ideas, values and norms respected by all cultures and societies. Recognition of the equal and inalienable rights of all the people requires a foundation of freedom, justice and peace - but this also demands that rights and responsibilities be given equal importance to establish an ethical base so that all men and women can live peacefully together and fulfil their potential. A better social order both nationally and internationally cannot be achieved by laws, prescriptions and conventions alone, but needs a global ethic. Human aspirations for progress can only be realised by agreed values and standards applying to all people and institutions at all times. 
  Next year will be the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations. The anniversary would be an opportune time to adopt a Universal Declaration of Human Responsibilities, which would complement the Human Rights Declaration and strengthen it and help lead to a better world.
  The following draft of human responsibilities seeks to bring freedom and responsibility into balance and to promote a move from the freedom of indifference to the freedom of involvement. If one person or government seeks to maximise freedom but does it at the expense of others, a larger number of people will suffer. If human beings maximise their freedom by plundering the natural resources of the earth, then future generations will suffer.
  The initiative to draft a Universal Declaration of Human
Responsibilities is not only a way of balancing freedom with responsibility, but also a means of reconciling ideologies, beliefs and political views that were deemed antagonistic in the past. The proposed declaration points out that the exclusive insistence on rights can lead to endless dispute and conflict, that religious groups in pressing for their own freedom have a duty to respect the freedom of others. The basic premise should be to aim at the greatest amount of freedom possible, but also to develop the fullest sense of responsibility that will allow that freedom itself to grow. 
  The InterAction Council has been working to draft a set of human ethical standards since 1987. But its work builds on the wisdom of religious leaders and sages down the ages who have warned that freedom without acceptance of responsibility can destroy the freedom itself, whereas when rights and responsibilities are balanced, then freedom is enhanced and a better world can be created.
  The InterAction Council commends the following draft Declaration for your examination and support. 

Universal Declaration of Human Responsibilities
(Proposed by the InterAction Council) 

Preamble

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world and implies obligations or responsibilities,

whereas the exclusive insistence on rights can result in conflict, division, and endless dispute, and the neglect of human responsibilities can lead to lawlessness and chaos, 

 
whereas the rule of law and the promotion of human rights depend on the readiness of men and women to act justly, 

whereas global problems demand global solutions which can only be achieved through ideas, values, and norms respected by all cultures and societies,

whereas all people, to the best of their knowledge and ability, have a responsibility to foster a better social order, both at home and globally, a goal which cannot be achieved by laws, prescriptions, and conventions alone,

whereas human aspirations for progress and improvement can only be realised by agreed values and standards applying to all people and institutions at all times, 

Now, therefore,
The General Assembly

proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Responsibilities as a common standard for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall contribute to the advancement of communities and to the enlightenment of all their members. We, the peoples of the world thus renew and reinforce commitments already proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: namely, the full acceptance of the dignity of all people; their inalienable freedom and equality, and their solidarity with one another. Awareness and acceptance of these responsibilities should be taught and promoted throughout the world. 

Fundamental Principles for Humanity
Article 1

Every person, regardless of gender, ethnic origin, social status, political opinion, language, age, nationality, or religion, has a responsibility to treat all people in a humane way.

Article 2

No person should lend support to any form of inhumane behaviour, but all people have a responsibility to strive for the dignity and self- esteem of all others.

Article 3

No person, no group or organisation, no state, no army or police stands above good and evil; all are subject to ethical standards. Everyone has a responsibility to promote good and to avoid evil in all things.

Article 4

All people, endowed with reason and conscience, must accept a responsibility to each and all, to families and communities, to races, nations, and religions in a spirit of solidarity: Do not do unto others that which you do not wish be done unto yourself.

Non-Violence and Respect for Life
Article 5

Every person has a responsibility to respect life. No one has the right to injure, to torture or to kill another human person. This does not exclude the right of justified self-defence of individuals or communities.

Article 6

Disputes between states, groups or individuals should be resolved without violence. No government should tolerate or participate in acts of genocide or terrorism, nor should it abuse women, children, or any other civilians as instruments of war. Every citizen and public official has a responsibility to act in a peaceful, non-violent way.

Article 7

Every person is infinitely precious and must be protected unconditionally. The animals and the natural environment also demand protection. All people have a responsibility to protect the air, water and soil of the earth for the sake of present inhabitants and future generations.

Justice and Solidarity
Article 8

Every person has a responsibility to behave with integrity, honesty and fairness. No person or group should rob or arbitrarily deprive any other person or group of their property.

Article 9

All people, given the necessary tools, have a responsibility to make serious efforts to overcome poverty, malnutrition, ignorance, and inequality. They should promote sustainable development all over the world in order to assure dignity, freedom, security and justice for all people.

Article 10

All people have a responsibility to develop their talents through diligent endeavour; they should have equal access to education and to meaningful work. Everyone should lend support to the needy, the disadvantaged, the disabled and the victims of discrimination.

Article 11

All property and wealth must be used responsibly in accordance with justice and for the advancement of the human race. Economic and political power must not be handled as an instrument of domination, but in the service of economic justice and of the social order.

Truthfulness and Tolerance
Article 12

Every person has a responsibility to speak and act truthfully. No one, however high or mighty, should speak lies. The right to privacy and to personal and professional confidentiality is to be respected. No one is obliged to tell all the truth to everyone all the time.

Article 13

No politicians, public servants, business leaders, scientists, writers or artists are exempt from general ethical standards, nor are physicians, lawyers and other professionals who have special duties to clients. Professional and other codes of ethics should reflect the priority of general standards such as those of truthfulness and fairness.

Article 14

The freedom of the media to inform the public and to criticize institutions of society and governmental actions, which is essential for a just society, must be used with responsibility and discretion. Freedom of the media carries a special responsibility for accurate and truthful reporting. Sensational reporting that degrades the human person or dignity must at all times be avoided.

Article 15

While religious freedom must be guaranteed, the representatives of religions have a special responsibility to avoid expressions of prejudice and acts of discrimination toward those of different beliefs. They should not incite or legitimise hatred, fanaticism and religious wars, but should foster tolerance and mutual respect between all people.

Mutual Respect and Partnership
Article 16

All men and all women have a responsibility to show respect to one another and understanding in their partnership. No one should subject another person to sexual exploitation or dependence. Rather, sexual partners should accept the responsibility of caring for each other’s well-being.

Article 17

In all its cultural and religious varieties, marriage requires love, loyalty and forgiveness and should aim at guaranteeing security and mutual support.

Article 18

Sensible family planning is the responsibility of every couple. The relationship between parents and children should reflect mutual love, respect, appreciation and concern. No parents or other adults should exploit, abuse or maltreat children.

Conclusion
Article 19

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any state, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the responsibilities, rights and freedom set forth in this Declaration and in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948.

A UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RESPONSIBILITIES

Report on the Conclusions and Recommendations
By a High-level Expert Group Meeting
Chaired by Helmut Schmidt
20-22 April 1997
Vienna, Austria

It is time to talk about human responsibilities 

The call by the InterAction Council for a Universal Declaration of Human Responsibilities is timely. Although traditionally we have spoken of human rights, and indeed the world has gone a long way in their international recognition and protection since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the United Nations in 1948, it is time now to initiate an equally important quest for the acceptance of human duties or obligations. 
  This emphasis of human obligations is necessary for several reasons. Of course, this idea is new only to some regions of the world; many societies have traditionally conceived of human relations in terms of obligations rather than rights. This is true, in general terms, for instance, for much of Eastern thought. While traditionally in the West, at least since the 17th Century age of enlightenment, the concepts of freedom and individuality have been emphasised, in the East, the notions of responsibility and community have prevailed. The fact that a Universal Declaration of Human Rights was drafted instead of a Universal Declaration of Human Duties undoubtedly reflects the philosophical and cultural background of the document’s drafters who, as is known, represented the Western powers who emerged victorious from the Second World War.

The concept of human obligations also serves to balance the notions of freedom and responsibility: while rights relate more to freedom, obligations are associated with responsibility. Despite this distinction, freedom and responsibility are interdependent. Responsibility, as a moral quality, serves as a natural, voluntary check for freedom. In any society, freedom can never be exercised without limits. Thus, the more freedom we enjoy, the greater the responsibility we bear, toward others as well as ourselves. The more talents we possess, the bigger the responsibility we have to develop them to their fullest capacity. We must move away from the freedom of indifference towards the freedom of involvement.
  The opposite is also true: as we develop our sense of responsibility, we increase our internal freedom by fortifying our moral character. When freedom presents us with different possibilities for action, including the choice to do right or wrong, a responsible moral character will ensure that the former will prevail.
  Sadly, this relationship between freedom and responsibility is not always understood clearly. Some ideologies have placed greater importance on the concept of individual freedom, while others concentrate on an unquestioning commitment to the social group.
  Without a proper balance, unrestricted freedom is as dangerous as imposed social responsibility. Great social injustices have resulted from extreme economic freedom and capitalist greed, while at the same time cruel oppression of people’s basic liberties has been justified in the name of society’s interests or communist ideals. 
  Either extreme is undesirable. At present, with the disappearance of the East-West conflict and the end of the Cold War, humankind seems closer to the desired balance between freedom and responsibility. We have struggled for freedom and rights. It is now time to foster responsibility and human obligations.

The InterAction Council believes that globalisation of the world economy is matched by globalisation of the world’s problems. Because global interdependence demands that we must live with each other in harmony, human beings need rules and constraints. Ethics are the minimum standards that make a collective life possible. Without ethics and self-restraint that are their result, humankind would revert to the survival of the fittest. The world is in need of an ethical base on which to stand.
  Recognising this need, the InterAction Council began its search for universal ethical standards with a meeting of spiritual leaders and political leaders in March 1987 at La Civiltà Cattolica in Rome, Italy. The initiative was taken by the late Takeo Fukuda, former Prime Minister of Japan who founded the InterAction Council in 1983. Again in 1996, the Council requested a report by a high-level expert group on the subject of global ethical standards. The Council, at its Vancouver Plenary Meeting in May 1996, welcomed the report of this Group, which consisted of religious leaders from several faiths and experts drawn from across the globe. The findings of this report “In Search of Global Ethical Standards” demonstrated that the world faiths have much in common and the Council endorsed the recommendation that “in 1998, the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations should convene a conference to consider a Declaration of Human Obligations to complement the earlier crucial work on rights”. 

The initiative to draft a Universal Declaration of Human Responsibilities is not only a way of balancing freedom with responsibility, but also a means of reconciling ideologies and political views that were deemed antagonistic in the past. The basic premise, then, should be that humans deserve the greatest possible amount of freedom, but also should develop their sense of responsibility to its fullest in order to correctly administer their freedom. 
  This is hardly a new idea. Throughout the millennia prophets, saints and sages have implored mankind to take its responsibilities seriously. In our century, for example, Mahatma Gandhi preached on the seven social sins. 

• • • • • • 1. Politics without principles
          • 2. Commerce without morality
          • 3. Wealth without work
          • 4. Education without character
          • 5. Science without humanity
          • 6. Pleasure without conscience
          • 7. Worship without sacrifice 

Globalisation, however, has given new urgency to the teaching of Gandhi and other ethical leaders. Violence on our television screens is now transmitted by satellites across the planet. Speculation in far away financial markets can devastate local communities. The influence of private tycoons now approaches the power of governments and unlike elected politicians, there is no accountability for this private power except for their own personal sense of responsibility. Never has the world needed a declaration of human responsibilities more. 

From Rights to Obligations
Because rights and duties are inextricably linked, the idea of a human right only makes sense if we acknowledge the duty of all people to respect it. Regardless of a particular society’s values, human relations are universally based on the existence of both rights and duties.
  There is no need for a complex system of ethics to guide human action. There is one ancient rule that, if truly followed, would ensure just human relations: the Golden Rule. In its negative form, the Golden Rule mandates that we not do to others what we do not wish be done to us. The positive form implies a more active and solidary role: Do unto others that which you wish be done unto yourself. 
  Bearing in mind the Golden Rule, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides an ideal starting point from which to consider some of the main obligations which are a necessary complement to those rights. 

• ・If we have a right to life, then we have the obligation to respect life.

• ・If we have a right to liberty, then we have the obligation to respect
• 　other people’s liberty.

• ・If we have a right to security, then we have the obligation to create
• 　the conditions for every human being to enjoy human security.
  

• ・If we have a right to partake in our country’s political process and
• 　elect our leaders, then we have the obligation to participate and
• 　ensure that the best leaders are chosen.

• ・If we have a right to work under just and favourable conditions to
• 　provide a decent standard of living for ourselves and our families,
• 　we also have the obligation to perform to the best of our capacities.

• ・If we have a right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion,
• 　we also have the obligation to respect other’s thoughts or religious
• 　principles.

• ・If we have a right to be educated, then we have the obligation to
• 　learn as much as our capabilities allow us and, where possible,
• 　share our knowledge and experience with others.

• ・If we have a right to benefit from the earth’s bounty, then we have
• 　the obligation to respect, care for and restore the earth and its
• 　natural resources. 

As human beings, we have unlimited potential for self-fulfilment. Thus we have the obligation to develop our physical, emotional, intellectual and spiritual capacities to their fullest. The importance of the concept of responsibility towards attaining self-realisation cannot be overlooked. 

List of Participants 

InterAction Council Members

• H. E. Mr. Helmut Schmidt
  H. E. Mr. Andries van Agt
  H. E. Mr. Miguel de la Madrid Hurtado

Academic Advisors

• Prof. Hans Küng, Tübingen University
  Prof.Thomas S. Axworthy, Adjunct Faculty in Public Policy
• 　at Harvard University
  Prof. Kim Kyong-dong, Seoul National University

High-level Experts

• Cardinal Franz König, Vienna, Austria
  Prof. Hassan Hanafi, University of Cairo
  Dr. Ariyaratne, President of the Sarvodaya Movement of Sri Lanka
• The Rt. Rev. James H. Ottley, Anglican observer at the United Nations
• Dr. M. Aram, President, World Conference on Religion & Peace
• (MP, India)
• Dr. Julia Ching (Representing Confucianism)
  Dr. Anna-Marie Aagaard, World Council of Churches
  Dr. Teri McLuhan, Author
  Prof. Yersu Kim, Director of the Division of Philosophy and Ethics,
• UNESCO
• Prof. Richard Rorty, Stanford Humanities Center
  Prof. Peter Landesmann, European Academy of Sciences, Salzburg
• Ambassador Koji Watanabe, Former Japanese Ambassador to Russia 

Journalists

• Ms. Flora Lewis, International Herald Tribune
• Mr. Woo Seung-yong, Munhwa Ilbo 

Project coordinator

• Keiko Atsumi, IAC Tokyo Secretariat 

ENDORSEMENT OF THE DECLARATION

The proposed Universal Declaration of Human Responsibilities have
the endorsement of the following individuals: 

I. The InterAction Council Members

• Helmut Schmidt (Honorary Chairman)
  • Former Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany
• Malcolm Fraser (Chairman)
  • Former Prime Minister of Australia
• Andries A. M. van Agt
  • Former Prime Minister of the Netherlands
• Anand Panyarachun
  • Former Prime Minister of Thailand
• Oscar Arias Sanchez
  • Former President to of Costa Rica
• Lord Callaghan of Cardiff
  • Former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
• Jimmy Carter
  • Former President of the United States
• Miguel de la Madrid Hurtado
  • Former President of Mexico
• Kurt Furgler
  • Former President of Switzerland
• Valéry Giscard d’Estaing
  • Former President of France
• Felipe Gonzalez Marquez
  • Former Prime Minister of Spain
• Mikhail S. Gorbachev
  • Chairman of the Supreme Soviet and President of the Union
  • of Soviet Socialist Republics 
• Selim Hoss
  • Former Prime Minister of Lebanon
• Kenneth Kaunda
  • Former President of Zambia
• Lee Kuan Yew
  • Former Prime Minister of Singapore
• Kiichi Miyazawa
  • Former Prime Minister of Japan
• Misael Pastrana Borrero
  • Former President of Colombia (deceased in August)
• Shimon Peres
  • Former Prime Minister of Israel
• Maria de Lourdes Pintasilgo
  • Former Prime Minister of Portugal
• Jose Sarney
  • Former President of Brazil
• Shin Hyon Hwak
  • Former Prime Minister of the Republic of Korea
• Kalevi Sorsa
  • Former Prime Minister of Finland
• Pierre Elliott Trudeau
  • Former Prime Minister of Canada
• Ola Ullsten
  • Former Prime Minister of Sweden
• George Vassiliou
  • Former President of Cyprus
• Franz Vranitzky
  • Former President of Austria 

II. Supporters

• Ali Alatas, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Indonesia
• Abdulaziz Al-Quraishi, former Chairman of SAMA
• Lester Brown, President, Worldwatch Institute
• Andre Chouraqui, Professor in Israel
• John B. Cobb Jr., Claremont School of Theology 
• Takako Doi, President, Japan Socialist Democratic Party
• Kan Kato, President, Chiba University of Commerce
• Henry A. Kissinger, Former U.S. Secretary of State
• Teddy Kollek, Mayor of Jerusalem
• William Laughlin, American entrepreneur
  Chwasan Lee Kwang Jung, Head Dharma Master, Won Buddhism
• Federico Mayor, Director-General, UNESCO
  Robert S. McNamara, former President, World Bank
• Rabbi Dr. J.Magonet, Principal, Leo Baek College
  Robert Muller, Rector, University For Peace
  Konrad Raiser, World Council of Churches
  Jonathan Sacks, Chief Rabbi of the U.K.
  Seijuro Shiokawa, former Ministers of Home Affairs,
• 　Education and Transportation of Japan
  Rene Samuel Sirat, Grand Rabbi of France
  Sir Sigmund Sternberg, International Council of Christians and Jews
• Masayoshi Takemura, former Finance Minister of Japan
• Gaston Thorn, former Prime Minister of Luxembourg
• Paul Volcker, Chairman, James D. Wolfensohn Inc.
  Carl Friedrich v.Weizsäcker, Scientist
  Richard v. Weizsäcker, former President of the Federal Republic of Germany
• Mahmoud Zakzouk, Minister of Religion, Egypt 

III. Participants (in preparatory meetings in Vienna, Austria in
　 March 1996 and April 1997) and special guests (at the 15th
　 Plenary Session in Noordwijk, The Netherlands in June 1997)

• Hans Küng, Tubingen University
  • (Academic advisor to the project)
• Thomas S. Axworthy, CRB Foundation
  • (Academic advisor to the project)
• Kim, Kyong-dong , Seoul National University
  • (Academic advisor to the project) 
• Cardinal Franz König, Vienna, Austria
  Anna-Marie Aagaard, World Council of Churches
  A.A. Mughram Al-Ghamdi, The King Fahad Academy
  M. Aram, World Conference on Religion & Peace,
  A.T. Ariyaratne, Sarvodaya Movement of Sri Lanka
  Julia Ching, University of Toronto
  Hassan Hanafi, University of Cairo
  Nagaharu Hayabusa, The Asahi Shimbun
  Yersu Kim, Division of Philosophy and Ethics, UNESCO
• Peter Landesmann, European Academy of Sciences
• Lee, Seung-Yun, Former Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
• 　of Economic Planning Board of the Republic of Korea
• Flora Lewis, International Herald Tribune
  Liu, Xiao-feng, Institute of Sino-Christian Studies
  Teri McLuhan, Canadian author
• Isamu Miyazaki, Former State Minister, Economic Planning Agency of Japan
• J.J.N.Rost Onnes, Executive Vice President, ABN AMRO Bank
• James Ottley, Anglican observer at the United Nations
• Richard Rorty, Stanford Humanities Center
  L. M. Singhvi, High Commissioner for India
• Marjorie Hewitt Suchocki, Claremont School of Theology
• Seiken Sugiura, House of Representatives of Japan
  Koji Watanabe, Former Japanese Ambassador to Russia
• Woo, Seong-yong, Munhwa Ilbo
• Wu Xuequian, Vice Chairman, Chinese People’s Political
• 　Consultative Conference
• Alexander Yakovlev, Former Member, Presidential Council of
• 　the Soviet Union 

Jakarta Declaration (2003)

A Statement from the InterAction Council Meeting
of Political and Religious Leaders


BRIDGING THE DIVIDE


11-12 March 2003 Habibie Centre, Jakarta Indonesia 

Since its foundation, the InterAction Council has been concerned about moral values and ethical standards, particularly in political and business leadership.
  In 1987 the Council convened a Consultative Meeting with Spiritual Leaders on Peace, Development, Population and the Environment in Rome. At its meeting in Vienna in 1996 the Council focused on a search of global ethical standards, acceptable to all religions. As a consequence it drafted the proposed Universal Declaration of Human Responsibilities which, if accepted, in the view of the Council, would strongly reinforce the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In 1999 in Cairo the Council addressed the religious implications of the Middle East conflict.
  Since the horrendous and tragic attacks on New York and Washington, the Council has been concerned that the “War on Terror” could generate conditions for a wider conflict between religions.
  The reaction to the further terrorist attacks in Kenya, Russia, India and Indonesia, has reinforced these concerns.
 
Therefore, it is important to bear in mind the following considerations:

• 1. The current world situation, in particular, the “War on Terror” and
• 　further proliferation of weapons 　of mass destruction, could lead to
• 　even greater instability and to the breakdown of order throughout
• 　the world. 

• 2. While some terrorists may be motivated by hate and envy alone,
• 　others have quite specific objectives and purposes which are local
• 　and not universal in their implications.

• 3. One unhappy reality is that some of the policies of certain Western
• 　countries are perceived as causes for terrorism. Such attitudes can
• 　be caused by the perception of partiality in critical regions, by
• 　growing inequality between rich and poor, which include the fact
• 　that many people in many countries fall further behind because
• 　they do not have the resources to participate in this globalised
• 　world. The spirit and imperatives behind the Millennium
• 　Development Goals of the United Nations directed to mobilising
• 　world financial, political, moral and institutional resources to
• 　guaranteeing decent living standards for all people, need to be
• 　translated into action.

• 4. Strategic and economic justice and equilibrium between the
• 　nations of the world should be a continuing objective which can
• 　only be achieved through cooperation, understanding and the
• 　creation of trust. Policy should be directed to such ends.

• 5. The United Nations’ outlawing of war, unless in direct self-
• 　defence or authorised under Chapter VII by the Security
• 　Council as a threat to international peace and security, is a major
• 　advance in promoting peace. If states now accept the doctrine of
• 　unilateral pre-emption, the work of the last 50 years in promoting
• 　international law will be undone. 

Therefore: 

• I. We call on all religious leaders to expressly reject any religious
• 　legitimation of violence and terrorism.

• II. We urge world leaders to take positive steps to cross divides
• 　between people of different religions and ethnicity; to establish
• 　a more cooperative world where discussion and consensus will
• 　determine outcomes and to work for justice between the nations
• 　of the world. 

• III. We call on all states , great and small , to work with and through the 
• 　United Nations, and especially the Security Council, as the most
• 　appropriate means of achieving justice, equilibrium and peace.
• 　We urge all nations to support the vital work of the United Nations
• 　and to seek to strengthen its role in solving international conflict.

• IV. We call on all states to recognise universal human values and
• 　fundamental ethical standards, which are shared by all religions
• 　and humanist philosophies, and to develop a culture of non-
• 　violence and respect for life, of solidarity and a just economic
• 　order, of tolerance and a life of truthfulness, and of equal rights
• 　and partnership between men and women.

• V. We call on all states and religions to recognise that extremism can
• 　be found in religious and political ideology of all kinds, and that
• 　wherever it is found, even within their own borders, it must be
• 　condemned and opposed.

• VI. We therefore,call on political, religious and public opinion leaders
• 　to exercise restraint and understanding, to avoid extremism in all
• 　their actions and to recognise those common values, standards
• 　and attitudes, without which a civilised humane society cannot
• 　prevail.

• VII. And so we call for all states to work to cross the divides within
• 　their own borders and beyond and to oppose arbitrariness, double
• 　standards and unjust discrimination wherever they may be found. 

We emphasise that these objectives and values are universal and transcend state boundaries. Now is the time to implement the spirit of the “Universal Declaration of Human Responsibilities”. What are sought now are the wisdom and concrete actions for co-existence, co- operation and economic justice for mankind, recalling once again the fundamental principles of a global ethic: the principle of humanity “Every human being must be treated humanely” and the Golden Rule: “Do not do unto others that which you do not wish be done unto yourself”. 

List of Participants 

InterAction Council Members
1. H. E. Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser, Australia
2. H. E. Prime Minister Andreas van Agt, the Netherlands
3. H. E. President Bacharuddin Jusuf Habibie, Indonesia
4. H. E. President Jamil Mahuad, Ecuador 

Religious Leaders
  5. Rev. Swami Agnivesh, India (Hindu)
  6. Dr. Kamel Al-Sharif,
　　Secretary-General International Islamic Council (Muslim)
  7. Dr. A. T. Ariyaratne, President,
　　Sarvodaya Shramadana Movement, Sri Lanka (Buddhist)
  8. Archbishop. Francis P. Carroll, President,
　　Australian Catholic Bishops Conference,
　　Archbishop of Canberra and Goulburn, Australia (Catholic)
  9. Rev Tim Costello, Baptist Church, Australia (Protestant)
10. Mr. James Jordan, Member of Archdiocesan Council,
　　Australia(Greek Orthodox)
11. Prof. Lee Seung-hwan, Professor of Philosophy,
　　Korea University, Korea (Confucian)
12. Prof. Dr. A. Syafii Maarif,
　　the Chairman of Muhammadiyah, Indonesia (Muslim)
13. Mr. Rozy Munir, Chairman, Nahdlatul Ulama,
　　Indonesia(Muslim)
14. KH Hasyim Muzadi, General Chairman,
　　Nahdlatul Ulama, Indonesia (Muslim)
15. Rev. Dr. Konrad Raiser, Secretary General,
　　World Council of Churches, Switzerland (Protestant)
16. Dr. David Rosen, International Director of Interreligious Affairs 
　　of the American Jewish Committee, U. S. A. (Jewish)
17. Dr. Rusli, SH. MM, Indonesian Buddhist Community Association,
　　Indonesia (Buddhist)
18. Dr. Natan Setiabudi, Chairman,
　　The Communion of Church in Indonesia, Indonesia (Protestant) 
19. Rev. I. N. Suwandha SH, Chairman, the Indonesian Hindus
　　Community Association, Indonesia (Hindu)
20. Prof. Dr. Din Syamsudin, Secretary General,
　　The Indonesian Council of Ulamas, Indonesia (Muslim)
21. Pastor Alex Widjojo SJ, Roman Catholic Church of Jakarta,
　　Indonesia (Catholic) 

Others
22. Ms. Katherine Marshall, Director,
　　Development Dialogue on Values and Ethics, World Bank, U.S.A.
23. Dr. S.M. Farid Mirbagheri, the Director of Research,
　　the Centre for World Dialogue, Cyprus
24. Mr. Seiken Sugiura, Member, House of Representatives, Japan
25. Mr. Zhang Yi-jun, Vice Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee
　　of the 9th National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political
　　Consultative Conference, China

Academic Advisors
26. Prof. Thomas S. Axworthy, Executive Director, Historica Foundation, Canada
27. Prof. Nagao Hyodo, Professor, Tokyo Keizai University,
　　Japan (Deputy Secretary General of IAC)
28. Prof. Amin Saikal, Director, Centre for Arab and Islamic Studies,
　　the Middle East and Central Asia, Australian National University, Australia

Tübingen Report (2007)

Chairman’s Report on the High-level Expert Group Meeting

WORLD RELIGIONS AS A FACTOR IN
WORLD POLITICS

Chaired by Ingvar Carlsson, Co-Chairman
7-8 May 2007, Tübingen, Germany 

The InterAction Council has been engaged in dialogue between political leaders and religious leaders since 1987, when issues concerning peace, development and the environment were discussed. In the last decade, thinkers from all faiths and philosophies have focussed on identifying universal ethical standards, which resulted in a proposal for a “Universal Declaration of Human Responsibilities”.
  Since the turn of the millennia, the issues facing the world have become much more complex: religious misunderstanding has led to conflict, global warming threatens dire environmental consequences, and rising terrorism has instilled fear throughout the world. Can religions become a force for peace, justice and ethical values? Can the virtue of tolerance be taught - tolerance out of respect and not out of neglect? Can societies meet the challenge of respecting the cultural and religious identity of other people and nations? Can the world recognise a new global neighbourhood? Can leaders anchor hope to establish concrete positive ideas?
  The world may be entering the second axial age with a modern upsurge of religion. In this 2007 High-level Expert Group meeting held 7-8 May in Tübingen, Germany, at the site of the world-renowned Global Ethics Foundation, the InterAction Council asked religious scholars to collectively consider methods of finding meaning in existence and peace in politics. 

I. Common Ground
There isn’t one Judaism, one Christianity or one Islam; there isn’t one Buddhism or Hinduism. As well, myriad beliefs comprise the Chinese religions. Each major religion has diversity of faith, theology and belief within.
  While the importance of recognising diversity within religions is widely accepted, it is equally important to appreciate the commonalities among religions. The three monotheistic religions heretofore have been seen as being in opposition to one another, but now more than ever, we must see these religions in relationship to one another. Through inter-faith education, these goals can be achieved. In particular, inter-faith discussions should be approached with an expectation to learn rather than to teach.
  Genuine dialogue is an art that requires careful nurturing, and the benefits of dialogical relationships at personal, local, national or international levels cannot be underestimated. Dialogue is neither a tactic of persuasion nor a strategy of conversion, but a way of generating mutual understanding through shared common values. Increased knowledge about others’ religions and cultures must be encouraged, and broad, sweeping generalisations discouraged.
  Through dialogue, one can appreciate the value of learning from the other in the spirit of mutual reference. On a broader level, the goal is to become ‘learning societies’ rather than to remain ‘teaching societies,’ and to teach our children the commonalities amongst the world’s religions instead of only the differences. 

Thus, the Universal Declaration of Human Responsibilities has gained even greater importance. Recognising a common global ethic, politicians, religious scholars, atheists and agnostics have reached mutual understanding. Religious freedom includes the right not to be physically or morally compelled to accept a particular religion or a particular ideology. This universal ethical standard provides a tool for understanding and respecting the beliefs and consciences of others. We, therefore, reaffirm the Universal Declaration accepted by religious leaders of every major faith as creating a common set of ethical values which exist in all religions. 

II. The Relationship between Politics and Religion
In considering the commonalities shared among religions, the High- level Expert Group also discussed the substantial influence of religions in politics. This political and religious tension has been amplified by the existence of global movements in opposite directions: increased secularism in some parts of the world and increased religiosity in others. By almost every indicator, regular church attendance in the European West has decreased to a mere 20 percent. By contrast, in the United States, religiosity is on the rise, and today approximately 65 percent of Americans attend church weekly. The Arab world and parts of Asia have also seen a similar rise in religiosity.
  While religious movements can wield great positive influence in national politics, too often religion is exploited and abused by political leaders who take advantage of ignorance and sow seeds of insecurity to maintain power. The combination of ignorance, religion and nationalism creates a dangerous potential for war. This powerful dynamic between religion and politics has spurred international conflicts and supported oppressive regimes worldwide, including the disastrous occupation of and degenerating war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the entrenched conflict in Israel/Palestine, the long civil war in Sri Lanka, and new violence in Thailand.
  In reality, political decisions often contrast sharply with the religious doctrines they purport to invoke. Fundamentalism is not an essential attribute to any religion, but characteristic to many. Our task is to challenge religious leaders to prevent their religions from being misused, isolate the ‘religious extremism’ that is prone to political exploitation, and support and strengthen moderate religious movements. 

III. Moving Forward
Despite these complex issues, still many in the High-level Expert Group saw ‘glimmers of hope’ in the path moving forward. The anthropological foundations of human dignity, human rights and human responsibilities present the world with a shared ethic with universal validity. 
  In the age of a new global neighbourhood, we need responsible global citizens. In the future religious leaders will play an even more important role. They must master two languages: the language of their respective faith communities and the language of global citizenship. This provides an opportunity to embrace a global ethic of political, economic, and social equality amongst races, culture and gender.
  One of the greatest issues that we face is protecting the environment for future generations. Every species is precious to the life of the Earth, but more than a hundred species become extinct every day. Again, religious leaders have a significant role to play in harnessing the power of people to face these global challenges, by lending moral weight to nurture ecological sensitivity toward efforts to sustain the planet. We must be stewards of the Earth rather than its exploiters.
  In the last 25 years, the dialogue amongst religious faiths has changed. There has been a greater recognition that religious differences should not impede humanity, but instead that religion should inspire people find the ideal in humanity. But it has only just begun. 

IV. Recommendations
In moving forward, the Chairman of the High-level Expert Group Meeting recommends the following: 

・Reaffirming and strengthening the persuasive power of the
　Universal Declaration of Human Responsibilities; putting “human
　responsibilities” in the context of the spirit of our time; and
　underscoring the core values - justice, compassion, civility and
　harmony mentioned prominently in the Declaration - to facilitate a
　genuine dialogue with human rights advocates;

・Promoting the understanding that all religions have a common core
　of ethical norms - harmony without uniformity - and enhancing the
　consciousness of global citizenship and common humanity through
　a global ethical standard; 

・Supporting the idea and practice of global citizenship to encourage
　a fruitful interaction between aspirations for self-realisation and
　obligations in a global neighbourhood;

・Developing an action plan through inter-faith education
　for increasing tolerance, respect, mutual reference and learning
　to appreciate the plurality of religious beliefs, values and practices;

・Supporting religious freedom; strengthening open and peaceful
　self-reflexive religious movements; and encouraging leaders in
　all sectors of society together with religious leaders to reject and
　prevent the politicisation and misuse of religion;

・Recognising the threat to the viability of human species
　and harnessing the power of religious movements to meet the
　environmental challenges of respecting life and protecting the
　Earth for the benefit of future generations; and

・Identifying ways to promote peace and solidarity while preserving
　cultural diversity and the plurality of faith communities. 

List of Participants 

IAC Members 

• 1. H.E.Mr. Helmut Schmidt, Honorary Chairman
• 　 (Former Chancellor of Germany)
• 2. Rt Hon.Mr. Malcolm Fraser, Honorary Chairman
• 　 (Former Prime Minister of Australia)
• 3. H.E.Mr. Ingvar Carlsson, Co-chairman
• 　(Former Prime Minister of Sweden)
• 4. H.E.Mr. Abdel Salam Majali
• 　(Former Prime Minister of Jordan)
• 5. H.E.Mr. Franz Vranitzky
• 　(Former Chancellor of Austria) 

 
High-level Experts 

• 6. Dr. A. Kamal Aboulmagd (Islam, Sunni), Attorney at Law (Egypt)
• 7. Dr. Kezevino Aram (Hindu), Director, Shanti Ashram (India)
  8. Rev. Dr. Mettanando Bhikkhu (Theravada Buddhist), Special
• 　 Advisor on the Buddhist Affairs to the World Conference of
• 　 Religions for Peace (Thailand)
  9. Prof. Hans Küng (Christian), Professor Emeritus, Tübingen
• 　 University (Switzerland)
  10. Prof. Karl-Josef Kuschel (Christian), Vice President of the Global
• 　  Ethic Foundation (Germany)
  11. Rabbi Jonathan Magonet (Judaism), Leo Baeck College (U. K.)
• 12. Archbishop Makarios of Kenya (Greek Orthodox) (Cyprus)
  13. Dr. Stephan Schlensog, Hindu Expert, Secretary-General, Global
• 　  Ethic Foundation (Germany)
  14. Dr. Abdolkarim Soroush (Islam, Shia) (Iran)
  15. Dr. Tu Weiming (Chinese religions and philosophies), Harvard
• 　  University China
  16. Dr.Osamu Yoshida(Mahayana Buddhist),Professor,Toyo University
•       (Japan) 

Advisors 

• 17. Dr. Thomas S. Axworthy, Professor, Queen’s University (Canada)
• 18. Dr. Gunther Gebhardt, Global Ethic Foundation (Germany) 
• 19. Prof. Nagao Hyodo, Former Ambassador to Belgium (Japan) 

 
Secretary-General

• 20. Prof. Isamu Miyazaki, Former Minister of Economic Planning (Japan)