- Good afternoon and welcome everybody to a new episode in our series ongoing series of conversations on global, religious and secular dynamics. My name is Jose Casanova
and I'm a senior fellow at the Berkeley Center for
Religion Peace and World Affairs which sponsors this event. The event is also being
sponsored by Reset DOC USA DOC stands for dialogue of civilizations. We are very fortunate to
have today for the discussion on religious and secular global dialogue, Dr. Professor Azza Karam. Probably the person most qualified to lead this conversation. Thank you for being with us Azza today. Our webinar is being recorded
and eventually, very soon will be posted on the
Berkeley Center website and you will be able to access it. It's our routine we'll have a conversation about 50, 55 minutes with Azza. And then we'll have a
question and answer section to which you can place questions and we'll have as many
answers as possible. At the bottom of your screen, you will see a question and answer image. Please open it if you
want to write questions for Professor Karam. So let's start. Welcome Azza. Thank you, thank you very
much for being with us. - Thank you very, very
much for having me, Jose. - Let's begin with just setting the stage. In our contemporary global aids, we are becoming increasingly aware of the need to come to terms with two different kinds of pluralism. Secular and religious pluralism and multi religious pluralism and the need both for
dialogue and cooperation within these pluralisms. In the first part of
our conversation today, we will examine some of the dynamics of the religious secular pluralism corporation and dialogue
through your work for many years in the United Nations,
actually leading this dialogue. In the second part of our conversation, we will explore some of the dynamics of multi religious pluralism
and inter-religious dialogue through your work as secretary general of Religions for Peace International. So can we start.
- Absolutely. - So let's begin with the United nations. Historically, the United Nations we know is the symbolic representation of the Westphalian global
system of nation states, which actually started after
the peace of Westphalia with the notion to leave religion out of international politics. The rate that a pioneer
of international law had the famous sentence
that international law and the international
system should function (speaking foreign language) As if God would not exist. Now in the last 50 years, we've
seen that these separation is not easy to maintain. Religion has entered in many
ways, the United Nations and the United nations through its work around the work on development first step on the feet
and the field of religion throughout the world. You have been both a privilege observer and participant of these confrontations, tensions and dialogue is in your function as senior advisor for
culture in social development at the UN population Fund. And this coordinator chair of the UN inter-agency task force, and engaging faith based organizations for development at the United Nations. So I would like you to
start in any way you want to tell us what have you observed? What has happened to these
confrontation dialogue in the last 20, 30 years, while you've been at the center of it? - Well, first of all, thank you again for
this opportunity, Jose, and I'm not letting it
get away with the fact that I have to highlight,
which is that you're a mentor to me and many others in this space. So I am extraordinarily delighted that I had the opportunity
to have this conversation with my mentor. I learned a lot from what
you have been writing over the years. It was extremely helpful for me to be able to juxtapose the learning into this United Nations hemisphere. I joined the UN after I already
actually has been working for Religions for Peace for some years. And then I joined the United
Nations Development Program. So I have come from this
deeply inter religious space with all its political and
cultural and social nuances straight into it, I felt like I had gone from a very warm fire
place next to a fireplace straight into a freezer. - From hell to somewhere. - It wasn't by no means hell. It was an incredible learning experience to work with so many
religious institutions around the world. It was a certain kind of warmth and a certain kind of cynicism as well which I'll get to in a second. But I think going from that
space of relational dynamics, which are very, very personal actually, 'cause when you work in
an ultra religious space, you per definition and have
to work with your emotions and your feelings and what
you believe, it's your right. It's all about what you believe and how you do this work and so on. So to go from there into the United Nations
Development Program and to be told within the first week, even though it was working
in the Arab Bureau, and as far as I know,
the Arab region is where all three major monotheistic
traditions emerged. So we've never kind of gone
into that secular space at all in the Middle Eastern context. And so to go into this United
Nations Development Program regional Bureau of Arab States and be told within the first
week, we don't do religion was literally like being
thrown into Siberia. What do you mean? So how do we do? If we don't do religion in an Arab context where we're supposed to be, I was working on the Arab
of human development report as a coordinator and I thought, well, how are we even
addressing some of these issues of governance, human
rights, democratization, the whole women's rights. How do are we doing all
this without doing religion? So that was my first cultural
shock in the UN system. And I realized very, very
quickly that there is, it's not because of a, it's almost a willful determination not to engage the religious space. So I think now that you've described that particular motto in Latin, I think the United Nations
system honors that motto till this minute, till this day. And to be honest with
you, I think it has to. It doesn't have to ignore God,
or pretend God isn't there, but it does need to be
very fiercely protective of the secular space because
you have 193 governments and heaven knows it's difficult enough to work with 193 governments. Bringing religion into this equation, in addition to all the nationalisms
that are already there. In addition to all the
territorial, economic, financial issues that
have to be dealt with, bringing the religious into this mix is not necessarily immediately
helpful into this space. And I'll belabor that in a second, but I think one of the
first things that therefore after trying to overcome
the cultural shock and trying to understand why. Why do you not need to,
do you not do religion? I realized that a great part of it had to do with the origin of this particular developmental space inside the United Nations system. And remember, United Nations
is a massive universe. It's a big entity with so many
different sub solar planets. You've got the World Health Organization is part of the United Nations system. The World Bank is part of
the United Nations system. Then there's all these
different development groups and agencies in that system and then there's the secretary. So it's a big universe. And the idea was that the origin
of the development thinking and community that United Nations development program symbolized, it was coming out of the
liberation struggles with the 1960s South Africa and the apartheid, the Palestinian-Israeli dynamic. It was coming out of that era and it had emerged in that. It had merged to form. There were two different entities that merged to form UNDP in that era. It was coming from that ethos
of the liberation movements, none of which in the 50s and 60s had the been particularly
religious by the way. So that legacy of activism,
of service in a space that was about coming together
and building and solidarity and stuff like that, was not articulated with a religious lens in the 50s and 60s. It was still the height
of the secular, solidarity and nationalism based on shared identities that are not religious in that moment. So this is the origin of the UNDP space. And therefore, the idea that you would, and also remember that the emergence of a very powerful
global feminist movement that was coming together,
which for very good reasons, was deeply skeptical about
the religious institutions and the religious discourse that wasn't necessarily renowned for its feminist agenda
in any way, shape or form. So this hybrid mix of
the origin of the UNDP and much of the UN development space explains why there was in a way, at best a sense of ignorance of the religious space and dynamics. And at worst, quite frankly,
a sense of fear and mistrust that we all and remember heavily
influenced by governments member states who not all of whom were comfortable with
religion, themselves. Many of whom had had
invested significantly in putting the religious
space in its size. Rightsizing the religious space into not too much public involvement. Very limited kind of public involvement. So you have that from your board. Your board is the governments and the governments been doing their best to try to be very limiting
in terms of how much religion and religious institutions play the role in the public space. And at the same time, your own emergence out of a nationalist liberation struggles and feminist struggles, which were deeply which at best just didn't see religion as a very valid space, even
with liberation theology in Latin America and that space. It was still a secular ethos
that came to that table. So I understood that therefore, the issue was our particular
glasses inside the UN system were colored by that vision of mistrust, fear and frankly, ignorance
of the religious space, because there's a certain arrogance that comes to being in a global system. There's a certain arrogance
that comes with that. By the way, some religious
institutions have it too and that particular
arrogance in a global space assumes that because we're so big, because we do so much, because we answer to all different needs or we're supposed to, because we deal with all
these esteemed governments at the highest possible level, et cetera, we know it all, we've got this. So what is it that the religious
can support or provide? So I realized that if we were going to try to engage with the religious
sectors, writ large, who are much bigger together, much bigger than the world of
United Nations at its height. But if we were going to
engage with that sector, with those different
sectors, the multitude, we had to begin to
humanize them, literally. To realize that it's not just men in robes that we're talking about who have a particular
universalistic discourse about human rights. Either it's all good like
liberation theology, supposedly, or it's all bad, like
certain religious discourses about Whitman for instance. It's not like that. There's a wealth of being and a wealth of institutional
discursive narrative realities to religious communities,
religious leaders. And so we started by
trying to humanize meaning, deliberately inviting our religious, non governmental organization colleagues. And the focus was very
deliberate on the NGOs, the religious NGOs, inviting
them to the different tables that we were hosting in the UN. Different seminars about
this and this and that issue, different policy discussions, different research oriented discussions. And I worked a lot at that time also with the social
science research council, and so I was happy to hear Greg Calhoun had that conversation with you. The social science research council was one of the first
people I reached out to, to say, okay, let's begin
to host these consultations. And you may recall Jose, you were at a pretty good
number of them actually in New York and elsewhere. But the idea was, can you
please sit as UN officials responsible for the
policy, for the programs and speak to your peers in these NGO and academic communities
who are the religious, they're also religious folks. They're not wearing the regalia
of religious leadership, but they are very much engaged
in this religious space. So I deliberately made a point of saying, okay, we have to speak. We have to have a conversation and engage with these religious actors. Show the other side of
the religious actors, not just the religious
leaders in their institutions which is what everybody saw all the time, but show those who are working in exactly the same development
and humanitarian spaces as the UN actors working with
very similar modus operandi, you have your strategic plans
and you have your audits and you have your program
indicate that you all, all that Tamasha was
there in a religious NGO. And invite as many of them
to the table as possible. So there was a conversation between us about our common work, what
we were doing together, and therein began what later, what we refer to as the
strategic learning exchanges between the, if you will, the secular policy guys inside
the UN system, the officials and the religious policy
and NGO guys in that space. So I think that became very instrumental because it literally puts a
face to this idea of religion and it puts a very deliberately
put a different face than the religious leaders
in the religious garb. So some of them were religious leaders. Some of those CEOs and program
advisors and policy advisors inside the religious NGO
space for ordained leaders, but they were serving
inside this development and humanitarian space. So the emphasis was to come at it from let's meet as common
folks working in this policy in developmental and humanitarian
space within institutions that are actually pretty alike so we can have a common table and not, and very, the emphasis was also
on, we're all here as peers. So I understand that we are
extraordinarily hierarchical within the religious world. We're extraordinary hierarchical within the policy world of the UN. But you know what, we're all here. This table, we're all equals. We're all peers. Let's have a conversation
based on the issues, how we do them, why we do them. What makes your work different than mine? Why is your work has, why does your work have any
value added as a religious NGO? What is it that's so special about what you do as a religious NGO? What is it that's so
special about the humanity? - Yes, but listening to you, I would assume that there was
also dynamics of recognition, precisely of equality
that created tensions between the new cameras
and the old religions that claim to be dead to religion. It was easier for certain
new religious groups to try to lobby the UN openly than perhaps the old religions that prefer not to enter
into a table as equals, but to have core priorities
kind of influence. - That was of part of what happened in the very beginning
of those conversations. Because remember that the, if you will, the learning that was taking place, the deconstruction and
reconstruction that was taking place on what's happening on all sides. On our UN side, it was also happening within the religious side. So the religions leaders and
actors who came to these tables were also transformed with
time as were we as UN staff and policy folks. We were also transformed
through that encounter. It was mutually transformative, and each came to the table with their particular perspectives
on particular worldviews. Here's why we think our work is so fine. And so one of the
conversations that started in that beginning of those
strategic planning exchanges was what I called the
claim to exceptionalism that actually both sides had. So you were sitting as a UN person and you think that the UN is an absolutely exceptional
space, which of course it is. Of course it is. In many ways it's an exceptional space, but then you have the religious actors, these heads of religious NGOs, the policy and program people
in different religious NGOs who also would come, especially
the ordained ones among them who would also come and say, we're not just regular civil society. This isn't just regular civil society. We're special in so many words, it wasn't of course said like that, but this is a special community here. You're not just dealing with any NGO which the UN has a big history
of working with by the way. But so the conversation was
not, but we're not just that. I mean, we are definitely,
but we're not just that. So eventually the pushback had to be within the UN ecosphere, we don't have a category for exceptional. We shouldn't have a category
for special and exceptional. It's governmental, non-governmental
and inter-governmental and obviously in the
non-governmental, that's the field that includes all of different
civil society actors. So yes, we understand that
there's a special claim because of a special relationship supposedly in the mission statement that isn't necessarily inspired with the universal
declaration of human rights in any way, shape or form, but it's actually inspired by
God said, and the prophet did. And so yes, there's different in that. - So this is one side of the story. Namely, the UN and you particular
inviting religious groups as nongovernmental organizations would take part in this table of equals with other nongovernmental organizations to hear precisely with all
common issues of development, human rights, health,
education, et cetera. The other side of the
story is the United Nations going into the war and becoming
involved in development at the civil society level, not anymore on the
intergovernmental relations, but more and more realizing that the UN has to becoming both really
grassroots organization for development, health,
education, women's. And of course then it's not only that their religion is embodied, but now the United Nations
begins to step on their feet as it were and the feel
of religious communities. So there is the other element of it. The UN is not only an agency in New York, but also mobilizes
(indistinct) across the world and the more it goes into civil society, the more even countries religious groups. - So one of the first things that we did after we started doing these
strategic cleaning exchanges by bringing our peers in
the religious sectors, humanitarian and development to the table, one of the first things that each of the different
UN agencies started to do, and this was now thanks to
actually setting up a space inside the UN system, an
inter-agency task force that at that time, the heyday
of the UN reform agenda was delivering as one. We all have to come to this. We're so big, we're so many. We had to come together and deliver at country level at least,
and hopefully a global level, but at least the country level, we had to work as one entity. So you don't have the UNICEF, UNDP, but you actually come
together as a country team, at least the development guys
and serve and deliver as one. So part of the way of
doing that was to say, let's have inter-agency
modalities, mechanisms. So sure enough, we established
an inter-agency modality on religious engagement, on
engaging with religious actors and for the longest amount of time, that was the inter-agency mechanism that nobody would hear about. It's just, it was so
down low on the priority of all the inter-agency stuff. Funding and resource
mobilization and gender equality, all good and religion. So it took a while to actually give status to that particular inter-agency mechanism. And it's one of the few that
still continues until today, because of course the system
has changed multiple times since with different leadership in the UN. So the inter-agency mechanism, not necessarily the most
popular thing these days, but the inter-agency task
force on religion continues and is working. And it's grown in fact.
- Thanks to you. Thanks to you. - Many, many colleagues in the system, but one of the things we learned, Jose, was let's do our own homework. Let's find out whether this business of working with religious
actors is indeed such a novelty as Rome and New York and
Geneva would help us believe. Why are we doing this? Why are we doing this? So I said, let's look
at what are our country, especially the operational entities who do development and humanitarian work. We have country presence. We have offices in countries. Let's just begin to see,
have we worked with them? Have we done research with these people? Have we indeed partner
and guess what, Jose, we realized that not a single
UN entity with a humanitarian or development mandate, not a single one had not engaged at one
point or time or another over the last 50 years with certain kinds of
religious actors, none. But the issue wasn't so much
that engaging issue was A, do you actually systematize
that engagement? Do you actually realize that this is part of your civil outreach, civil society outreach? Does Rome or Geneva or New
York know the outcome of this, that you're actually having this program and the outcome of it and
some of the learnings? No. So the issue was we learned
within the UN system, we learned about our own legacy
and history of engagement and started to rediscover
it at the same time, by the way that our
religious counterparts, our partners were beginning to rediscover why they do work the way they do. What is it about the Christian tradition that actually, so they were rediscovering their religious roots because
they had existed for so long as partners of the multilateral world in their secular NGO hat. So they were religiously inspired. They were faith-based,
NGOs, faith inspired and based NGOs but they weren't using
the religious language. They were busy doing the work
and trying to, in a sense, not necessarily acknowledge
the religious identity so much. So as our religious counterparts were rediscovering their
here's the biblical narrative that inspires this
particular kind of engagement on children or on women or on refugees. And here's the Islamic texts that actually inspires why we do. They were rediscovering
their religious discourse and the roots of their passion and mission while we were rediscovering
the basic reality of the fact that we had been
working with these actors for a very long time. So that transition happened, and that was extremely important for us to learn about heritage,
if you will, on both sides and use some very basic
data that till this moment is still deeply contested. How can you work in
this space of education and or health and or nutrition and or sanitation and or refugees? How can you work in any of these areas and not engage with those who are the original providers
of service in those spaces? No, there's no way you can do it. We had to come up with the data. So our World Bank
colleagues then undertook in that inter-agency
space, they brought to it some of the data of their
engagement and legacy and that's how we learned so much from people like Katherine Marshall, who had been setting up this space and leading it inside the
World Bank for so many years. They came to this inter-agency
space with their data and their evidence of here's
how we have been working with these different actors. Largely we discovered
in the space of health, the most amount of engagement that happened in that health space. So that's how we began
to learn about ourselves, quite frankly. - And of course our
dear Katherine Marshall which is my colleague
at the Berkeley Center those are types of some
of the conversations before we move to the second part on the Religions for Peace, obviously the most contested
issue in all these fields has been the issue of gender. And this is the issue at the
center of precisely UNDP, population, reproductive
health, women's rights. Since Cairo, the 94 conference in Cairo, sine Beijing in 95, this has
gone in different directions. Obviously first it was
apparently the Catholic church and the Muslim world. Now, lately is the evangelicals. American evangelicals in
the Russian Orthodox Church and the Moscow party arcade against feminism and gender equality. How have you been able to
navigate all these tensions and what do you see has
happened in this field in the last 20 years, both
positive and negative? - So it's important to highlight a very interesting couple of
realities that you come across when you're actually
working in this space. So the first reality is that it turns out that the United Nations population fund. I remember I joined UNCP
first, then I moved to UNFP. I realized that the United
Nations population fund was actually one of those
entities in the UN system that had the longest legacy of partnering with
religious organizations. And that wouldn't
necessarily be intuitive. That was actually kind
of counter intuitive because their agenda
is reproductive health, which is sexuality and sexual relations. So how come this was the UN entity with a very long track record, actually. One of the longest track records of engaging with religious
actors at country level. It turns out that, of course
you can't do this work. You can't speak these issues in a country if you have not already
managed to have a few partners in the religious space who at best, at best will work with you, will actually work with you
on some of these issues. But even when it's things are really not going very well, Jose, at least they're not going
to condemn your work. They're not going to stand in direct opposition to your
work, which is a big deal, which is, cause sometimes
you won't be able to work with people, but at
least don't close the doors that I can actually work in, so to speak. So we realize that the agency that has sexual reproductive
health and rights as its key mandate is the agency with one of
the longest track records of actually working in
partnering with religious actors. We also realized something else, that as we expanded the circle of partners in this religious engagement space, there were basically two blocks. There was two different blocks happening. One block was the, for
lack of a better word, the much more conservative
oriented religious institutions who were working with governments with certain governments, very, very well. And so therefore in many
ways were much more powerful inside the UN space because
they had some governments with them behind them. - Mainly Catholic
countries, Muslim countries. - It started with the Catholic countries. - And America and after Cairo, right? I think in also Muslim countries and yeah. - Yes, over the years, but interesting because it's not
necessarily a coincidence. As the voices of, for
lack of a better word, the pro human rights, pro
sexual and reproductive health and rights atmosphere, just the broader pro human rights openly, no discrimination, no
cherry picking between them. As that religious space expanded thanks to the efforts of inviting a broad swath of people around the table regularly so that it became normal to speak and see, and witness and have conversations that included their leaders. As that space was increasing, Jose the number of partners on the more conservative side
of the religious spectrum was also increasing. The voices were increasing
and the quality and nature. So it became not only a Catholic voice. It became a Catholic,
Orthodox, evangelical, Muslim. And in the last few years,
also a Hindu supported or tacitly supporting voice. So the range of, I wouldn't say it's very hard to categorize
this way, by the way and I'm not sure that
could do that officially on the parts of religions for me. So I'm not speaking as
Religions for Peace now, but really as a scholar of
religion and development. I can tell you that the,
for lack of a better word, the more conservative
voices around the issues of sexual reproductive health
and rights in particular, those have expanded and
grown over the years, and so have the counterparts
on the other side, who were speaking for sexual
reproductive health and rights, they have also expanded so that they're not just
Christian or Muslim, but they have actually
expanded and grown together. And a large part of this on the one side, the expansion of the conservative multi-religious discourse
has happened thanks to, as I said earlier, the collaboration with certain governance. The absolute green light
given by certain governments because it served the purpose to say, well, this is against our religion. We're not going to do this
particular set of rights because it's against the
norms and whatever, whatever. But the other group, the other group that was trying to inspire a conversation that all human rights were interconnected, no set of rights is more
significant than the other. None can be realized at
the expense of each other or the silencing of some of them. That group also grew deliberately thanks to the deliberate
effort of the UN system actors in country at regional and global levels to provide also a space for those voices to be heard at the table. And they also were very multi-religious. They were also Catholic and
different kinds of Protestant Evangelical and whatever, and
Muslim and Hindu and Buddhist. And so in a way we kind of, if I look at it from a
less concerned perspective, I can tell you that the expansion of the multi-religious
narratives in and of itself has been in a source of affirmation for why it is important to be in this. How can we speak about
strong civic societies if we don't have a vibrant
multi-religious space and narrative as part
of that civil society? So yes, the UN system has, since the 1970s very deliberately reached
out to the civil society. I would say that over the
last 20 years, it's expanded. Now, where does the Religions for Peace institutional representation
feature in this space? I can give you a very simple example based on the years of working inside and outside of the system. There's a very different
dynamic that happens Jose, when you invite the Catholics together, the different Protestants
together, ecumenical, Muslim, and each gets convened
in their own spaces. This is incredibly
valuable, extremely helpful, and also can have its limitations. What I have observed happening systematically over the last 30 years, whether I was in the Middle
East or in Central Asia or in Europe, or here is that when you bring
the different religions and religious voices together
around a common set of issues, human rights, education,
children, environment, something very amazing happens. And I personally call it
grace, to be honest with you. I just call it plain as it is. As I see it as I feel it, it is grace. When these different
religions come together, Jose, yes, day one, everyone is
speaking to their particular text interpretation that here's
my official position, my institutional position. The conversation goes on, Jose. And by day two, they
are speaking as people, as human beings with deep, deep hearts that are committed to serving. There's a dynamic, there's an incredible
change in the conversation. It doesn't become, what is
your institutional position? How can that be defended? It becomes, how can I
serve these needs best? And there's an actually
an element of competition that creeps in. It's very constructive competition. It's very progressive competition. It's competition about who's serving most and that is precisely
when grace takes place, because you suddenly realize that not everybody's hung on to their particular interpretation,
their particular texts and their particular narrative,
but they're actually, and they look, they see each other speaking about the divine
in so many different ways, but a divine that is of humanity, of service, of love, of saving lives. It's a totally different
caliber of conversation, but it has to be stewarded. It has to be intentionally convened. It has to be about very
practical situations with very hard evidence and facts. Then the narrative changes from here's what my God says
has to happen, or you're a God to how can we serve this? How can we serve this best? I saw this happening in the Arab region and I saw this happening
in the African region and the Latin America. So I think this is the key, and this is why Religions for Peace has such a critical role to play in transforming the dynamics of inter-religious civic
conversations about everything, about governance, democracy, and human rights about gender equality, about environmental sustainability, about inter-religious education,
about learning education. How do we learn and how do we get through
years of postgraduate without knowing a thing about
our faith respective data? So when you convene religions together, there is a dynamic that happens that is absolutely
phenomenal, and it is a must. It is no longer a luxury for us. It is a must in a context where we have lost the diplomatic space. There is no diplomacy as we know it today. There's a lot of voices out there from the top most political leadership to the governance and civil
society entity and actors. There's a lot of voices out there, Jose, but I think we've lost
the art of diplomacy as in tactfulness to reach one another and to relate to one another. We speak at, we don't speak with. So in this conversation, in this context, the multi-religious narrative is providing us with
resources, opportunities, language in which we can
reinvent our diplomacy to be what it was meant to be. The coming together, to heal
together the entire universe, not just our respective vested interests, but each one coming at it from their vested interest, for sure. But when we come at it together from within this multi-religious space to be added to the civic space, the secular civic space benefits, the multi religious space
means that per definition, no one religion can claim
an exclusive right to truth. One of our problem. - And this is of course
is the central issue because there is a very strong Christian European cognitive
tradition of arguing that inter-religious
dialogue is a continuity of theological dialogue who has the truth. And of course you get nowhere. Dialogue has to begin with
interpersonal recognition as you say, it's kind of a space where persons recognize
each other as persons, and then everything else can come later. Perhaps you don't need
to get into the actual theological controversies,
if you can work together on many, many fields. - And that is proven that
actually working together has and is a space of serving together, which is why religious repeats created its multi-religious humanitarian funds because we realized, all
of us are running to serve. The religious communities
today and in the face of COVID or at the forefront of serving the needs of their communities on every possible level. But guess what? Each one is going about it in
their own institutional way. So when we talk social cohesion, we have to act social cohesion. The pandemic is a moment that
forces us to work together. How can we encourage this
serving together in that space? And this is what made the change and I just got the note from Catherine, if I may refer to it. When we convened the different
religious actors together across who are serving the NGOs now, not just the religious institutions, but the NGOs who are delivering humanitarian and development. And we convene them around what? Around sexual reproductive
health and rights after years of begging them together to come and talk about the
common, the safety issues. Children, environment, all the safe stuff. Death, things that we can all talk about without getting too worried
about what God actually meant when he was saying this or that. One of the things we realized is that even in that
space of deep contention, the religious leaders and
the actors in the NGO system were prepared to say that some
of the harm that is happening in the name of serving
this religious purpose, early child marriage,
female genital mutilation, rape, violence against boys and girls, that none of this could possibly be and should never be in their
own name as a religious person, as a religious leader, not in my name was the mantra or the statement that they all actually signed down to. Because yes, we understand that there are certain
interpretations and understandings, but the harm that gets done
in the name of religion. No, there's a rejection to that. Not in my name was a very
video key tipping point in this conversation between
the different religious actors. They can agree together that harm is not in the name
of their respective traditions and therefore not in
the name of all of them. Already that agreement may seem minor given everything that's
going on around us, but it's not minor. If I agree with you and we're both coming from different theological
perspectives and traditions. If I agree with you that
that harm is not in our name, is not in the name of my
faith, that is massive. That's an act of faith. That's a statement of solidarity. That's a move towards transforming social norms and behaviors
in a radical way. And that's what is possible when you bring the
different religions together with the different civic actors. - So I was of course, extremely happy when I learned that Religions for Peace have elected a woman as
its secretary general. I know you and I knew
that you were extremely, especially qualified for this role. But I can imagine that we
know that patriarchal legacies for religious traditions. And so kind of frankly,
how difficult it is for you to deal with the clerical leadership of all the religious traditions and how do these institutions
deal with Religion for Peace? What is the relationship
between these very unique place or space where
religious can come together, precisely work together and the religious institutions themselves, which each of them wants to maintain, its privileges, authorities, it's places. - So I learned something very valuable from the executive directors, women executive directors in UNFPA because they were
handling such a sensitive, hot potato set of issues all the time. And they're dealing with, yes,
of course, female leaders, but also peers who are male leaders in the political establishment. So it's not exactly the easiest
walk in the park, either. One of the things I learned
from them, especially another mentor of mine, Dr.
Threa Albeit from Saudi Arabia. One of the things she
told me many years ago was first of all, you have
to find allies in this space who come from precisely
the camp of detractors. And you have to just put your head down and keep working and look on
the bright side of things. And so the first thing that struck me about being elected to
serve in this position, to be perfectly honest with you and I have been on record
for saying this repeatedly is it's not about me. Honestly, yes okay. Thank you very much for
that acknowledgement, but it isn't about me. The election of me, of this woman is a testament to the religious leaders who came together and agreed that it would be a woman who
would lead them in their effort to who would serve them in their effort to work collaboratively in an institution that's 50 years old with 90 different
chapters around the world. They agreed, Jose to accept
this leadership of a woman. To me, that is the most
important moment of amazement, quite frankly and it's such a testament to the courage of these individual leaders and to the readiness, quite
frankly of their institutions to say, okay, okay. - You will call it grace.
- I do, actually. I didn't want to say the word
again, but yes I do actually. I really do. And I think that this, there is grace everywhere we step. I am a firm believer in that. We don't exist, but for the
grace of the love of the divine. So, but yes, there are
so many moments of grace. Definitely, definitely knowing
that they had elected me and entering into that big hall during the 10th world assembly
of Religions for Peace in Lindo, which was hosted, thanks to a secular German government working with a wonderful organization and foundation called Lindo. Walking into that hall of 900 delegates who many of whom were cheering and they did no me, Jose. They didn't know me. They were cheering of the
fact that this organization of 50 years is electing a woman. And here she is that little
thing walking into the hall and that is grace because
I felt very tangibly the aspiration to formation,
to coming together, to serving grace, not just
epitomizing, but serving grace. That was a moment. Why would they otherwise? Why that incredible anticipation and all elation and joy
when they didn't know me? Many of them didn't know me. So I think there's something to be said for that moment we are living in. We can choose, Jose to focus on all the negativity
that's happening around us in terms of leadership
that is much more violent in its narratives and actions, or we can choose to see
what's actually unfolding in the multi-religious space globally, that at least I can see. And in the civil society spaces, because I firmly believe that
our salvation is humanity and the salvation of this
earth is going to happen when the civil society is vibrant. Governments are fine. We need them, they're necessary. Multilateral entities are
needed more than ever, but multilateral entities and
governments need civil society and civil society needs
the multi religious space. It's not possible to
exist with only one hand. You'll do certain things with one hand, you do much, but when you have both hands and to me, that's the
secular and the religious and where they meet,
that is when we can move. Grace. - And I myself would say the
most important lesson for me is the recognition of the
irremediable plurality, cultural religious of the human condition. And we simply, this is the point of the part of our global
aids, mutual recognition. And this is a dynamic which is different from the dynamic of
capitalism, one single system. From dynamic of the nation states. It is this at this level
of a global civil society, where, what I call
global denominationalism this process of mutual recognition of all the not only religious,
I'm talking of all the groups that want to claim, this is my name. This is what I stand for and I want to be recognized like that and I recognize you also in return. And obviously I would
say this is essential for working together, any global issue, whether refugees, social justice,
these environmental issues and to which extent we see that some of the most important voices and those issues come precisely
from religious leaders, which are free from what other wars are the constraint of nationalism. Making America great again, and saving the vaccines for our nation. This vision, global human vision, but not as one of power to
say my religion is the one, but really of mutual recognition. And this is a unique
moment we find ourselves. And I'm very glad that you are actually
leading this organization at this very, very moment. I want to remind the audience that we will be moving very soon to our question and answer period, that you'll have a chance
put down in writing in the question and answer box, the question you would like to raise for Professor Karam. I call her professor because
besides all these roles, she's also social professor
of religious studies at Free University in Amsterdam. So before we go to the
question and answer, I would like simply to yes, any thoughts about any issue that you think are
really, really big issues that you are facing as
a secretary general, the issues that you see is the ones which are both most problematic, but also most necessary to face in the series of challenges we are facing as global humanity. - Thank you for allowing me that. I think there's a couple
of points I wanted to share if I may and one of them has to do with what you were very
rightly pointing out is an absolute necessity
of that civic space and the plurality of
it, that per definition, the plurality gets us
those opportunities to grow and be better people, quite frankly. I always say that I'm a believer and if God wanted us all to be alike, I don't think it would
have been much of a problem for him to create this
all alike, quite frankly. - Sounds like Mohammed in the Quran. - It sounds like different, all the different faith traditions. Divinity is power and the
divine is capable of everything. And so how do we all meant to be, had we all been meant as
equal and the same people, then it would not have been so difficult for the creator to do so. The fact that we are created
diverse in so many ways is a testament to the divine. It's not about, oh dear. It's actually a testament to the divinity. It's also what we have to aspire
to respect in one another, that incredible diversity that we embody. One of the things that I'm seeing COVID force us to do though, we are as a result of what I would call the failure of global meta narratives to actually serve anymore. And the increase in isolated discourses based on very limited
narrow self-interests of certain political communities
or nationalist ideologies. Because we're in this era
of we don't have something that mobilizes all of us at the same time, unless it's the Black Lives
Matter gave us a spark to believe in something
that is beyond the interests of any particular, but it's
actually very inclusive of the interests of many towards justice. But we are facing that
moment of crisis globally in terms of meta
narratives that can inspire and get people to actually come
together in different ways. Because of this, I think religions are, and religious discourse
is being exploited, left, right and center by
politicians who are religious and politicians who are not religious. There are very odd alliances
that are taking place and flowering around the world, that are consolidating around the world about, and between the political
and the religious spaces. Not all of it is good. Not all of it is built
on welfare rights for all irrespective of where they come from and what they look like. And therefore, I think that
we stand at a precipice to be honest as, as human beings. And that precipice is if
we can join hands together with our faith as a deep
form of inspiration, but also without, but just as
out of a commitment to all, if we can do that, we can actually jump over that
precipice to the other side. Unfortunately, there's a
lot of religious division that I'm seeing happening
between intra and inter-religious and ironically, COVID has brought so much of those religions to the fore. And that's one of the reasons why I think that the idea of
multi-religious collaboration is not a luxury, can not afford
to be treated as a luxury, but has to become a priority, socially, politically,
financially, economically. Multi-religious civic
stakeholdership and collaboration has to be the way to go. Otherwise we are looking at very deep, more deep rifts being created
between different communities in the name of it. - Thank you very much. We could go on and on for
back to the United Nations, there are so many different issues, but I thank you very
much for these very open and candid conversation. Let's open up the question and answer. Our first question comes from
our very, very dear friend, Katherine Marshall, who asks Azza can you tell the story of
the not in my name event and comment on the role of Raya Obeid, who will be speaking at
the G-20 interfaith event? - I think I already did that actually. I spoke about the, not in my name event when the religious actors came together and signed on to the fact
that they will accept no harm in the name of their
respective traditions, and they will do another. And I spoke about the legacy of Dr. Obeid in terms of developing this
work and giving me the guidance as to how to approach some
of this work in this space. - I just want to give you the
opportunity to expand on it, if you wanted to say something, but then we can move to the next question which comes from Brian. Is the universal these Unitarian church involved in your efforts? If so, what contributions
have they offered? If not, should they be involved? - If the effort is related
to Religions for Peace, that Brian means, then my understanding is that the Unitarian Universalists were actually some of the founders of Religions for Peace 50 years ago. So there's been a long history of commitment to this
multi-religious space, which is for definition of
what the Unitarian universal's philosophy if you will is very much about. It's coming together across differences and working together. So yes, the answer very simply is yes, and they are, they have,
they are committing, contributing to the convening of different religions together, the upholding of the human rights agenda, the realization of collaboration towards the sustainable development goals, peace and security, the whole demotion. - The next question comes
from Dr. Yosef Berlin who asks, or who says UNESCO has a long history
now of the many agencies of the United Nations. UNESCO has a long history of engagement with religious
communities, religious actors in a scholar sovereign region, in countless seminars,
conferences, reports, and programs in a deliberate and strategic way, at least since the late 1980s, focusing on culture, education
and inter-religious dialogue. How would the speakers and I will ask you this
team of speaker in singular, see UNESCO's contribution
over the past 30 years to the discourse in the UN system? After you answer, I will
give you guys a few footnotes on UNESCO of religion and gender. - When we set up the
inter-agency task force, the United Nations
inter-agency task force, UNESCO was one of the
early to join members of that task force. Their work has been
singular in its outreach, particularly within the academic spaces. They have done some remarkable work bringing together some of the
best brains in the system. That's why Professor Joseph
Lula and Professor Casanova are amongst those different
distinguished chains of leaders who have been engaging, advising, working in that space within
UNESCO's academic hemisphere. There has been an inter-religious dialogue on specific issues that UNESCO
has stewarded over the years. And I think that it's been very important that there's been this
space in the UN system. And I think that there's
more that can be done, quite frankly and I do believe that there's a tremendous need to bridge the service providers in the inter-religious
spaces with the academics, the theologians, the brains
of the inter-religious and intercultural space. I think there's a lot of work to be done in terms of bridging those together, and it's a little bit like
bridging the UNESCO heritage in this space with the
heritage of say, UNDP, UNHCR, UNH and the other operational agencies that are in different countries. So there is still work to be done in that bridging of those
inside the UN system, but we've come a very long way and I think UNESCO has established particularly around cultural
heritage and religious sites established quite an impressive legacy. - If I may add a footnote some years ago, probably around eight years ago. UNESCO organized a
very, very large project on public religions around the world taking basically the
framework from my analysis by recognizing and pointing
out that the issue of gender had not been really, really
central to my analysis. And so what happens when you bring gender into the discussion of public regions? And for this task,
basically female scholars from all over the world, Catholic countries like Poland, India, Muslim countries, like
I believe it was Turkey and Indonesia and so on
precisely spend some time to bring up the issue, how gender basically makes
it even more complex. The question of public
religious in the mother world which I had incorporated. And so I think that in this respect, UNESCO has done much in
also serving as a place where different voices of scholars but also activist practitioners and I would say women leaders enter into these debates
and conversations. The next question will
come from Tatiana Barrett and she asks Professor
Karam on what she thinks about the role of youth
from religious communities in promoting human rights,
building peace, et cetera. Would she have any good
examples to share, please? - Thank you. That's a very good question. The reason I'm laughing is not because it's a great
question, but I'm laughing 'cause I don't know where to start with the brilliant examples to share. Let me just give the thing
that's top most on my mind, but there are so many examples. So Religions for Peace has
the oldest, most diverse, most proliferating
interfaith youth network amongst all the different
sort of inter-religious groups and communities and organizations. And one of the things that just
happened recently, totally. First of all, it's spontaneity of service and working together is
definitely a hallmark of youth when they come together
across the faith traditions. They come up with the most
amazing, innovative ideas. So as soon as COVID hit, the African Youth Network,
Religions for Peace's African interfaith youth network came up with idea that they needed to work with the women of faith, African women of faith youth network which is the other massive global network that Religions for Peace is extraordinarily privileged to serve. And they said, the youth said, we need to give y'all
training on social media. How to use social media. And they did they did. They organized it all together in COVID. I don't know how they managed to do it, but they managed to organize
for an entire regional, women of faith network,
not in consequential and not a small network. And they came together
as the young leaders in their own spaces and
trained the women of faith on using social media. And the next thing we knew, we were getting tweets and Facebook posts and LinkedIn with all these women of faith speaking to their work and publicizing the work that they were
doing collaboratively. And they now have a social media presence, which was phenomenal if you think about it because it took the young folks to train them in doing
that with obvious results. So there are many examples. What I mentioned before the multi-religious humanitarian fund, that Religions for Peace
sets up and invited all the different religious actors to try to contribute to in kind or with the most minimal of resources, but to be deliberate about
supporting communities to come together, to serve together in this pandemic context. And we realized that so
many of the applicants were actually youth networks who were coming up with the
most amazing ideas and projects 'cause they were as busy
in the information sharing, the awareness raising,
the service delivery of actually packages of food and medicines and spending time with the elderly people, people with disabilities to
look after them during this time where everybody was just
hiding in their own space, et cetera, et cetera. They were doing amazing work. They're the ones who work
asking for contributions to do more in this space
to serve their communities. There are so many examples
I would invite you to share, to visit our website. I would also invite you
to visit the website of the parliament of world religions, the United Religions Initiative, because some tremendous work is happening at so many different levels
around the world with youth because of youth and thanks to the youth. When the UN secretary
general issue to call for a global cease fire,
Jose, you may remember that basically saying it's a pandemic. We have a bigger, a bigger enemy to be confronting than one another. The Interfaith Youth Network
of Religions for Peace came together and put their own video where each of them from
different parts of the world, different religions were echoing that call and calling upon their own communities, their own in some cases in
conflict ridden society saying, yes, this is the call
that has to be headed. We must heed this call. So they were expressing
their own political will as young people of faith to support the leadership of the so-called multilateral
world and saying, yes, this is time. This is what we must do. Please let's do that. So yes, many, many examples. - The next questions, related one comes from
Alejandro Williams Becker from Argentina, who says, thank you, Professor
Casanova and Professor Karam. I am a KICE fellow and I
am working on proposals to take the G-20 interfaith summit to advance commitments for partnerships involving villages and
multi faith organizations towards the achievement of the SDGs. So do you have any
particular recommendations in this matter? - It's a great initiative. I'm extremely proud that the KEISI the international center for
dialogue is doing this work on the G-20 interfaith summit with the leadership of
very experienced colleagues like Professor Catherine Marshall and also Professor Cole Durham. So I think it's a wonderful collaboration. Yes, I do have a couple
of recommendations. I think the key point here is how collaborative can this space be? What are the gaps in collaboration between different inter
religious organizations? There are some very serious
gaps in collaborations. There are also some wonderful
examples of collaboration between different inter-religious efforts. I think the multi-religious NGO world is just as riddled with challenges
as the secular NGO world. And collaboration is not
necessarily one of the strengths, but so how do we learn
from the positive examples of collaboration between different inter-religious
organizations and more critically, how can we enhance the collaboration between the multi-religious
and the secular civic actors? I think that has to be a
very key recommendation. I would also say that
what's absolutely important for this particular initiative is that it law dates and upholds and
insists on the need for support to the multilateral world. I'm all for the G-20 or the G7 or the G8 whatever they're called these days. I'm all for it, but I'm also even more for the United nations
and multilateral system. And I think it's very, very
important that these actors, whether it's the world
economic forum or the G8 or G7 or whether it's the G20, I think it's very important
that there's a deliberate effort to highlight and to support and to uphold the role of the multilateral entity that is Supreme in our date and time, now, that is celebrating its 75th. Now is the time to uplift and
to support this organization, not to go off in different sub branches to do their own respective
areas of work and engagement. This is the time to come together. G20, G7, G8, G10, G
whatever, to come together and support the United
Nations system, unequivocally, including pooling the
resources at their disposal to serve that which is to serve us all. - The next question
comes from John Borrelli from Georgetown University, who of course has been working on inter-religious
dialogue for decades. And he asked, Religions for
Peace has had to maintain a careful balance. On the one hand for the
good reasons you have given, it can bring to bear religious
and moral commitments of religious bodies,
churches, and religion, and current issues facing all of us. And on the other hand, Religions
for Peace needs to maintain the confidence of religious leaders to exercise that important
function of convening such these peace religious groups. How can Religion for Peace become more effective in what it does? Do you see any measure
changes in strategies? - That's a beautiful question. And first of all, many warm
greetings to John Borelli, who's one of the original architects of the Religions for Peace
structure, infrastructure hierarchy coming together. The nuances of the
conversations and the actions. So yes, very happy to get this question. There is a very short answer
to the question about, is there any change in strategies? I'm here today. I've been elected to be here. For the last 27 years, we
had some amazing leadership within the Religions for
Peace movement and system. Clearly there is a
change in that leadership for a consolidation of the best of what Religions for
Peace has already done. And I think just being
able to give me a chance to show that there is this
already a massive change in that appreciation and
in that space of leadership shouldn't be underestimated. I would say one of the first things that Religions for Peace today is much more committed to doing thanks to convening 250
of the religious leaders around the world in December for a strategic planning exercise, which had never happened before that you convene 250 religious leaders and plan strategically. What you're gonna work
together, have a strategic plan with 250 illiterates institutions? They did it, they did it, and they came up with some
very clear strategic priorities in full alignment with the sustainable
development goals agenda, same language, same
issues, similar priorities, and the same indicators for this work. This was done by the religious leaders. This wasn't done by some of us. This was done by the legislators. They came together to strategically plan and commit to working
together with total alignment with an international
agenda of 193 governments. Two that actually identified very clearly, gender equality as they are concern, as something they're
committing themselves to and committing to actions in that space. So, yeah, I think there's
been quite a change in this movement. And it's manifesting in the way that these religious leaders
are working together. I don't speak for myself. I'm speaking for the service and in the name of the service
to these religious leaders. So what you're hearing, what you're seeing and what you will see in
terms of more partnerships, more engagement around
very difficult issues is the commitment that
religious leaders themselves are making and working
towards and realizing. - The next question
comes from Samuel Bachner and brings us to the issue
of theological dialogue and the role it plays or may play in multi religious collaborations,
since I tended to somehow minimize the role of theological dialogue, but obviously there is some room for it. So what will be the role
of theological dialogue in multi religious collaboration? - It's absolutely foundational. The reason that Religions for Peace and other institutions today that are inter religious in nature are able to realize so
much collaborative efforts at so many different levels
on so many different issues. The reason is that this is the fruit of decades of theological engagement and discussion and conversation. There is a continuity that often we miss, but it is very much present. You cannot build it today on
what you have not put together the tools and the
materials with yesterday. Theological conversation is quintessential to the relational aspect
of that we're saying today, we're maintaining today. We're proving by the very virtue of existence of multi religious
collaborative initiatives that we need, that we are building on that relational dynamic, and the relational dynamic comes
thanks to in large measure, not just a global pandemic that forces everybody to work together, but thanks to the fact
that we have developed a common narrative of
commitment, of service that is built upon the
theological foundations. Samuel has been leading,
co-leading an incredible initiative with Muslims and
Christians for many years, which I've had the incredible
privilege of being part of just for a couple of times. And I have seen, and I have
witnessed what it means to actually look at what God
said in our respective texts, and then try to unpack it together and understand the deeper. I come out from these
conversations with my Muslim, my Christian and my Hindu
and Jewish and so on, theological conversations, I come out feeling like
I'm a better believer. I'm a more, slightly wiser
believer in my own faith that is so integrally
committed to the other, and part of all the
other faith traditions. Theological encounter is the basis of an inter relational building that we need in turn to be
able to work multi-religiously. - We are coming to the end of our session and we have three related questions dealing with religion and geopolitics. So I'm going to present all three of them and you can answer somehow in any way you think it's possible. From Flabio Conrado comes the question in different regions of the world, extremist governments are being elected, raising concerns about
the human rights agenda in a spaces like a United Nations. This week, we showed the UN
general assembly president spreading polarization and extremism using religious discourse. How are Religions for Peace dealing with these kinds of discourse when it comes from readers who speak with religious rhetoric? The next question comes from AW and says, what are the mental
multi-religious impacts of the United States from withdrawing from the UN human rights UNESCO sections we could that from the
World Health Organization? Do you think the scanning will be changed with any of us political administration if the current U S administration their policies remain the same? How can we as individuals
and the society make sense to improve and enhance
multi-religious impacts. Finally, from Mahamirsa, would you say that the global system is a structure to bring
about the greater good, or to provide legitimacy
through institutions for their own interests while giving the appearance of
doing good wherever possible in part through the
instrumentalization of religions? Can religions lead us into a better world? Can they actually lead or
do they mainly just follow, helping us manage crisis
created by war order primarily secular? So on these three questions, I'm going to let you have the last word in whichever way you
want to respond to that. - Gee, thank you. Those are extremely extensive questions and I'm very grateful for them and then many warm greetings
to Mahan and the others who raised these questions. There was no question to me that's participation and
engagement are a scenic one on of any transition,
transformation that we need in our global community today. To exit the space under any excuse, to exit from the opportunity
and the challenge presented by actively
engaging and working together to exit this space and to assume that you
can do it on your own, that you don't need that the rest of the
world to work with you, that in and of itself is
very, that is the problem. That is actually the heart of the problem of what we're confronting today. We are extraordinarily interdependent and interrelated as a planet. We cannot afford to go it alone. No nation, no community, no religion, no one can afford to go it alone anymore. I'm really sorry. I don't know when it was
possible to go it alone, but now, especially, and
the pandemic teaches us, pandemic 101, we are all connected, equally vulnerable, equally
strong if we stay connected. So the idea that any government should withdraw from any
particular multilateral space to me is the beginning of unraveling, not only that own governance
and society structure, but it is unraveling of
our interconnectivity. It is posing a serious
challenge to the fact that our planet demands we work
together and we work as one. So to me, that's just, there's
no even question about that. Is that harmful? Yes, it's absolutely harmful. What do we do about it? And this brings me to the
issue of the extremist. And by the way, extremist discourse that is espoused and subtly
or implicitly or explicitly by certain governments and or regimes, the fact that this is happening more today is part and parcel of the phenomenon of certain government society that they don't need to
be part of this space. They can do it better on their own. That is the same phenomenon by the way. And I think that the issue
here is we can lament, we can belabor, we can get very upset or we can actually demonstrate how it is that working
together collaboratively, how that actually does change, how that actually does contribute, how that actually does heal. And I think those, the emphasis on that, on showing that, on seeing it
happen because it's happening, it's happening all the time. We are alive here today
by virtue of the fact that people work together. We are alive here today
by virtue of the fact that people serve
institutions serve together. We wouldn't be here on this Zoom call if we didn't have that absolute reality. So the idea that we
could potentially show, highlight, more, magnify,
and that's one of the reasons that's one of my big things with media is when we were in the
World Humanitarian Summit, all the faith-based
organizations came together and came up with an agreed
ethos on serving human rights and upholding international
humanitarian law and serving together
in humanitarian crisis all over the world. Nothing emerged from that in the media. Nobody even knew this happened. And I will wager you that
if somebody had walked in and exploded themselves, that would have made
major news in that space. One loaner in the name of one warped understanding of religion, would have received
tremendous media attention. All the faith communities in
that one space coming together and committing to a charter
on humanitarian service and collaborations together, no news. I think we have a role to
play in being deliberate about seeing that which is working, that which is the collaborative
potential of our work. It's absolutely necessary. We have to do it. There's no question about it. And with all due the respect, Mahan, I think the answer is in your question. Your question has the answer to it. Yes, religions institutions can be extraordinarily narrow-minded
in their self interest, but we can't survive without them because we're too many
to relate one on one with one another all the time. We need mechanisms to do so. Right now, institutions of
various hues are mechanisms. It is up to us to make sure
that those institutions are held accountable and responsive. There's no question that
the multilateral order requires the government systems. The government systems
require the institutions of civil society there to function. That is the order of things. It will never be good. There will be rot here. There will be horrible stuff there, but there's also a legacy of being able to work together, better. - Well, the bell has rung. We are past our time, and
I thank you very, very much for these wonderful conversation. And I thank you, especially
for all your insights, for your courage, for your leadership and commitment to work together for everything that is
important for global humanity, especially in leading these global, religious, secular dialogue. Thank you everybody for
participating in our conversation. As we pointed out in a few days, the conversation will be on YouTube at the Berkeley Center website, and you will receive soon
notices of the next dialogue. It will be with Peter Vanderveer from the Max Planck Institute
in getting in mid October. We will let you know. Thank you so much and hope
to see you next month.
