The 27th edition of the Eurasian Economic Summit, organised by the Marmara Group Strategic and Social Research Foundation, partner of The Institute for Advanced Studies in Levant Culture and Civilization, was honoured by the participation of some of the most important state leaders of the past 30 years. The Summit was structured around the discussions regarding the long-term consequences of war and climate crisis. “Artificial Intelligence and the future of humanity” was another topic that occupied a prominent place on the agenda of the Summit.
Invited to Istanbul, the president of the Scientific Council of ISACCL took part in the special session dedicated to the 100th anniversary of the birth of Süleyman Demirel, president of Turkey between 1993 and 2000, and in the “Sagacious People Session”, along other 19 former state leaders.
In his speech, President Emil Constantinescu invited the participants to reflect on the stringency of a demystifying approach that must begin by reconsidering the dangers of populism, which, once generalized at the political, economic and social level, opens the door to new forms of authoritarianism.
A book dedicated to the 100th anniversary of the birth of Süleyman Demirel, leader of peace and reconciliation in the Balkans.
During the special session dedicated to the 100th anniversary of the birth of Süleyman Demirel, president Emil Constantinescu presented his book “Süleyman Demirel. Leader of peace and reconciliation in the Balkans and Eurasia” in Istanbul, paying homage to the president of Turkey between 1993-2000, a respected leader and friend of Romania.
In the last decade of the 20th century, President Demirel played an outstanding role in leaving behind the millenary historical conflicts in the Balkans and Central Asia. After the end of his presidential mandate, president Demirel continued to exert a positive influence, by virtue of the unanimous respect he enjoyed at international level, underlined president Constantinescu, who, in his book, shared the projects on which he worked together with president Süleyman Demirel, in a time of political, diplomatic and social ferment in Eurasia.
Turkey’s political support for Romania during the NATO accession campaign was consistent, but the collaboration between Romania and Turkey extended at all levels, including middle and higher-level education. It is worth mentioning that in 1997 the Turkish parliament ratified the treaty of enlargement of NATO with Poland, Czech Republic and Hungary, on the condition that Romania would mandatorily be admitted during the second wave of enlargement.
Between 1997-2000, the cooperation with Süleyman Demirel was continued within the Turkey-Bulgaria-Romania Trilateral Agreement, the Black Sea Economic Cooperation, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the Revival of the Silk Road and, after the end of the presidential mandates, within the Balkan Political Club, Global Baku Forum and Eurasian Economic Summit.
Records of this collaboration, as well as gifts offered by president Süleyman Demirel can be seen in the permanent exhibition “Artefacts from the Balkans, Caucasus, Middle East and the Northern Africa” of the Institute for Advanced Studies in the Levant Culture and Civilization.
During the session dedicated to the memory of president Süleyman Demirel, moderated by journalist Murat Yetkin, Aylin Cesur PhD (former member of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey), Hikmet Çetin (minister of foreign affairs of Turkey 1991-1994, president of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey 1997-1999 and Senior Civilian Representative of NATO in Afganistan, 2003-2006), Evgenia Gutul (president of the Autonomous Territorial Unit of Gagauzia), Mladen Ivanić (president of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2014-2018), Petru Lucinschi (president of the Republic of Moldova 1997-2001) also spoke.
Petăr Stoianov, president of Bulgaria between 1997 and 2002, transmitted a eulogistic message in honour of the ninth president of Turkey.
EMIL CONSTANTINESCU: THE 21ST CENTURY WORLD BETWEEN DICTATORSHIP AND AUTHORITARIANISM
The fact that we are today discussing such a critical topic for the current global situation, „From Crises to Stability: The Building of an Inclusive World” at the Sagacious People Session of the Eurasian Economic Summit, comprised of eighteen notable personalities that have held the office of head of state during times of democratic transformation and economic reform, is entirely welcomed and greatly needed.
At pivotal moments, when leaders are called upon to take decisions that can change the course of events, a continuous feedback loop is created between understanding history, and living through it. The fundamental question that such an understanding of history should answer is: “What is it that leads the leaders of states or nations to opt between exerting authoritarian or democratic rule, and what is it that leads them to choose between the paths of war and peace?” This is accompanied by another, equally important, question: “Why do people follow and support their leaders in one or another of these two directions?”
The conflation of major events of great importance in safeguarding world peace and security with other conjunctural developments such as shifts in the prices of oil, gas or grains, the decline in the comfort of the general population in certain wealthy countries, the testing of new weapons systems, currency market fluctuations and inflation, or negotiations over areas of political and economic influence – which had all been commonplace in the order of the day – is not only intellectually false, but also morally shameful.
At this crossroads in world history, the international debate on the long-term consequences of war should focus on one moral key issue: will the international order, based on a respect for the treaties that have secured a lasting peace in Europe for the past 80 years, be preserved? Or will there be a move to disregard them and replace the force of law with the right of force, thereby setting a dangerous precedent for a return to the sadder history of the globe prior to World War II, when peace treaties were, in effect, mere preparations for a later war?
The acceptance of a regional peace that enshrines the annexation of territory following wars of aggression and under the blackmail of nuclear deployment will have significant consequences at the global level, encouraging ever more countries not to strive for economic and social development, but instead employ their financial resources to increasing their own military potential and deploy it towards aggressive purposes.
The dangers of populism and risk of a new form of authoritarianism
Over the past eight decades, the global political scene that had been dominated by dictatorial regimes prior to the outbreak of World War II has substantially changed in favour of democratic regimes.
We must, however, operate a distinction between a democracy based on human rights and the “rule of law” that has mobilized much of the energy of civil society. Those of us who share the experience of having lived under a communist regime can better understand the ease with which some totalitarian regimes accept the principle of the “rule of law,” interpreting the phrase as the rule of laws that are of their own making. This is why the fundamental rhetoric surrounding the rule of law cannot be dissociated from a democratic system.
At the same time, we must accept the idea that democracy itself is not a moral ideal. It is merely an instrument by which to transpose the eternal ideals of liberty, truth and justice into society’s collective consciousness. Its withering begins through the replacement of ideals with illusions, and of illusions with vested interests. Conversely, the revival of democracy must be predicated on the timelessness of humanist ideals when confronted with financial interests, with political manipulation, and with a reemergence of the sentiment of terror. The decline of the model of Western democracies was caused by their having fallen into the euphoric trap of perceiving democracy as unassailable – a proprietary ailment of well-to-do societies. What is now required is a demystifying approach that must begin by reconsidering the looming dangers of populism which, once generalized at the political, economic and social level, opens the door to new forms of authoritarianism.
While we often quote the saying that “the truth will set us free,” without the freedom of coming to know the truth, of choosing the truth and expressing it, the truth will never be victorious. Unfortunately, freedom cannot only be annulled through terror, or stolen away through false promises. It can also be willingly ceded, in order to absolve ourselves of the responsibility of exercising it.
We in Eastern Europe who have lived the majority of our lives under communist dictatorships well know that it represented a system of lies that was maintained through terror. We are now confronted with a surprisingly “creative” approach to falsity both in the elaboration of democratic policies and in the market economy, which, to me, seems more dangerous than even the official communist deception in which few believed, least so among academic circles. Even though university professors were sometimes coerced into propagating the lie, they well knew that even those that enforced it did not believe in its merit.
The German philosopher Wolfgang Reinhardt, who first proposed the concept of a Society of Lies and analysed its different facets, formulated two theses. The first concerns the unprecedented expansion of lies throughout contemporary society, in which “untruths prove to be not merely commonplace and necessary, but even amiable to Man.” The second thesis argues for complicity in falsehood both in the case of those that lie and of those that are lied to, claiming that the political lies of the state leadership are merely part of the broader untruths that engulf us all. However, Reinhard also offered an individual path to escaping this Society of Lies that has created so many unexpected complications: “When nobody can tell us what truth is anymore, we may, at least, ascertain what truth is not.” In this situation, we are only left to present ourselves with a clean conscience, as so many confessors to the reality we inhabit.
The world today is faced with a series of paradoxes: underdevelopment does not preclude an arms race; democracy does not eliminate corruption; a market economy cannot avoid the pitfalls of unemployment and environmental disaster. Fifty years from its adoption, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is being systematically defied, either under ideological pretexts, or under the endemic burden of poverty.
As conflicts proliferate, the project of global governance has become illusory. Many of the provisions of the UN’s 2030 Agenda, including the eradication of poverty and unemployment, have been proven utopian as the last global health crisis has further broadened the gap between the world's rich and poor, while technological advances in artificial intelligence and robotics have only increased the profit and influence margins of dominant transnational corporations.
In the latter half of the 20th century, politics and economics had succeeded in organising the space of the planet. Not so, its time. Today, disagreements of all kinds arise not least because the different branches of the world are simultaneously inhabiting parallel histories. The great challenge of the next millennium appears to be closely tied to the conundrum of what, if anything, we can do to make all the inhabitants of the planet truly contemporary to one another.
I am certain that most people today outright reject war, terrorism, torture, pollution, thought crime, xenophobia, racism and genetic manipulation, the exploitation of minors, social exclusion, hunger, or discrimination in the workplace on gender, religious or ethnic grounds. We have a shared duty to diagnose these pathologies together, just as together we can heal the wounds they continue to inflict.
Changes in the security environment can only be understood if we first consider the changing nature of international relations, rules and norms, the typology of actors in play, the goals pursued and the means of attaining them.
Conflict prevention and the management of post-conflict situations require a comprehensive and balanced vision that takes into account the interests of different ethnic and religious communities, the duties of states and the natural rights of their citizens, as well as the short- and long-term interests of regional actors. Such a vision cannot be developed without the participation of representatives capable of expressing the plurality of voices, questions and aspirations of the billions of people that make up the globalized world of the 21st century. The concept of a global democratization cannot be limited to a mere extension of the Western democratic model that played an essential role in the toppling of autocratic regimes across much of the world after the end of World War II. Global democratization can be achieved through a new type of diplomacy: cultural diplomacy, based on a knowledge of the Other - because a failure to understand the Other’s motivations has led to many a wrong foreign policy decision throughout history, which have often triggered regrettable conflicts and wars.
From earliest times to the present day, international politics and diplomacy have been predicated on relations of power and force. The modern concept of “soft power” is far from functional, while “cultural diplomacy” is only in its infancy. Let me be clear: I am in no way advocating for a replacement of classical diplomacy with cultural diplomacy; that would be to advocate for a dangerous utopia. I am, however, advocating for their association as part of a political culture of security through negotiation and cooperation.
A Culture of Peace Through Education
At the same time, a global Peace can only be obtained through the attainment of a Culture of Peace through Education – a lengthy and laborious process.
I speak from experience when I argue that heads of state are, the vast majority of the time, focused on issues of state, on reforms and on pending budgets, with little time spare to consider their people directly. This is a sad state of affairs, as no state can exist without its people. We become so focused on providing our nations with healthcare and social security, with living wages and pensions, with remaining within allotted budgets; we are concerned with educational reforms in order to offer an appropriate framework that allows people of all ages to retain access to lifelong education and learning, and attempt to correlate curricula with desired competencies. We strive for people to receive a good education. And they do: they become brilliant doctors, professors, engineers, teachers, scientists, lawyers, magistrates, writers, soldiers and artists. Yet, is this enough, I wonder? Should we not be more concerned with also providing an education into the moral values and principles we adhere to, alongside the conveyance of knowledge and skill?
I have lived under communism for 50 years; and in a democracy for another 35. This experience has made me realise that the greatest failure of statesmen – and of the older generation, more broadly – lies in their inability to focus on preparing the youth for life’s oncoming challenges. While we train them to become consummate professionals in their chosen fields of specialty, we must also strive to teach them respect for the law, for our institutions and, most importantly, for each other. Differences can be found all around, if sought; but the possibility of their escalation can be nullified if we seek a common ground for constructive dialogue, by discovering our similarities and our shared interests and underlining the fact that any time spent in conflict is time wasted.
We can only obtain a lasting consensus around the eternal ideals of mankind: liberty, truth and justice, closely interwoven concepts without whom democracy is left an empty shell bereft of purpose.
In my adolescence, I was impressed by the moral intransigence of Plato’s Dialogue, “Crito,” which invokes the philosopher Socrates, unjustly condemned to death and refusing to save his own life by taking the path of exile. Even if few of us, philosophers or otherwise, would ever come to face such a dramatic situation in our own lifetimes, it is, nevertheless, worth considering such a fundamental choice: are we to save our own lives by breaking the law, or save our conscience (even if not our lives) by upholding the law? You might well ask what purpose this recounting of events that occurred over two millennia ago serves the present; and I would remind you that I began my address by invoking the relationship between a history understood, and a history lived.
Hope for future: the belief in the fundamental values of mankind
Democracy cannot guarantee Peace in the face of the aggression of authoritarian regimes; it can only ensure that it will not be a television screen that informs citizens they have entered into a war without having been previously asked. Yet, the belief in the fundamental values of mankind is our only hope for the future. It falls to each generation – and, ultimately, to each of us, in turn, to choose how they wish to lead their life: in liberty, or in servitude to a totalitarian regime.
I retain hope that each generation will foster at least a few brave individuals that are willing to fight and even die for these ideals, as was the case of the youths alongside whom we stood in 1989 and 1990. If one understands the past, one knows how to live and what kind of message should leave for future generations.
In 1989-1990, the dictatorships which had been covering for 73, respectively 43 years, an immense part of Eurasia, collapsed in just two years after non-violent revolutions, the first ones of the kind in world history. My country, Romania, was the exception, as the dictator Ceaușescu ordered the army to shoot the people, arresting, torturing and killing thousands of them. In Bucharest, in Piața Universității, a few hundred people, among whom my son and my students, chanted „We will die and will be free”. A number of those present there died indeed, when tanks occupied the square. The following day, half a million people immobilized the tanks and conquered freedom.
Seven years later, when I was elected president by universal suffrage, I had the mission to bring about a reconciliation between victims and oppressors, at national level, and a reconciliation with our neighbours from Central Europe and the Balkans, with whom there had been secular conflicts. This reconciliation has proved itself to be tenable for 28 years now.
Let’s rebuild hope, together
The majority of the former presidents present at this session have led the peaceful transition to democracy of their countries, promoting the reconciliation between old enemies at both domestic and foreign level.
At this historical moment, when few leaders still believe in a positive end of the present Cold War, which threatens to become a World War, we have the duty to present the young people today our experience, in order to rebuild hope, together.
Many people are now asking themselves, and with good reason, whether the future will or will not awake the two daemons of history – hate and fear -, neutralizing love and courage. We who are here today managed to build a profound positive change in our countries at the end of the 20th and beginning of the 21st centuries, and to transform a region marked by millenary conflicts, often bloody, where the two World Wars were unleashed, in a peace and collaboration zone.
Sagacious People Group
At the 27th edition of the Eurasian Economic Summit, the Sagacious People Session was attended by the presidents Abdullah Gül (president of Turkey, 2007-2014), Marinko Čavara (president of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2017-2023, president of the National House of Representatives); Emil Constantinescu (president of Romania, 1996-2000); Nambar Enkhbayar (president of the Mongolian People’s Republic, 2005-2009); Mladen Ivanić (president of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2014-2017), Ivo Josipović (president of Croatia, 2010-2015): Václav Klaus (president of Czech Republic, 2003-2013); Petru Lucinschi (president of the Republic of Moldova, 1997-2001); Moncef Marzouki (president of Tunisia, 2011-2014); Stjepan Mesić (president of Croatia, 2000-2010); Ilir Metaj (president of Albania, 2017-2022); Marie Louise Coleiro Preca (president of Malta, 2014-2019); Borut Pahor (president of Slovenia, 2012-2022); Fatmir Sejdiu (president of the Republic of Kosovo, 2006-2010); Boris Tadić (president of Serbia, 2004-2012); Ersin Tatar (president of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus); Bamir Topi (president of Albania, 2007-2012); Danilo Turk (president of Slovenia, 2007-2012); Filip Vujanović (president of the Republic of Montenegro, 2003-2018); Valdis Zatlers (president of Latvia, 2007-2011).
Presidents attending the “Sagacious People Session” outlined the difficult global situation today, proposing a series of measures and perspectives aiming to make the challenge of a better tomorrow come true. In his speech, the Chairman of the Scientific Council, professor Emil Constantinescu, outlined the importance of the moral dimension in any kind of reconstruction and sustainable development.
