NAFSA, Association of International Educators, Annual Symposium,
Baltimore, May 25, 2004
A Diplomat’s Perspective: ”Enhancing International Peace and Security – Open Borders, Open Minds”
Good afternoon and thank you for inviting me. This is an impressive gathering. Even more than impressive, it is an important gathering. I am a lay man in the field of higher education. However, while few of us are educators, most of us are more or less educated and, thus, all of us are opinionated with respect to education, its role in our lives and its role in the society. All of us have experiences with education and educators, and all of us are very concerned with our children’s education, knowing – or believing – that a good education will open doors for a future career.
You have all been to dinner-parties where you lack a topic of conversation. Start talking about education and you may go on forever. We all have an opinion. No one says: since I am not an educator, I really don’t know what to think. To the contrary: having been a student, having or having had children going to school or university, give us ample background for strong opinions on the matter.
Some of these arguments may be laughable. However, it also shows how education matters to all of us and it underlines that education in any society is dead serious.
May I put forward some postulates:
Peace and security require a certain level of economic and social development. Sustainable social and economic development requires broad-based public education. Thus, education becomes important for peace and security.
In Norway, public education has been an essential element in the development of a modern society, going hand in hand with the political development of the nation state. Norway’s history of economic and social development is closely linked to the development of a modern school system. Norway’s first law of public schools, that established financial support by the Government, dates back to 1860. Through this law, the Norwegian school developed from a place tied almost exclusively to religious teaching to a place of teaching general knowledge that ”any member of our national society ought to possess”. In 1889, the law was changed and Parliament established what for almost a century was known as ”the people’s school”. At that time, a compulsory school of five years was established. In the beginning of the 20th century it became seven compulsory years. Five years before the establishment of ”the people’s school,” Norway had established a parliamentary system. The development of a broad-based educational system went hand in hand with a political development that shaped the emergence of a strong, unified national identity. Norway’s school system has ever since been based on the principle of equal access to quality education for all.
Until the dissolution of the union with Sweden in 1905, Norway had been in union with first Denmark since the mid 14th century and from 1814 in union with Sweden. The development of an education for all created an awareness of cultural and political identity that lay the foundation of the demand for independence.
As I stated in my postulates: Education and development are tied together, development and peace and security are tied together. I know of no country without a proper educational system that has seen sustainable development over years. The right to education is an integral part of the social development. It is not enough to educate an elite. An educational system that does not take into consideration the needs of the majority of its people, might lead to destabilization rather than stability.
Norway is one of the world’s leading nations in development cooperation. Almost 1 per cent of Norway’s GNP is allocated to foreign aid, most of it goes to the poorest countries of the world. One of our main fields of assistance over the years has been education. We have seen education as a prerequisite for implementing other core elements in the creation of a viable society, being it poverty eradication, fighting environmental degradation, improving health standards, or developing good governance. None of these efforts will ever be efficient and sustainable without an educational system that makes people understand their own situation and put them in a position to change it. This is why the Norwegian Government recently made education not only one of several important areas of development, but its number one priority in its foreign aid policy. Thus, Norway is doing its share to fulfill the United Nations’ Millennium Goals of securing access for all the world’s children to primary education by 2015.
Aiming at broadbased education it has to be affordable even for the poorest segments of the population. Education also has to close the gender gap that still exists in many countries. Thus, an increasing part of Norway’s development aid is now spent on primary education, particularly on educating more girls. This is also in accordance with the UN Millennium Goals.
Norway has over the years become known for its efforts in brokering peace in some of the most serious conflicts in the world. We are at present actively involved in Sri Lanka, in Sudan, and in Haiti. We have also played host to talks between the Government of the Philippines and that country’s communist guerilla. We have been involved in the Middle East and Guatemala. This involvement is not necessarily altruism. It is rather realpolitik. Even small countries, up in the Northern fringes of Europe, are directly affected by wars and conflicts in the rest of the world. In order for us to prosper, we need world stability. Poverty, environmental degradation, and lack of economic opportunity are seen in Norway as important root causes of conflict. Many of the most brutal conflicts over the previous decade have taken place in some of the most marginalized countries in the world. Poverty may be one of the reasons for conflict. War and armed conflict then increase the poverty in a vicious circle. Our contribution in resolving and preventing conflicts therefore ties in with our efforts to reduce poverty. We do not believe that development assistance can replace political initiatives in preventing war. But we do believe that development efforts may ease tension and help stop the conflict from becoming violent.
In 1999, I was head of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). One of my main challenges was the Kosovo conflict. During my conversations with Milosevic and the Kosovar president, Ibrahim Rugova, I learned a lot about the importance of education and how much bitterness the deprivation of proper education may lead to. I don’t say that the Kosovo conflict could have been avoided by President Milosevic agreeing to the Kosovars upholding their own educational institutions. But I do say that a more forthcoming attitude by Mr. Milosevic may have improved the atmosphere considerably and maybe provided for avenues to reduce the conflict.
The Norwegian story about the development of our own educational system in the mid-1800s, and the more recent story about the situation in Kosovo, might indicate that what is needed is not open borders, but rather a closed environment where each and every ethnic group might develop their own educational system. This is not what I would like to say.
However, what I think is true, is that we all need some cultural basis that we recognize as ours. This basis also includes an educational system that we identify with and trust.
So what about open borders? Why couldn’t the Kosovars study in Belgrade and use Serbian, a language that they after all knew pretty well? Why couldn’t the Norwegians continue to study in Denmark as they had done till 1811 when Norway got its own university? Because it has to do with identity. Only with a firm identity as a foundation will we be able to venture into the open skies of international education and enjoy it. Norway needed to have a broad education to create a national identity in the process towards gaining its independence at the beginning of the 20th century. This educational process was important for the country’s overall development and stability.
However, in order to move the society forward, we needed excellence at that time - as we do today. In the 19th century, a number of scholars in the field of science and arts went abroad, mainly to Germany and France, and brought back information and knowledge that inspired Norwegians who had not had the opportunity to study outside of the country. They became Norway’s academic elite.
Today most young people in Norway can afford to study abroad. Much of the same goes for the rest of the Western world, and we have seen an enormous expansion in students crossing borders – until recently.
Does open borders provide for better security and stability in the world? Yes, I believe so. Or to put it the other way: I believe closed borders provide for the feeling of exclusion and suspicion, and thus may create hatred and insecurity.
Some facts:
In today’s world knowledge flows freely. Through TV and through the Internet, we have the world at our fingertips. Cultural, social, and economic differences have become very visible. We know what we are missing. An African colleague of mine in Washington points to the fact that the envy and hatred against the western world is growing because of TV. When you compared yourselves to the conditions in the neighboring village or in the capital, you might have had the feeling of being let down. However, comparing yourself to the affluent, decadent world presented on the TV screens, the discrepancy is so much bigger and thus the bitterness grows.
This gives the developed world a challenge in responsible distribution of wealth if we want to avoid major clashes between the rich and poor of the world. One way of assisting in distribution of wealth is by providing education. We may do that locally. As I said with reference to Norway, broadbased public education is a basis for social and economic development. However, in today’s globalized world we also need to acquire information from abroad.
For many years, Norwegians have gone abroad for specialized education. We needed more doctors than we educated ourselves. A large number of Norwegian medical doctors are educated abroad. In our small society we will never be able to establish sufficient research facilities for all the fields needed. Researchers and scientists will have to go abroad in order to find the necessary environment for specialization and further development. That is why we are very concerned with the fact that the number of Norwegian students in the US has gone down dramatically over the last 8 years from about 2500 a year to close to a 1000 last year.
If Norway needs open borders in order to provide for its scientific and industrial development, developing countries need it much more. That means that we have to facilitate studies abroad. However, we also have to provide incentives for the return to their home countries after the completion of the studies. The brain drain is a problem for many developing countries. It is a potential source of instability in the countries that lose ”their brains”. In Norway we have created some incentives for the return by releasing foreign students that have studied in Norway from their debt if they return to their home countries. It does not always work, and it may be adjusted, but it is worth the effort.
In addition to providing knowledge, student exchange programs aim at providing some understanding of different cultures, as I believe it did in my own case in France and California. At the same time, we have to be realistic. In as much as I never wanted to become French or American, probably most other foreign students do not want to change nationality or cultural heritage. Even if it has been proven untrue that most of the 9-11 hijackers had student visas, there is no doubt that many return to their home countries after having studied in the US or Europe and still hate the Western society and culture. Thus, there is no automaticity in love at first sight for students abroad. Western societies are not very accommodating. Our values are not values that people from other parts of the worlds necessarily buy into. These are difficult issues that we have to address.
However, I am certain of one thing: closing the borders is no answer. First of all, very few foreign students are potential terrorists. You do not need to go abroad on an exchange program to become a terrorist. But I do believe that you may become a terrorist in the long run if you feel deprived of knowledge and competence that you see available elsewhere.
I recently spoke to a professor at one of the major universities on the East Coast who told me about a program in Middle-Eastern studies that the university had been running for years with good participation from that region. This year, none of the students came from the Middle East, partly due to cumbersome visa requirements that have been introduced, and partly because the students were reluctant to go to the U.S. under the present circumstances. This is very serious. It is serious for this society that will miss the opportunity of being exposed to views from abroad. It is also serious for those who do not come, losing out on knowledge and at the same time keeping the perception of a monolithic American society, a misconception that is very regrettable. Maybe European countries should try and make up for the decreasing number of foreign students that go to the U.S. by creating new programs for these students in Europe?
Open borders do not necessarily create open minds. The foundation for an open mind has to be part of my basic education. That’s why it is important for all of us to improve and facilitate a public education that fosters curiosity and intellectual skepticism. However, an open mind will demand open borders. Because we see a need to learn from each other. Closing the borders will not provide security, peace and stability in today’s world. As already stated, to the contrary: closed borders deprive people of knowledge that is needed for development and as such foster anger and misconceptions.
There is no alternative to open borders. However, there are many alternatives when it comes to what we offer inside our borders. But these are questions I will have to leave to you to discuss further.
Thank you.