As all of you well remember, following the devastation of World War II, the United States and our allies in Europe erected a security structure to contain the spread of communism emanating from the Soviet Bloc. Until the fall of the Soviet Empire in 1991, the serious commentators on the defining issues of our alliance with Europe were always moving into or out of government service. For the tools for managing containment were tools exclusively at the disposal of Governments: Nuclear weapons, military maneuvers, export controls, intelligence gathering and diplomacy. But then the wall came down in Germany, and one by one the states of the Soviet Republic took their independence.

And then we had something we called the “post cold war world”.

But what the role of government was going to be in that new world was a matter of considerable debate. Francis Fukuyama of the United States presented this startling and unexpected sequence of events as “the end of history” in a famous article exploring the end of one era and the beginning of another.

And about this time, a new phenomenon called the “digital age” entered our lexicon. It began slowly to define a new means of communication – e-mail, and put in to the hands of individuals more information processing power from the personal computer than was available on the supercomputers we used during the Soviet age to manage missile systems.

Indigenous groups and organizations organized around common interests and values, yet outside government – now known popularly as NGO’s- are not a new phenomenon at all. But the degree to which they have been able to organize a public constituency, often using -to great effect- the tools of the digital age itself, are a sign to many of us that change simply comes faster and more furious today than our governments and our institutions seem able to manage.

The confidence we had in the stable and reliable management of international affairs, cold war style, by our governments seems to be giving way to an increasing anxiety at the astonishing pace of change we are witnessing in civil society.

The speakers you have heard and the panels you have attended were designed to provoke us all to think broadly and deeply about the current state of our civil society and how we can manage our future. I harken back to Paul Weinstein’s opening comments as we began Thursday evening – when he quoted the United States’ great friend Jean Monnet, who said regularly and often at the darkest days of those cold war years that deep, personal relations, among individuals, would be the cement of our relations across the Atlantic.

Guided by the spirit of Jean Monnet, we wanted to gather a diverse group of individuals from a variety of cultures to share the way we are thinking about civil society in the transatlantic community.

Our purpose is very simple: to start a conversation - across geographical and cultural lines - and, through discussion and dialogue start a process that can shape our common future.

As Paul said at the outset Thursday evening, there is no intent to achieve grand conclusions here. Rather, the purpose is the process of relationship-building itself - simple communication - leading to regular contact - leading to international understanding – leading to change in the world.

Now what did we talk about during these three days?

Well, first we started Thursday evening with a compelling review of Alexander the Great’s globalization movement - his conquest of the Ancient world - started by and with the encouragement of his teacher Aristotle.

And we learned we have already encountered in ancient history some of the issues we are discussing here today. Indeed, we have seen and we are destined to repeat the mistakes and try again to learn the lessons all over again. And of course, most importantly - that Archaeology is not about things, it is about people.

We looked at the realities and myths of the Internet, with 400 million users worldwide, and the paradox it presents of social disengagement by some, and social engagement for others.

Friday afternoon we delved into the panels- starting with the Geography of Our Lives: We began our journey with a description of the genetic revolution and the discovery of the causes of disease at its most basic level. But just when we thought we were getting at root causes, we were quickly chastened and reminded that problems of education and delivery meant that only 14% of the world’s 6 billion human beings actually profit from modern science.

We talked about the threat of genetically modified foods to our health, and yet their promise to address famine and malnutrition in the third world. We explored the mass-production of cities in the United States in rigid blocks of residential and commercial zones, losing the sense of community, and preventing a sense of heritage and cultural identity in the process.

And we wondered if this was the kernel of an explanation for the dramatic rise in visitors to museum in Europe and the US.
We opened the floor to discuss our Economic Lives, with the challenge of corruption. We posed the question of the very definition of corruption from one culture to another. One panelist offered transparency as a means of assuring ethical practices, irrespective of the nuances of definitions. We explored the paradox of globalization – an engine for growth and development, or a source of threat to cultural heritage and community?

We discussed the problem of the Education Divide – the ability the internet may hold for virtual education – and yet there was a consensus that a good teacher can never be replaced. The tyranny of the denial of education was explored, particularly the problem of young women in impoverished countries, and it’s direct effect on human rights and population control.

We examined the Future of Business – corporate governance and ethics in a capitalist world. One view was that the pressure to exceed expectations is in conflict with the need for ethical behavior. But it was argued that the ends should not be confused with the means. Capitalism does not have ethics by definition. That only comes from the values of the people who practice it.

And what of the Digital Divide –like the challenge of delivering the benefits of science to the third world to combat disease, we discussed the failure of the credit system in the third world to permit the delivery of the communications revolution. And yet there was the emergence of a new culture of entrepreneurialism in Old Europe, particularly in France, where one is permitted to fail today, and start again. And finally the access we have to masses of digital information at our fingertips has caused us to seek ways to qualify the quantities, to reconfirm the critical need for journalists to filter and verify our information flows.

We examined Our Global Society: putting governments under the microscope of some very informed minds. We discussed the challenge of failed states, and acknowledged the shortcomings of leading nation-states to keep pace with change. Justice Arbour introduced us to her vision of judicial order as a means of intervening among nation states to enforce the human rights we have, to date, only articulated.

We explored the notion of digitally organized “communities of interest” defining new notions of political identity beyond the nation–state.

And we explored the evolution of the European Union, and the changes enlargement poses. But Ambassador Werner Kaufmann-Buehler reminded us of the progress already made - that now there will be an answer to Henry Kissinger’s famous question – what is the phone number of the European foreign minister.

We questioned the historic failure of foreign aid in the face of Africa’s failed economic experiments, and asked whether the Africans or we, are to blame. Can the explanation be found in a conflict of cultural understanding - between western models of development and indigenous African realities?

We plunged into one of the true thickets of transatlantic misunderstanding in our discussions of Culture and Multiculture: Posing the question “Will Progress kill Diversity”?

In the Arts, we asked whether the digital ability to reproduce art would replace the need for Museums? And one panelist offered us the view that museums are more than repositories of objects, but are “dedicated spaces for contemplation”. Art today was presented as less and less the province of wealthy collectors – and more and more publicly accessible. But still, the enduring value of art – through the eyes of any culture- is that art speaks to each individual in its own way.

In exploring the effect of the digital age on The Future of Leisure Time, it was argued that the co-evolution of culture and market forces is an embedded reality today. In this view “leisure is the handmaiden of culture”. But culture evolves, and there is a disquiet arising from the apparent homogeneity of culture, for which the digital age is increasingly held to blame.

Of course a truism on leisure emerged which we all recognize in our lives: those with little money have less choice for leisure time, but then those making more money seem to have less and less time for leisure.

And then we turned to a problem which we Americans living in France often find as amusing as it is frustrating- Communicating Across Cultures. We remarked upon a phenomenon I see every day – the way we talk, or even imitate a foreign accent, in order to be understood and accepted, or perhaps to achieve a certain social standing, or avoid a stereotypical prejudice.

And we brought forth the powerful reality that we have witnessed here at this conference– that for better or for worse - Europe has increasingly adopted the lingua franca – no pun intended – of English.

Along the way, we were awed by a presentation on the human genome, and the serene concept that as alphabets become ever more simple, they become yet more powerful.

And we were all intimidated with the realities of digital organized crime – now measured as a percentage of world GDP!

Justice Louise Arbour explored the hope that judicial systems may hold a position of trust in the modern world sufficient to allow delegation of sovereignty by nations, so that we might finally bring credible criminal enforcement by a World Court.

President Valéry Giscard d’Estaing offered what I found to be a very clear and unambiguous assessment of the state of transatlantic relations. The consequences of unilateralism were neither exaggerated, nor minimized. I felt he was gently offering up the compelling political reality that this is dangerous ground, seen before in Europe and to be avoided and I believe most Americans will agree.

Prime Minister Michel Rocard spent two hours with us reviewing the history of transatlantic relationship. He offered fascinating insights and new information.

Let me wind up by stating the obvious: Throughout all of this weekend’s exchanges, we know we were long on questions and short on solutions.

Our hope is that when your curiosity is peaked, when your minds are engaged and challenged, when your sense of morality is reassured by great progress, or shaken by the unexpected consequences of change, that you are the kinds of people who will only engage more deeply. You will search for common values to guide the way. You will define new communities of common interest on which to build new personal relationships across cultural lines, and across the Atlantic. Hopefully, this will smooth our path to our common future – and the 21st Century will be far less perilous than the 20th.

That is the goal of Forum 21 - Our Purpose Is A Process.

Paul started this by his own very civil example - that we all needed to give something back for the privileges we enjoy in life, the good education, the inquiring minds our parents, our teachers and our friends have led us to develop, the cross cultural experiences which we have dared to engage, indeed including the joys of the fine wine and cuisine of France. In one-way or another, life has blessed each of us. And we live quite civil lives – gathered here in beautiful Deauville.

But think back on the last three days a bit, if you will. To the fascinating ideas and interesting intellects we have had the pleasure to enjoy, the good news….and the bad… that we have pondered, we have discussed, we have debated. And mostly, think forward to new friends and relationships.

Henry Ford once said, whether you think you can, or whether you think you cannot, you are probably going to be right.

Paul, you were right. You thought we could start an interesting and worthwhile exchange on what we believe should define 21st Century civil society, and I think we did.

Back