Translating cultures in Al-Andalus

Toledo
Toledo – a story of translation

What does it take to sustain a “culture of tolerance” in a society marked by genuine differences? It is a question central to the issues discussed on this blog: from Kosovo to Kakheti, from Timisoara to Thessaloniki. Let me share impressions of one particularly interesting effort to answer it: Maria Rosa Menocal’s book The Ornament of the World – How Muslims, Jews and Christians Created a Culture of Tolerance in Medieval Spain.

Menocal is an expert on the multireligious and multilinguistic world of medieval Spain. She decided to write her book after delivering presentations on “Medieval Europe and Authentic Multiculturalism” and noticing that her research had produced a “treasure trove of mostly unknown and unheared stories and characters.” This explains why her book is a very good read. But it is its relevance to current debates that makes it particularly gripping. As the author asks herself:

“Can Muslims be successfully integrated into contemporary and secular European nations? Should fundamentalist Christians have to expose their children to the teachings of reason as well as those of faith, to evolutionary theories as well as scriptural truth? Can Catholic Croatians, Orthodox Serbs, and Muslim Bosnians coexist in the Balkans? How can tolerance and intolerance coexist?”

Menocal describes a medieval society where “Muslims, Christians and Jews did not have separate cultures based on religious differences but rather were part of a broad and expansive culture that had incorporated elements of all their traditions, a culture that all could and did participate in regardless of their religion.”

In fact, despite its title – The Ornament of the World – the story Menocal tells is, in the end, one of defeat as much as triumph. The enemies of tolerance and cultural coexistence are always present and ultimately they triumph. There is the regent of the dying Kalifate of Cordoba, al-Mansur, leading a deadly and destructive raid into Santiago de Compostela in 997; there is the complete destruction, perpetrated by fundamentalist Berber fighters from North Africa, of the palace of Madinat-Al-Zahra outside of Cordoba in 1009, ending the golden age of Cordoba; there are the attacks on Jews by Muslims (the massacre of Jews in Muslim Granada in 1066) and Christians (their expulsion from Christian Toledo in 1391). Later, in 1492, all Jews were made to leave Spain following an order by Spains’ Catholic Kings, many resettling in the Ottoman Empire, in particular in Thessaloniki. Spanish Muslims met the same fate before long.

And yet, it was not religiously defined crusaders but intense exchange and interaction between Christian, Jews and Muslims that defined – and made great – medieval Spain. It was a tradition of exchange, of translation, of trying to reconcile reason and religion, of poetry. To grasp this it is probably easiest to do what Menocal does so well: to introduce some of the leading protagonists.

There is Hasdai ibn Shaprut, the Jewish foreign secretary of the Muslim caliphate called al-Andalus in Arabic and Sefarad in Hebrew. He was born in Cordoba in 915 and became a leader of the Jewish community in Cordoba as well as vizier of caliph Abd al-Rahman. He was proficient in the many languages of his native city – Latin, Arabic, Hebrew and Mozarabic. He remained a devout Jew and was also thoroughly educated in Arab culture. In 949 he headed a delegation in delicate talks with a delegation from Greek speaking Byzantium, to discuss a possible alliance against the Abbasids in Bagdad.

One of the gifts the Byzantines brought was a book by Discorides, On Medecine. Hasdai immediately set out to put together a team of experts to have it translated into Arabic. Books mattered in the Cordoba of his time. The caliphal library had some four hundred thousand volumes “at a time when the largest libraries in Christian Europe probably held no more than four hundred manuscripts. Cordoba’s caliphal library was itself one of seventy libraries in the city.

Books also played a central role in the life of Arab poet Ibm Hazm, raised in a Cordoba harem in the last years of the first millenium, According to Menocal he produced some 400 of them, from law to philosophy, from religious studies to the sciences. His most famous work, though, was a handbook on love – The Neck-Ring of the Dove – whose 30 small chapters cover topics such as “on the Signs Given by the Eyes” and “On Those Who Fall in Love at First Sight.” It is a tribute to a courtly society, laying out the ways in which love can be an all-consuming illness that wastes the lover away, robs him of sleep, appetite, and tranquility – the sum of which creates and incomparable ecstasy and is also the very source of great poetry.” Poetry which appears as modern as this:

“I’ve a sickness doctors can’t cure,

Inexorably pulling me to the well of my destruction.

Consented to be a sacrifice, killed for her love,

Eager, like the drunk gulping wine mixed with poison

Shameless were those nights,

Yet my soul loved them beyond all passion.”

But these sensibilities would travel beyond Southern Spain. Menocal notes how Anadalusian Arabic “ring songs” of love poems made their way into France in the 11th century, together with new instruments that would rehape European music: guitars, drums, tambourines. In the siege of the Northern Spanish town of Barbastro in 1064 “the greatest treasure” taken back by Christian conquerors were Andalusian singers. Medieval French culture owed an obvious and visible debt to the poets of Andalus.

Or take Michael Scot, born in Scotoland, then living in Sicily. He travels to Toledo when that city is at the heart of European culture in the 13th century. One of the main activities in Toledo was the translation of texts into Latin from Arabic. When the Castilian king Alfonso VI took over Toledo from its Arab rulers, Menocal writes, he

“simultaneously aquired an immense wealth of books and, the greatest gift of all, whole communities of multilingual Toledans – Mozarabs and Jews prominent among them, who could serve as translators.”

And as more and more Arab-speaking Christians and Jews fled from increasingly intolerant cities in the South of Spain and settled in Toledo, the city became the European centre of translation:

“It was at this time that the translation of thousands of Arabic volumes into Latin began in earnest, and within fifty years, Latin readers throughout Christendom had at their displosal such once-unimagined wonders as the full body of Aristotle’s works, accompanied by extensive Muslim and Jewish commentaries … Michael Scot and many others went to Toledo to learn Arabic and to train in the special process of collaborative translation developed there. The common model was for a Jew to translate the Arabic text aloud into the shared Romance vernacular, Castilian, whereupon a Christian would take that oral version and write it out in Latin.”

In this way the translators of the Toledo school were not translating individual texts: they were “translating a culture”. They, like the scholars in Cordoba or poets like Ibn Hazm, were the avantguard of the intellectual revival of medieval Europe: its first true renaissance, belying the image of the “dark ages”.

So read this fascinating book! I have thought of its characters many times in recent months, in particular while working on two documentary films – one on Thessaloniki and one on Istanbul (more on these later). In both of these two great European cities one encounters a similar story of traditions of multiethnic, multireligious coexistence lasting for centuries, only to be destroyed in the end by forces of ferocious intolerance, by insistence on purity, by the will to “simplify” society.

As Menocal puts it, the challenge is for a culture to sustain “contradictions.” She never idealises the world she celebrates: there simply are too many accounts of exil, massacres, intolerance and warfare in her story. Her conclusion is that all three monotheistic faiths “have powerful strains of ferocity within them”. Her story concludes with the Spanish inquisition being set up to “cure the perceived ills created by five hundred years of a society that did tolerate contradictions of all sorts.” Thus the medieval world gives way to a new world, embracing the ideal of single-religion and single-language nations: an ideal which in some parts of the world is still with us today.

Menocal herself ends her scholarly meditation in the Balkans, with the Sarajevo Haggadah, a Jewish book of prayers and stories that survived the shelling of the Sarajevo library in August 1992. The book had made it out of Spain in the exodus of 1492, taken to the Ottoman Empire by Sephardic Jews. It was rescued a second time during the second world war, when a Muslim curator in Sarajevo managed to hide it from the Nazis. And many decades later, a woman fleeing Kosovo, attacked by Serb forces in 1999, held among her possessions a paper her father had received from the Israeli government for saving not only the Sarajevo Haggadah but also Yugoslav Jews from the Nazis. Cordoba – Toledo – Thessaloniki – Sarajevo – Istanbul … How many more such chapters will European history write?

One last thought: the multicultural society Menocal describes lasted “for several hundreds of years – that’s a very long time for a good thing to last”. Indeed. But certainly not long enough.


Thessaloniki synagogue


Istanbul’s formerly Christian Pera area


Sarajevo’s National Library, shelled in 1992

Why the Turks could not have built the bridge in Mostar – reflection on Bosnia

Mostar bridge

I am currently reading a thought-provoking and entertaining book with a serious conclusion: Wild Europe – the Balkans in the Gaze of Western Travellers by Bozidar Jezernik, published by Saqi and the Bosnian Institute.

It is a book about continuities in approaches to the Balkans. As anthropologist Joel Martin Halpern writes in the foreword:

“In the early twenty-first century, a large portion of the Balkan lands where Muslims live, our principal area of concern, are occupied by NATO troops with UN participation … in exploring Jezernik’s collection of the views of observers of times past, we can easily see how they provide a necessary prologue to the present.”

Halpern notes that in recent centuries outsiders coming to the Balkans would often hesitate to consider anything admirable in the work of the people of the region. He gives the example of the bridge in Mostar:

“… by the mid nineteenth century, when Turkish power had notably declined, travellers no longer attributed the bridge to the Turks, but gave it classical origins. … A nineteenth century account of the bridge at Mostar by an Austrian noblewoman is illustrative. She had the insight to observe of the bridge that ‘history mislabels it as Roman’. But her husband, who oversaw the publication of her book, added in his notes that the bridge was obviously classical, built by Trajan or Hadrian.”

Another Balkan explorer, Sir Arthur Evans, travelling through Bosnia in 1875, noted about the Mostar bridge that “the grandeur of the work … attests to its Roman origin.” The mindset of these travelers, so Halpern, was to ask “how could something unique and of value come directly from the infidel Turks and be located in the Balkan back of beyond.”

The rest of the book gives many more examples of an outlook which views the Balkans as a region of “primitive quarrels and ancient ways of resolving them.” There is the Englishman who describes the eastern coast of the Adriatic as “one of those ill-fated portions of the earth which, though placed in immediate contact with civilisation, have remained perpetually barbarian.” There are the travel reports written for a “broad and enthusiastic public who found nothing more boring than plain facts.” In these writings hyperbole was encouraged. As Jezernik writes:

“In a book on the inhabitants of Bosnia, written by the French consul in Travnik at the beginning of the nineteenth century, readers would frequently come across terms such as wild, ruthless and cannibalistic. In this light, the civilising role of France might have seemed indispensable and could have been used as a pretext for the occupation of Bosnia. The author repeats several times in different words that this country and its inhabitants might change ‘under some other rule’.”

Some time ago my friend Felix Martin and I have written a provocative little article about the colonial gaze of modern day foreigners in the Balkans and the practical consequences of this for Bosnia (Travails of the European Raj – we then put a short picture story on liberal imperialism on the internet, stretching from Mill and Machiavelli to Michael Ignatieff and Sebastian Mallaby).

We noted that in the modern Balkans – as in the past – liberal imperialists emphasied both wild behaviour and helplessness. It is because the Balkans are wild that they need to be contained and it is because they are helpless that they need to be helped. Achievements by the peoples of the Balkans upset this perspective, which is why it is better not to underline them too much.

This is very visible today in Bosnia. While it is admitted that the Mostar bridge is an Ottoman and not a Roman marvel, the approach that every post-war achievement (peace, reconstruction, return, basic reconciliation) is assumed to be the result of international coercion or assistance but rarely or never the product of local effort, remains very much alive. This is obvious also from two provocative articles published in the Guardian and by USIP. The authors – the former High Representative to Bosnia and Herzegovina, Lord Ashdown, and two American Balkan experts with long experience in Bosnia, Bruce Hitchner and Ed Joseph – argue that Bosnia and Herzegovina is today facing a tremendous crisis, and that the only way to save it from itself is through more assertive outside intervention, including maintaining (and using) international intervention powers.

There can be no doubt that all three authors feel genuine concern about and commitment to Bosnia. At the same time their views appear to be shared by many (among the dwindling group of) policy makers who focus on Bosnia today in Washington DC in particular. Theirs is thus a serious perspective that deserves a thorough discussion. And yet, at another level the two articles are also good illustrations of the persistance of the colonial gaze: a gaze which can see no salvation for the wild peoples of Bosnia except by outsiders ruling them directly.

Take a look first at the article by Ed Joseph and Bruce Hitchner. Here is the central argument: 1. “ownership” has been tried and does not work. 2. Without plenipotentiary powers in the hands of an international agency there can be no progress in Bosnia. and 3. the best model for Bosnia’s future is the supervisory regime established in the Brcko district in North Bosnia. In this regime a foreign supervisor retains the power to remove elected and appointed officials from power:

“The vast majority of progress in Bosnia has been the result of international prodding. Experiments with “local ownership”. most notably during the regime of High Representative Christian Schwarz-Schilling, resulted in severe gridlock and left the international community’s credibility in tatters …

“There are no plans for the successor EUSR to retain the plenipotentiary Bonn Powers of the High Representative that have been the international community’s primary tool to overcome obstruction. However, recent history suggests that it is expecting far too much of the Bosnian parties to operate together as a typical aspirant country … an empowered EUSR will still be needed at the helm to steer the parties toward agreement and overcoming the inevitable recalcitrant party or parties.”

“A viable model for Bosnia’s EUSR is not only the predecessor OHR, but also the successful Brcko Supervisory regime. Brcko has been the exceptional success story in the country due in part to the knowledge that an empowered outside actor could step in to avoid and break deadlocks. … The EUSR should be expressely required to state which party or parties have been responsible for failure to achieve progress and to make recommendations about corrective action, including removal from power or blacklisting them from traveling within the EU.”

These are very strong claims, about the recent past as well as about the possible futures of Bosnia: Bosnians among themselves are held to be unable to govern themselves without a strong supervisory regime (as exists in Brcko district). This is also unlikely ever to change. After all, there are no constitutional problems for governance inside Brcko District (which was designed completely by foreigners), and the only complication there appears to be the fact that there are indeed Bosniaks, Croats and Serbs living together: and yet, until today this “exceptional success story” continues to require the corrective powers of a foreign supervisor! The implication is that as long as Bosnia/Brcko are multiethnic societies the only way to make elected representatives reach compromises is to threaten them with the sanction of imposition or removal. Brcko is, after all, not a model for multiethnic democracy!

The article by Ashdown also refers to Brcko as a model, calling it a “multi-ethnic markedly successful sub-entity.” Ashdown evokes the threat of war in Bosnia to draw attention to his call for more assertive international action, noting that what would change people’s “calculation in favour of blood” in Bosnia would be continued efforts to divide the country. And such efforts, he underlines in the same article, are continuing and will most likely continue without stronger international engagement. As he writes: “You do not need imagination to know what happens when things go wrong in Bosnia – a memory ought to be enough.”

But is the evidence from recent years truly that a multi-ethnic Bosnian democracy remains an impossible dream? That the only way to improve things in the country is by international imposition? And that Bosnians might soon make a “calculcation in favour of blood”? Let me return to this question in my next blog. In the meantime, I am looking forward to any comments or suggestions.

Half of 1.2 billion Euros is only 600 million Euros (Besa Shahini)

Opinion piece by Besa Shahini, ESI Analyst,

Former Executive Director of Kosovar Stability Initiative

In Brussels on 11 July 2008, the world’s richest countries pledged €1.2 billion for Kosovo’s continuing reconstruction. As a newly independent country, recognized by 20 of the 27 EU members, Kosovo needs financial support to kick-start its economic development. However, will the funds actually be used where they are most needed – for economic development?

According to its critics, Kosovo has already received more than generous financial support. In the first 6 years after the NATO intervention, more than €5 billion was spent on repairing infrastructure, building government institutions and maintaining the UN Mission in Kosovo. With so much expenditure on a relatively small territory, su

rely Kosovo should be ready to stand on its own feet by now?

However, a closer look at the expenditure reveals a very different picture. Of this €5 billion, 42% went on the salaries of international officials, and another 16% went to their local assistances. The balance was contracted and subcontracted through an alphabet soup of international agencies and NGOs, who kept another 20% for their own administrative overheads. So at best, only 20% of these funds was actually available for the reconstruction of Kosovo (For more information on Kosovo’s reconstruction process please see IKS Papers, ‘Reconstruction Survey: Kosovo 2007’ at www.iksweb.org).

But even this 20% – a mere €1 billion – needs closer scrutiny. More than half of this was eaten up by the energy sector, mainly on rehabilitating Pristina’s aging and troubled coal-fired power plant. This has been a highly questionable investment – the electricity utility is able to recover only 30% of its costs from customers, with the result that, even in these hot summer days, power cuts are frequent. The energy sector has crowded out spending on other urgent development priorities – like agriculture (60% of Kosovo’s population lives off subsistence farming) and education (Kosovo has one of the youngest and least educated populations in Europe). Each of these sectors has received less than 5% of donor funding.

In short, when one subtracts the massive costs of the international mission itself, the actual sums invested in the development of Kosovo are very modest indeed.

So how much can we expect of the €1.2 billion pledged to Kosovo last week? Lets take a look at where the money is likely to go.

First, Kosovo has inherited a share of Yugoslavia’s debt to the World Bank, dating back to the 1970s. Some of the money pledged at this donor conference by the United States will be redirected immediately to the World Bank. Of course, this is a great help to a Kosovo government that is struggling to balance its public finances. Yet once again, this is foreign aid that is not available for spending on the development of Kosovo.

Second, a good share of the funds pledged by the EU will go to EULEX , the new EU police mission. This is more about safeguarding Kosovo’s political stability, than it is about promoting development.

At the end, only a fraction of the money pledged will be spend on Kosovo’s economic development. If the international community is serious about helping Kosovo, they must not provide more ‘boomerang’ aid that ends up back in the pockets of highly paid international officials. In addition, if this aid is meant to cover sectors which are not efficient or bring no benefits to the citizens of the recipient country, it should not count as money dedicated for development. If this distinction is not made then the expectations of what can be achieved with the aid are raised, but the results will be ever more disappointing.

Brainstorming in Paris – Bertelsmann Foundation conference “The EU and its Neighbours – New Challenges and Opportunities”

In June, I was invited to discuss and exchange ideas among decision-makers and experts on the developments and the policy agenda with regard to the challenges in the EU Neighbourhood. The conference jointly organised by the Policy Planning Staff of the Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs of France and the Bertelsmann Stiftung was the third in the series (of meeting organised by the Bertelsmann Stiftung and the Planning staffs of the Foreign Ministries of the consecutive EU Presidencies since 2006)

Pierre Levy, Head of Policy Planning Staff of the Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs of France, Joachim Fritz-Vannahme, Director of the programme “Europe” at the Bertelsmann Stiftung, Dr Markus Ederer, Head of Policy Planning Staff, German Federal Foreign Office of the Federal Republic of Germany were amongst the guests invited to the conference.

Paris

Talk in Brussels: Bosnia – A miracle that does not shine

Together with the Slovenian EU Presidency and the Mission of Bosnia and Herzegovina to the EU, ESI showed the film “Bosnia – A Miracle that does not shine”, part of the documentary series “Return to Europe”, in Brussels on 28 May 2008. This 52-minute documentary shows both the achievements made and the difficulties that still exist in this country that experienced a brutal war between 1992 and 1995.

So far the achievements outweigh the difficulties and that Bosnia suffers from a bad image that is no longer justified. ESI research conducted in Bosnia over the last two years shows that Bosnia’s peoples have found ways to live, work and do business together again and that particularly at the local level things work rather well – which is a miracle given Bosnia’s war legacy, but a miracle that has not yet begun to shine.

I advocated that Bosnia consider applying for EU membership soon, given that Montenegro and Albania plan to do so in a few months and Serbia will do so if a pro-European government is formed following the 11 May elections. Otherwise Bosnia risks becoming the last in the queue of Western Balkan countries striving to join the EU.

In recent months, there has been progress in Bosnia’s integration process. In mid-April, the political parties agreed on two police laws that have opened the way to the signing of a Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the EU, now scheduled for 16 June. The associated trade-related Interim Agreement will then go into effect on 1 July. On 26 May, the European Commission launched a visa liberalisation dialogue with Bosnia, which will lead to the abolishment of the visa requirement for entry in the Schengen area once Bosnia meets a series of benchmarks. Such dialogues are conducted with all Western Balkans countries.

Some 60 people attended the event. The screening of the film was followed by a reception with drinks and Bosnian culinary specialties, offered by the Slovenian Permanent Representation and the Mission of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The Bosnia documentary will be broadcast by 3sat, a satellite channel shared by German-language public broadcasters from Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, on Sunday, 1 June, at 21:00. The series “Return to Europe” aims to familiarise viewers with the Balkan region and its people, their dreams and hopes, and their struggle for a better future. ESI has contributed its research, contacts and expertise to this series, which is one of the most comprehensive and ambitious European TV project about the Balkans in recent years.

Part of ESI’s recent Bosnia research has been published in the report “A Bosnian Fortress”, which takes a look at the situation in Republika Srpska. A second report examining the state of affairs in the Bosniak-Croat Federation will be published in the coming months.

Audience
Audience
Gerald Knaus
Gerald Knaus
Audience watching the film
Audience watching the film

Talk in Brussels – European Policy Centre (EPC) – “Albania at the Gates of NATO and the EU”

With more than 100 guests, the ESI/EPC event was very well attended. Other participants in the debate included Axel Wallden from the European Commission; Glori Husi, Albania’s NATO coordinator; Erion Veliaj, ESI analyst and former head of the Albanian youth movement Mjaft.

I introduced the film on Albania that aims to deconstruct myths and stereotypes of Albania as a failed state that is mired in crime and corruption.

Tirana

WDR Europaforum – How Europe looks from Ljubljana

Ljubljana

Ljubljana is a fantastic place, it truly is. I have been here before but rarely has it struck me as forcefully as this time how pleasant the capital of Slovenia can be.

This was a short trip indeed, and I spent little more than 30 hours here, but there was no shortage of the most pleasant sensations: sitting in the evening near the main church in an outside cafe along the river, listening to a musician playing love songs on his guitar; walking through the old town in the early evening, up the hill to the medieval castle, to enjoy a view of the mountains that are so close to the city; listening to an orchestra performing classical music on a huge square in the middle of the old town; or simply eating Slovenian ham or Austrian rolls (Semmel) in the morning. All this makes life appear easy indeed: and the fairy-tale atmosphere of the old town compounds this sense of Lebensfreude. I had no profound thoughts here, except that sometimes it does not take much to be happy and to enjoy beauty and peace. And that this town is certainly worth coming back to for a slightly longer stay than this.

Of course, what added to Ljubljana’s charm on this special occasion was the fact that due to the Slovenian presidency – for a few months – this capital had become one of the centres of Europe. For this very reason the annual WDR Europaforum was held here, bringing an interesting mix of people to the medieval castle overlooking the town. Here they gathered, and from over-heared conversations it seemed that almost all were as impressed by the town as I was: there was Barroso, Poettering, the Turkish foreign minister Ali Babacan, Kosovo’s new premier Hashim Thaci, prominent Slovenes (well, I knew two of them) and even more prominent Germans. WDR (part of the big ARD network, but in its own terms one of the biggest TV companies in the world) had turned the interior of the castle into a huge TV studio, to host its guests, thinking and debating the future of Europe.

Living in Istanbul, one often feels that there is little solid to hold on to, that the earth can shake (literally or politically) at any moment. This is even more true in this extraordinary spring. But is most of Europe today not more like Slovenia, from Portugal to Sweden and from Ireland to Estonia, than Turkey? Slovenia was part of a police state only two decades ago, embroiled in a bitter confrontation with Slobodan Milosevic. And today it is Slovenian diplomats chairing the gatherings of the European Council, speaking with confidence in the name of the hundreds of millions of EU citizens.

It is never good to be romantic in politics, and to some this may well appear a cliche, but in fact this is an extraordinary turn of events. And it is worth remembering that the overall trajectory of Europe since 1990 has been more like that of Slovenia than even an optimist could have expected then. So can one be anything but an optimist when one looks at the continent from the Slovenian capital, in itself one of the finest illustrations of the success of European enlargement?

(You can judge for yourself if I got carried away by the positive atmosphere, commenting on the challenges facing Europe today for WDR in the clip below.)
[MEDIA=4]

Anne-Marie Le Gloannec and Gerald Knaus in an interview with Tina Hassel on European enlargement at the “Europa Forum” in Ljubljana. © 2008 WDR. All rights reserved.L