Fulbright AssociationArchbishop Tutu
 





Fulbright Association
1100 G Street, N.W.
Suite 525
Washington, D.C. 20005
Phone: (202) 347-5543
Fax: (202) 347-6540

Sadako Ogata Speaks to Fulbrighters

Cultivating Understanding---Within and With Others
It is indeed a great honor and pleasure to be awarded the J. William Fulbright Prize for International Understanding in the 50th anniversary year of the Fulbright exchange program between Japan and the United States and the 25th anniversary of the Fulbright Association. I am happy to inform you that this year a series of commemorative events have taken place in Japan and in the United States, renewing the commitments to international friendship and understanding that originated with the Fulbright experience and grew in the succeeding years.
Although I was not a recipient of the Fulbright fellowship award, I married Shijuro Ogata, a l954 grantee. I went to the United States as a Rotary Foundation Fellow. We often joked over whether Shijuro was “fully-bright” in comparison to me who would only be “half-bright.” Whatever the outcome, we belonged to the new generation of post war Japan who benefited from the opportunities that opened up to go to the United States and to witness the working of democracy and freedom.
At the time Japan was just beginning to recover from the defeat in World War II. The country was making tireless efforts to rebuild the economy mingled with strong internationalist and pacifist idealism. The United States was basking in the growing confidence in its ability to lead the world. There was an extraordinary openness, a true internationalist spirit. Many professors and students I met on campus were refugees and migrants. Being at American universities in those days was like being at the source of American power, intellectual and technological progress backed by democratic and open competitiveness. Returning home, these exchange students from Japan, the large number of which at the time were Fulbright grantees, more and more assumed leadership positions. They were very much leading Japan’s miraculous economic growth covering bureaucracy, business and academia. What should be noted is that Japan generally followed a pacifist, internationalist course remaining closely allied to the United States. The Fulbright alumni, for example, were behind the initiative to collect funds for the continuation of the Fulbright exchange program, which was beginning to scale down. The call for “international contribution,” marked the policy platform by successive prime ministers, from Fukuda, Nakasone and those who followed. “Internationalization” was still the social and economic goal of the times. Japan became the largest provider of overseas development assistance.
The end of the Cold War, however, marked a significant departure from the internationalist course in both the United States and Japan. The cause was the demise of the communist threat that had bound the two countries closer. As Japan became the largest creditor nation of the United Sates by the late l980’s, Japanese economic power was perceived as a threat by the Americans. An arrogant mood surfaced on the Japanese side leading to complacent and nationalist trends. The public commitment of the United States to provide international leadership on the other hand, began to recede. The mood in government, congress, media, civil society associations became increasingly inward-looking, with internal politics dominating the agenda. Calls for “international understanding” could not sway the public in either Japan or in the United States.
The l990’s, on the other hand, were extraordinarily charged times, when conflicts broke out in many continents of the world, and massive flow of refugees dominated the international scene. In January l991, I was elected the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to protect and assist those who fled across borders. Within weeks after my arrival, almost two million Iraqi Kurds fled to Iran and Turkey. In the following years, another four million became displaced in the Balkans, as the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia disintegrated. Another two million refugees fled from Burundi and Rwanda after the genocide in l994. The six million Afghans were the largest single refugee group when I assumed office, but even after the withdrawal of the Russian troops, remained the largest due to the conflicts among the Afghan war-lords. The major characteristic of the refugee flight of the l990’s was the fact that they were victims of internal wars, caused by ethnic, religious and political divisions. Violence and violation of human rights featured their fate. Ensuring physical safety and survival dominated UNHCR’s protection concern. While many were able to cross international borders and were given protection and assistance, many others were displaced inside their country. They could hardly be protected or be given humanitarian assistance. The growing number of the internally displaced, was another notable feature during this period. Various ways were sought to ameliorate their plight, but the sovereignty issue frequently blocked an enduring solution.
As I grappled with the causes and consequences of the internal conflicts on a daily basis, I realized how serious was the suffering of the vast majority of these fleeing people. Whether in Bosnia, Rwanda, Burundi, Sierra Leone, Chechnya, they were trying to escape from the cruelest of man’s inhumanity --- genocide, ethnic cleansing, and massive violations of human rights. These were people who faced death and threats from people who used to live not only in the same country, area or community, but even neighborhood. Moreover, when the conflict ended and time came for the refugees or the displaced to return, I had to cope with the problem of reintegrating them back to broken communities or neighbors, with lingering memories of hate and suspicion. This is when I faced the challenge of reconciliation as the central issue in post-conflict transition.
The models of international understanding or diplomatic negotiation were not quite sufficient to address the problems of rebuilding war-torn communities. What we urgently needed were communication models directed towards reconciling broken communities and peoples. With inspiration gained from a group of academics who had worked on reconciliation projects in violence-ridden American inner cities, UNHCR launched an initiative which was called, “Imagine Coexistence.” The challenge was to devise projects that by necessity brought people together for common purposes. We carried out pilot projects in Bosnia and Rwanda that introduced job-sharing experiences. There were training and networking projects for women. I was quite excited to come across a bakery run by Serb and Croat women in what had been one of the worst areas of confrontation. Education should also be examined in the context of promoting coexistence. Sports and recreation opportunities also have enormous potential. I learned in an American army newspaper that some soldiers started a football team in Kosovo composed of Kosovo, Albanian and Serb children. The particular site was where children had to have military escort to go to school, when I visited the area the year before.
Promoting international understanding will remain vital today. The process of globalization that moves goods, money, people and information across borders will continue to challenge all of us. We have to take full advantage of the opportunities that are in front of us. However, understanding and respecting people with different cultures, languages and living modes will require even greater and more conscious efforts. At the same time, we will have to strive hard to reach mutual trust and coexistence among people within our own national borders. Having worked as chief of an agency that protects and assists extremely vulnerable people, the refugees, I find that security and prosperity of any society must be based on solidarity. Excluding certain groups of people, or neglecting measures to help the weak, are sure ways to sow the seeds of division and conflict which eventually erode societies from within.
As we face the challenge of terrorism today at the beginning of the twenty first century, we should reflect deeply on the fundamental causes of conflict and division that drive people to extremist action. Cultivating understanding, not only across nations but also within nations, provides a sure answer to peace and stability. Cultivating understanding is promoting respect and solidarity among different peoples and communities. I challenge the Fulbright Association and colleagues to renew your commitments to reinforce understanding, internationally but also nationally.
Thank you very much again for the honor.
Presented Oct. 11, 2002 at a ceremony at the Ronald Reagan International Trade Center, Washington, D.C.
See also: