On the basis of this
broad engagement, network and experience, and in the light of
the new problematic and opportunities it is possible to work
with scholars in all parts of the world. The work, however, is
too important to be left to random and unordered chance. To
exemplify how this planning might proceed, we might focus on
Central and Eastern Europe where, along with a broad series of
seminars in various countries there has been a special focus on
a visiting program with Polish scholars. In that region it would
be possible to continue to work intensively with the Polish
centers as these lead the way to the future for Eastern Europe;
or to shift the focus north and east to the Baltic region and
especially to Russia which has been the determining power in the
region in the past; or turn south and east, to Bucharest,
Sophia, Kiev and Tbilisi as they manifest great difficulty in
developing the instincts and virtues needed in order for
democratic institutions to function; or to move south and west,
namely, to Czechoslovakia.
These last two seem
especially to recommend themselves. A Western option reaching
from Poland toward Central Europe, especially Czechoslovakia,
has a number of significant advantages: (a) its western and
central regions, Bohemia and Moravia, relate by tradition to the
Western Enlightenment experience of modern democratic
development; (b) its eastern region, Slovakia, having been part
of the Eastern Ottoman Empire, exemplifies the special
problematic shared by the Eastern European tradition; (c) the
effort at the unity of these two regions, in the tradition of
Masaryk, can be a central proving ground for ways of building a
cohesive Europe--West-Center-East; (d) being next to Poland it
can draw easily upon the body of 180 scholars developed there
over the last 15 years; and (e) being next to Jugoslavia and
observing its ethnic and national tensions at their strongest it
has a special concern to manage these creatively, to build a
cooperative confederation, and thereby to demonstrate the way to
future peaceful progress for the region.
In sum, it can be argued
that where monocultural Poland was the spearhead that broke
through the Marxist shield, multi-cultural Czechoslovakia is the
laboratory with the materials to invent a cohesive and
pluralistic model for the future of Eastern Europe. In this it
can draw intensively upon the intellectual resources developed
over the years in Poland by the CUA program, capitalizing now
upon that investment for even broader impact.
An eastern option,
namely, reaching from Poland toward Eastern Europe, and firstly
to Romania and Bulgaria, also recommends itself, mostly because
of its difficulty and the challenge it presents to all who are
concerned for peaceful progress in the vast spaces which stretch
out to the East. What is the situation? Where the Central
European countries broke dramatically with Communism in the Fall
of '89, to the East this process has been slow, ambiguous,
threatening, even shattering.
In Bulgaria the Communist
Party actually won the elections, but was unacceptable to all
who shared the new thrust for liberation that swept Europe. The
result was a period of hunger strikes and demonstration, closed
universities and mass conflicting rallies. Those elected by
democratic forms were unable to act democratically; those who
called for democracy recognized that each stand taken and each
act performed to promote their end actually undermined the
virtues required for their people's ability to exercise
responsible self governance. The situation is re-stabilizing,
but popular democratic institutions are but nascent.
In Romania the situation
has been even more destructive. Preceded by a progressively
psychotic dictator, what first emerged in '89 as a revolution in
the spirit of the Central European countries, turned uniquely
violent. Soon after the fighting stopped it became apparent that
the people had been manipulated into providing the staging for
an internal coup by the clandestine apparatus of oppression,
which was neither beyond calling in the miners to assault the
people of Bucharest nor able to control those raw and savage
forces. The hugely challenging process of rebuilding is now
underway.
The situation in Georgia
has too many similarities. Tbilisi was long under curfew for
fear of roving gangs of brigands spawned in the ambiguous second
round of democratic opposition to totalitarianism. The country
had, in effect, no experience of democratic rule. Recent memory
is entirely one of opposition to government; to reach back in
its collective consciousness to its time of independence is to
look back to medieval kingdoms whose virtues chivalrous values
are anachronistic for pluralistic processes of democratic
consensus building. Establishing unity and peace both within and
without will be a great challenge.
It is then in this vast
region beginning from Bulgaria and Romania and stretching
eastward that one confronts the really stupendous challenge of
our times, namely, to bring freedom and cohesion out of chaos
and despotism. The problems will only get worse and become more
intractable if left in the vain hope that the region will right
itself with only its own talents and cultural resources. It is
time to move actively and aggressively to build new
competencies, to explore new solutions, to open new and more
desirable ways of being a people and facing the future.
Bulgaria and Romania seem
to be special places to begin. Having suffered under the Ottoman
and Communist Empires they have all the problems that entails
for the region. At the same time they relate in time back to the
high ideals of the Macedonians who produced Aristotle, and to
the Romans, from whom Romania is named. They were key areas of
Byzantium and possessed heritages of which to this day they are
rightly proud. They are not without the resources of self-esteem
required for human creativity in social life.
More recently, Bulgaria
hosted the World Congress of Philosophy in 1973 and has played a
particularly active role in world philosophical circles since.
Two volumes entitled, Ratiune
si Credinta, manifest extremely sophisticated metaphysical
studies on conflict and harmony which draw upon classical
philosophy and theology in a manner proper to the genius of the
Romanian culture.
If the challenge is
daunting, there is much to work with provided there is a depth
of experience working in the region, a sense of human and
democratic values, and professional competency in academic
management.
Implementation of
the Program
Each participating
institution will designate one person to organize the program
for their respective faculty participants and departments. For
this cooperation they will prepare biennial plans which will
include the invitation of faculty members from the corresponding
institutions to lecture and/or share scholarly experiences,
themes for joint research work, means for utilizing the results
achieved and possible continuing support for regional
interactions. According to the internal norms of each party, the
libraries, professors and general facilities of the
corresponding party will be at the disposition of participating
faculty for the purpose of academic interchange, suggestion and
critique assisting them in carrying out research projects. In
Washington an advanced seminar will be available to faculty
research scholars for the exploration of new methods of work in
the various disciplines on the foundations of social,
technological and political life.
Participating faculty
members will be nominated in writing by their institution of
origin and approved by the Program Director; nominations will be
accompanied by information concerning the scholars' education,
background, present position, field of specialization, teaching
experience, research and publications. Nominations will be based
upon professional accomplishment, will imply approval of
credentials by the nominating party, and will take into account
the orientation of the program.
Each institutional party
will wave any academic charges (viz., tuition, library or
consultation fees) for faculty members from the corresponding
institution.