Clash of Civilizations?

[CM]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4638609.stm

Personally as a conservative muslim i find this extremely interesting and that it also breaks all the rules of international diplomacy and ettiquete (spelling??).

Any views and comments?

[Darth Zenemij]

I don't want this to sound the lightest bit offensive, but, from what I can read, Muslims have strict teachings not to even look/drink alcohal? So, was herman going against the religion, by canceling a lunch meeting that wasn't serving any wine? Or am I missing something here?

[CM]

The iranis have a very strict intrepretation. While many say you can't drink. The extremely conservative say you can not even sit in a shop that sells alcohol. So having alcohol served during a lunch would be a very big no no from the cultural and religious views of the Iranis.

Personally if your guests can't eat something or do something you try to accomadate them. I mean if someone is vegan, that does not mean you cancel the entire lunch because you don't want to compromise.

[Darth Zenemij]

Hmm. Did they agree to cancel it to respect what the Believe?

[CM]

Para 2: Belgium's parliament speaker, Herman De Croo, decided to cancel a lunch rather than hosting a meal with no wine.

Basically how that paragraph reads is that it was a unilateral move, they did not want to compromise, accept, give in or whatever word you want to use to the Irani request.

Another paragraph:

Guests are not obliged to have alcohol, but we didn't want to bow to outside rules," the spokesman said, adding that Belgian deputies had chosen to "stick to Western customs".

It seems one must stick to western customs when in western countries So much for tolerance.

To add BBC seems to keep changing its articles and paragpraphs as this second paragraph i quoted right now was not in the original link.

[Xandax]

[QUOTE=CM]<snip>
It seems one must stick to western customs when in western countries So much for tolerance.
<snip>[/QUOTE]

Well - withouth being offensive, but I find that statement so biased and shining of doublestandards.

I'm sure when people visit Iran they have to stick to their customs and not act as they would do normally in their own countries.
When in Rome - do as the Romans.

[CM]

Very true Xandax. Only problem is that in Iran diplomats are provided regular access to alochol if and when they want it. The "diplomatic stores" as they are called cater to the desires of diplomats. Cheapest place to buy alcohol in any country as they are tax free. In Saudi Arabia they have access to beaches while saudi's are not. In Pakistan american diplomats have access to special goods imported directly from the US.

To be extremely honest there are no double standards as there is not a single muslim country in the world where diplomats are restricted from drinking alcohol.

Secondly when people have the inability to drink or eat something does that mean you cancel the entire dinner. Next time a bunch of vegans go to beligium does that mean they cancel the entire dinner because they were planning on serving steak?

[Xandax]

<snip>Next time a bunch of vegans go to beligium does that mean they cancel the entire dinner because they were planning on serving steak?

Well - if the vegans wanted that no meat would be served at the dinner, then possible.
It is - as I read it - not a matter of wanting the Iranian delegates to drink, but that the Belgium hosts still wanted to be able to serve alcohol to the people whom wanted it.

A spokesman for parliament confirmed that the Iranians would not have been expected to join their Belgian hosts in drinking or toasting.

"Guests are not obliged to have alcohol, but we didn't want to bow to outside rules," the spokesman said, adding that Belgian deputies had chosen to "stick to Western customs".

[dragon wench]

Belgian Senate president Anne-Marie Lizin later cancelled talks with the visitors over the handshake issue.

"We tried to find a solution, but they held fast to their position of not wanting to shake her hand," spokesman Patrick Peremans said.

To be honest, the thing I find most difficult, from my own Western perspective, is the above....

It seems to me that there were severe cultural clashes at every level....

[Dottie]

When people from two different cultures meet it requires both sides to be responsive to the others cultural practices imo. I think that unless a particular practice have moral implications you should try to cater to a guest, and I have a hard time beliving there are moral implications in not serving alcohol.

To be honest, the thing I find most difficult, from my own Western perspective, is the above....

There might be more to this situation then meets the eye. We must remeber that shaking hands is a western way of saluting. While almost all muslims have adopted this when dealing with western males it is not natural to their culture, and in some cases are percived to be a to close contact for people who do not know each other. For some muslims it is also forbidden to touch a woman who is not your sister, mother or wife. Not because you disrespect them but because it is indecent. Now, if the Iranians did not want to salute the woman at all I definatly agree with you, but I find it more likely that they just did not want to shake hands, in witch case I don't think there should be a problem. Why not just bow instead and everything could have been solved easily.

Now, any diplomat should know this, So I think its probable that the Belgian diplomats are being quite unproffesional.

[C Elegans]

Personally, I have always found it very strange that European culture is so fixated with alcohol. How can a toxic drug be viewed as an essential part of the culture and social interaction? However, I do think the Irani diplomats exaggregated when they demanded that the lunch must be served totally without alcohol. In my opinion, the only fair solution would have been to have the lunch and serve alcohol to the Belgians but not to the Iranis.

Belgian Senate president Anne-Marie Lizin later cancelled talks with the visitors over the handshake issue.

"We tried to find a solution, but they held fast to their position of not wanting to shake her hand," spokesman Patrick Peremans said.

To be honest, the thing I find most difficult, from my own Western perspective, is the above....

It seems to me that there were severe cultural clashes at every level....

What in this is it that you view as particularly difficult? In islam, a man cannot in any way touch a woman he is not related to, and a woman cannot touch any man she is not related to. If I have understood things correctly (CM may correct me if I am wrong, but this is what several of my muslim friends have told me) this is a chastity issue, similar to the European christian custumes during earlier centuries where an unmarried lady should never offer her hand to a man.

Handshaking is a typic western phenomenon, many cultures do not greet each other with handshakes at all. It is a well known custum that many people from other cultures are familiar too and have adapted to (as with many Western habits, since we tend to like to spread our culture) but in many cultures it is not the preferred way to greet each other. The European way of taking the entire hand, pressing the palms against each other and shake, is also different from the handshake in the Middle East and Northen Africa, where you only shake with the thumb and fingertips.

I think many westerners who read the above report from BBC erranously will get the impression that the refusal to shake hands with the Belgian senate president had something to do with gender discrimination. Now, I don't know these particular Irani diplomats, but I do not think it was more rude of them to refuse to adapt to European custums, than it was of the Belgians to try to impose the said custums on the Irani. In fact, one would think that international politicians would be educated about different cultures and know that the koran says Muhammed never shook hands with women that was not his relatives.

EDIT: Hehe, it seems Dottie and I had exactly the same thought

[moltovir]

This is new for me, I can't remember it being in yesterday's or today's newspaper. Hurray for objective press . I do not believe the fault is entirely on the Belgian side: the Irani's should've agreed with a dinner with alcoholic beverages for those who wanted them. I think Lizin should have adapted to the Irani customs concerning greeting, in order not to offend them, but I understand the confusion, as it is normal to greet someone in the way it is done in the country you are visiting. If you go to Japan they expect you to bow, if a Japanese comes to Belgium we expect them to shake our hand. I see that as a sign of respect for eachothers culture.

[quote="C. Elegans]Personally"]

Are you a total abstainer then? I think you exaggerate by stating that only European culture is fixated with alcohol. Nearly every country has it's own kind of alcoholic beverage, and Belgium happens to have a little more than others. The US, the ex-USSR, Asia, Latin-America, South- and Central Africa: everywhere alcohol is used to celebrate things or to create a pleasant atmosphere. Alcohol is only toxic when drank in large quantities: there's absolutely nothing wrong with drinking a glass wine or two a day. Serving quality wine is seen as a sign of respect and hospitality.

[Xandax]

[QUOTE=C Elegans]<snip>
I think many westerners who read the above report from BBC erranously will get the impression that the refusal to shake hands with the Belgian senate president had something to do with gender discrimination. Now, I don't know these particular Irani diplomats, but I do not think it was more rude of them to refuse to adapt to European custums, than it was of the Belgians to try to impose the said custums on the Irani. In fact, one would think that international politicians would be educated about different cultures and know that the koran says Muhammed never shook hands with women that was not his relatives.
<snip>[/QUOTE]

Actually - it is rude.
Just like it would be rude if westerns doing buisness in for instance in Japan did not bow to their japaneese counterparts, instead of offer the hand, which is as I understand it how they greet each other. (Well - maybe they do shake hands now, and my knowlegde is outdated, but the exampel still stands).

It is about respect for the hosts customs, which the visitor should show, in my personal view/opinion but also from a diplomatic and buisness viewpoint.
It is basically "Negotion 101"

[C Elegans]

If you go to Japan they expect you to bow, if a Japanese comes to Belgium we expect them to shake our hand. I see that as a sign of respect for eachothers culture.

I understand you point of view, but I disagree. I think the idea of "when you are in Rome, do as the Romans" is outdated and irrelevant in many cases. If you visit a country as a tourist, it's one thing: you go there volontarily and you have no obligations. Neither do the people in the country have towards you. If you don't like the custums of the country you visit, you can leave or choose not to go there. If, however, you are on professional visit, in this case a policial meeting, I think both sides have equal responsibility since the meeting is based on a mutual agreement. The host has choosen to invite them and the visitors have choosen to come, for a specific professional purpose. There is no reason why one party should be forced to adjust more than the other. For the Irani, not shaking hands with a woman they are not related to, is not just a habit, it is a religious and moral doctrine. Why should the host have the right to force them to break their religous and ethical values?
Sure it is polite to adapt to a place you visit, but if cultural values conflict, I do not think the host party has special rights of the host party's values deserve more respect because they are hosts.

Yes I am. (And socially speaking, in no other part of the world than Europe, is it social problem for me not to drink alcohol.) Alcohol is used in many parts of the world, but it is also not used in many parts of the world. Also, there is a difference between using alcohol for celebrations and special events, compared to the European every day consumption. Whether alcohol use creates a pleasant atmosphere or not is a subjective question.

Alcohol is only toxic when drank in large quantities: there's absolutely nothing wrong with drinking a glass wine or two a day. Serving quality wine is seen as a sign of respect and hospitality.

Alcohol may have beneficial effects on the cardiovscular system in small doses, although as I posted in Frogus thread, the hitherto known safe doses are very low, lower than 1-2 glass of wine/day. You are of course entitled to your opinion, but your opinion is not consistent with current scientific knowledge about the effects of alcohol.
Moderate social drinking show damaging effects in some studies but not in all. I am not going to say it is "something wrong" with drinking 1-2 glasses of wine/day, but it cannot be considered safe from a health perspective. The safety limit for healthy people is currently, in wine, 1/2 bottle of wine/week for women, 2/3 bottle for men (gender differences are based on average body size). Since a bottle of wine is about 5-6 glasses of wine, 1 glass/day would exceed the safety limit. 2 glasses/day would be in the "risk zone" for both men and women.

[frogus23]

[QUOTE=C Elegans]Why should the host have the right to force them to break their religous and ethical values?[/QUOTE]
Because their ethical values are discriminatory towards women, and hence unethical...

This said, I am in agreement with Dottie and do not know the exact circumstances. If formal salutations are offered, this is enough, and a host cannot ask for more. If salutations or recognition of greeting is not offered in any kind, a crucial part of diplomatic etiquette is broken IMO.

[Audace]

Few weeks ago in Holland the Iranians canceled a diplomatic dinner because they didnt want to sit at a table where alcohol was being served. Nobody is forcing anybody to drink alcohol.

If the Iranians want to cancel then that's completely up to them. But religion can not be the highest standard for social conduct. Conservative believers just arent fit diplomates. It is western culture to shake hands and it is part of European culture to have a drink during dinner/lunch. If it is aginst your believes to wear shoes shoes to a restaurant does that mean nobody in the restaurant should be allowed to wear shoes? Get real. This sais more about the intolerance and rudeness of the Iranians then about the intolerance and rudeness of the western diplomats.

And a a side note, if your religion entails that women should cover up every visible piece of their body just to not fire up the hot blood of men (get some self control) then that religion is very much repressive towards women. It has nothing to do with "respect" towards women. Not shaking hands is just an extension of this sort of repressive religions. To each his own, and a clash this may be but not one of civilizations.

[Fiona]

I tend to agree with Audace. However I am amazed that this could have arisen in the first place. Diplomatic visits should be planned well in advance and questions of etiquette should be sorted out before anyone leaves home.That is what the civil service is for. What were they doing letting the principals get into an embarrassing position in the first place

[C Elegans]

[QUOTE=frogus23]Because their ethical values are discriminatory towards women, and hence unethical[/QUOTE]

I am surprised you claim that treating two persons differently is discrimination.

I repeat what I posted above, the not shaking hands with women is a chastity question, it has nothing to do with viewing women as inferior.

[quote="Audace]And a a side note"]

I strongly disagree with this and find it a prejudiced opinion. It is possible the handshake and the body covering is related in some countries, but not in all and not in islam in general. As I am sure you know, it is quite unusual that muslim women cover up every visible part of their body. No handshaking between the sexes unless related, is however present regardless of dress code. Just because discrimination of women occurs in islam, does not mean that all differences in conduct rules between men and women reflect this discrimination. This tendency to automatically interpret all gender differences as discrimination of women, is in my opinion typical of the European stereotype image of islam.
EDIT: The European image of islam seems to be highly influenced by the fundamentalistic brand of islam they have in Iran, Saudi and the Talibans. This may be due to the stong media focus on these countries. We should note that islam is a widespread world religion and that Central Asia, Northen and Western Africa and the middle east have at least as different brands of islam as there are brands of christianity.

[quote="Fiona]However I am amazed that this could have arisen in the first place. Diplomatic visits should be planned well in advance and questions of etiquette should be sorted out before anyone leaves home. [/quote"]

Yes, this I certainly agree with.

[Chanak]

I agree with CE. In my opinion, cultures and customs clash when a lack of understanding exists, typically manifested in the measuring of another culture or system of customs by one's own yardstick, so to speak. While this happens with an annoying regularity in the West, it also occurs in the East as well. Honestly, it's difficult for me to judge from the descriptions of the events in this thread as to whom committed the wrongs, but it would appear to me to be a case of equal guilt in the case of the western handshake, and the banquet incident.

There is no question in my judgment that it was poor behavior on the part of the western official to profer her hand to a member of a culture where this is not an acceptable practice, and then to make an issue of the refusal to engage in this custom.

By the same token, the Iranians refusing to remain at a banquet being held in a western country where alcoholic drinks were being served was not acceptable diplomatic behavior either. They are in a foreign country, which has customs different than theirs; while it's reasonable to ensure that their own dietary customs in regards to their own persons are respected while visiting (ie, do not offer them alcoholic drinks, food prepared with pork, or even prepared with the same utensils that pork was prepared with), it is unreasonable to enforce this upon others wherever they go.

[Audace]

@ C Elegans I never used the word Islam. And I tried to (i can see that i might have failed there) make it clear that i meant that when the dress code for women and the handshake r combined in your religious beliefs the not shaking hands is a form of female repression. This brand of religious men shake hands (and kiss and hold hands). The point is they explicitly dont shake hands with women. And i cant see where i was generalizing. When custom in a culture is to bow to each other instead of shaking hands I dont see a problem either. As long as theyll also bow to women. In western culture an opened hand is considered a way to show you r no threat/friendly. Like putting up your hands defensively (Im not aggresive, so why should you be), nothing more nothing less. The fact that these Iranians refuse to shake hands with women explicitly is repressive towards women. Just because it's religious repression/oppression doesnt make it ok, or an acceptable cultural value.