Common themes emerging from groups include:

• Increased cultural understanding
• Better mutual understanding
• Increased interaction + Direct interaction
• Breaking stereotypes

Broadly speaking, the group has agreed on a common goal. That is:

‘Cultural understanding through increased direct interaction’.

In essence, this is about establishing platforms to facilitate direct communication between peers, with scope for expansion as the network grows.

Ghassan Essalehi, student, Morocco outlined personal goals from his own perspective. Click to play or Download ghassan_essalehi_edit_mp3.mp3

Both sides of the UK / Arab contingent agreed on the following problems, seen in both NENA and Western countries:

• Lack of trust
• Lack of confidence with their system
• Fear of censorship
• A negative attitidue towards asylum seekers
• Unwilling to learn and quick to judge

A few aspirational characteristics from both sides of the group:

• Greater sense of community
• Having an open society that is willing to engage in day-to-day concerns
• Have a more relaxed attitude towards life
• Get involved on the ground to help change people’s attitudes

Are Arabs bigoted, lazy, women bashing, hospitable?

Are Westerners Islamophobic, promiscuous, caucasian, openminded etc?

A few stereotypes of Arab culture. (Click image to expand):

A few stereotypes of Western culture. (Click image to expand):

Following the earlier ‘back to basics’ debate, participants have been split into four randomised groups to their hone thoughts on the following:

If there was one attitude you could change in your own society, what would it be?

Amri Malika, law student, Tunisia wanted to see the following taboos lifted in her country. Click to play or Download amri_malika_edit_mp3.mp3

Name one characteristic about another country’s society that you would like to aspire to?

Sarah Taylor, Oxford University, UK, likes some of the Kenyan personality traits. Click to play or Download sarah_taylor_edit_mp3.mp3

What are your stereotypes of Arab and Western European societies? (Write down the characteristics that summarise each group).

Nader Houella, Red Cross, Lebanon, had some generally positive stereotypes about both groups. Click to play or Download nader_houella_edit_mp3.mp3

During final discussions between the group yesterday, it was felt that there exists some fundamental lack of mutual awareness between participants. This was reflected by differing expectations of what the final project might be. Those who vocalised their ideas from NENA (Near East North Africa) favoured a more ‘field based’ approach. Some UK based participants preferred developing an online solution.

The session opens this morning by inviting participants to voice their concerns.

Group concerns include:

• Once a project has been decided, what budget is available? Timeline?
• What’s the agenda / role for British Council / Participants?
• We can do’ more than just a web site!
• Why did we come to Tunisia? Come up with a project to benefit our countries? Or simply ideas?
• What about the practical steps? Roles and Responsibilities? What’s next?
• ‘We need more skills and knowhow to implement projects in our own countries’
• Are the objectives to a) Learn about each other b) Engender greater social cohesion?
• Number of projects in discussion? Is there a timeline for implementation?

Broad answers:

Once a project has been defined, the BC board will be approached for appropriate funding. Approximately 12 months for project development. The role of the British Council currently is to support a network focused around inter-cultural dialogue. Project ideas should come from participants. BC feels that there must be agreement between the group on ideas before any project is actually implemented. Think ‘Goals’ rather than ‘projects’ to come out of this event.

Tunisia country director, Peter Skelton added to the debate by emphasising the need for dialogue. an understanding of each other is instrumental in fostering cooperation as opposed to conflict based on misunderstanding. Projects that provide ‘bricks and mortar’ results are important, yet even these are built on firm foundations of dialogue.