PANEL DISCUSSION CALLS INTERCIVILIZATIONAL DIALOGUE TIMELY AS WORLD ENTERS NEW ERA OF INTERDEPENDENCE, GLOBALIZATION

Press Release
SOC/4520

PANEL DISCUSSION CALLS INTERCIVILIZATIONAL DIALOGUE TIMELY AS WORLD ENTERS NEW ERA OF INTERDEPENDENCE, GLOBALIZATION

World Bank Speaker Warns that Dialogue is Difficult Due to Rising Inequity Among Countries; Calls for “Profound Engagement”

A panel discussion on ways to enhance international understanding through constructive dialogue among peoples of all cultures and civilizations, held this afternoon at Headquarters, was virtually unanimous that the reality of today’s interdependent world made the need for such a dialogue more acute than ever.

The discussion, which was the second such event to be organized by the Permanent Mission of Iran in preparation for the United Nations Year of Dialogue among Civilizations (2001) declared in 1998 by General Assembly resolution 53/22, brought together: Richard Falk, Professor of International Law and Practice, Princeton University; Javad Faridzadeh, President of the International Centre for Dialogue among Civilizations; Koshore Mahbubani (Singapore), participating in his individual capacity; and Ismail Serageldin, Vice-President of the World Bank. The Secretary-General’s Personal Representative for the Year of Dialogue among Civilizations, Giandomenico Picco, served as moderator.

Speakers generally agreed that in a shrinking world, the dialogue urged by the General Assembly was profoundly important. Mr. Serageldin, however, warned that it was difficult for civilizations to “talk with each other” when some were “coming apart” from within. Global trade had exceeded $1 billion a minute, but there were still more than 1.4 billion people earning less than $1.00 a day, he noted. Tolerance was not enough to counter the rising inequity within and among countries; engagement, such as that envisaged by the dialogue, was far more profound.

Mr. Mahbubani said the dialogue would acknowledge the changed global reality: the world had not only shrunk, but created a dense web of interdependence, as illustrated by the Asian financial crisis, which had begun in a small south-east Asian country and then spread throughout the world. Indeed, the world was entering a new and unprecedented era. Now, for the first time, multiple civilizations could flourish simultaneously in different parts of the globe.

A dialogue among civilizations, said Mr. Falk, was an extraordinarily timely initiative whose historic relevance was underscored by the globalization process, which risked reducing the meaning of life to the sort of materialist terms embodied by Marxism. A dialogue emphasizing cultural and spiritual identities could

- 1a - Press Release SOC/4520 22 November 1999

transcend that view and provide an alternative language for international relations.

Mr. Faridzadeh said such a dialogue was a well-defined rational and ethical endeavour to gain knowledge about other cultures, with the aim of engaging in empathetic discourse with them. In a dialogue among civilizations, nations would begin to listen attentively to what other nations had to say, and then seek to understand it. However, without a commitment to the universal moral principles and recognition of equal political rights, the dialogue would prove futile.

In introductory remarks, the representative of Iran said the way in which Government representatives customarily pursued negotiations, seeking to secure their national interests, could not be farther from the intention of a dialogue among civilizations. The dialogue should accommodate the concerns of others in order to enhance mutual understanding and develop a new approach to influencing policies.

Discussion between panelists and audience members focused on promoting the “United Nations Year of Dialogue among Civilizations (2001)” through various means, including the Internet and the Olympics.

Further events in preparation for the United Nations Year of Dialogue among Civilizations (2001) will be convened at a date and time to be announced.

Introductory Remarks

HADI NEJAD HOSSEINIAN, Permanent Representative (Iran), said he hoped the discussion would shed some light on the direction the United Nations should take to make optimal use of the potential of dialogue among civilizations in order to realize the objectives and principles of the Charter. It was becoming increasingly clear that non-governmental organizations, the media, scholars, artists, intellectuals and every individual had an important role in shaping international relations. Governments were no longer the sole players. The proposal of the Iranian President to proclaim 2001 as the “United Nations Year of Dialogue among Civilizations” had been grounded in the conviction that the peoples of the United Nations were determined to play their parts in devising the salient features of the new world. It was in that context that the Assembly had adopted the enabling resolution by consensus (resolution 53/22) (1998).

By mustering the political will, States could facilitate dialogue among civilizations, he said. Government representatives customarily entered a negotiation with elaborate strategies aimed at achieving a pre-determined objective and securing their national interests to the greatest extent possible. Such an approach could not be farther from the intent of dialogue among civilizations. The dialogue would not seek to overcome the other parties, but to accommodate the concerns and preoccupations of others in order to enhance mutual understanding and develop a new approach to policies, with a view to rebuilding a world in which justice, peace, security and prosperity would be shared more evenly among all peoples.

GIANDOMENICO PICCO, the Secretary-General’s Personal Representative for the Year of Dialogue among Civilizations, and moderator of today’s discussion, said that the interim report of the Secretary-General on the subject, distributed today, contained a simple roadmap of the Secretary-General’s plans for the next one and one half years.

Statements

M. JAVAD FARIDZADEH, President of the International Centre for Dialogue among Civilizations, said that such dialogue fostered understanding, and thus peace and friendship. It laid the cornerstone of all rational, philosophic and even scientific spheres, and constructed the path to knowledge and truth. It was essential to any understanding of truth. The need for a dialogue among civilizations was now more acute than ever before.

States that had cast their positive vote for the United Nations declaration on the dialogue among civilizations should commit themselves to what it entailed in both the moral and political realms, he said. Without a commitment to the universal norms of ethics and moral principles, any hope for dialogue among civilizations would prove futile. Without recognizing equal political rights for each other, parties might never enter into fruitful dialogue.

He said that dialogue meant a well-defined rational and ethical endeavour to gain knowledge about other cultural and civilizational domains, with the ultimate aim of engaging in empathetic and compassionate discourse. In a dialogue among civilizations, nations began to listen attentively to what other nations had to say, then sincerely ventured to understand what they heard. It was wrong to deny varieties in form and substance among cultures, and equally incorrect to deny the perpetual flux and interborrowing that occurred between them. Theories that stipulated fixed essences for objects were bound to run into conflict with theories that regarded them as subject to flux. In order to resolve this paradox, the substantial aspect of a phenomenon must be separated from its existential aspect.

Another crucially important point, he said, was the role of national or cultural identities in the process of dialogue among civilizations. That could be regarded as the political representation of the philosophical paradox just discussed. National identities need to be maintained or there could be no dialogue, yet emphasizing the exclusive nature of any cultural identity resulted in the exclusion of other cultures and thereby a major obstacle to dialogue.

RICHARD FALK, Professor of International Law and Practice, Princeton University, said the promotion of a dialogue among civilizations was an extraordinarily timely initiative because it enabled everyone to affirm their spiritual and cultural identities at a time when the prevalence of market forces was endangering the full breath of human identity. So-called globalization had provided the world with an overarching image of the post-cold war era that risked reducing the meaning of life to the sort of materialist terms that Marxism had embodied. It was ironic that Marxism had been discredited as an ideology, but had returned in a capitalist veil to explain now life was organized.

Thus, he said, the emphasis on dialogue on a civilizational identity, and the importance of cultural and spiritual identity, was a way of transcending the materialist view. He pointed to the beginning of an understanding that the world was not made up only of sovereign territorial States, but also of normative communities with long-held traditions and historical continuity. The clash of civilizations could provide the opportunity and political space also to look at the opportunities for civilizations to listen and learn from each other. That was especially important for those in the North, who were accustomed to talking but not listening.

The globalization process also underscored the historic relevance of the dialogue, which could provide an alternative language for international relations to that of the economist’s market-driven view of world events, he said. It had also departed from the concealed ideology of globalization, which had in some ways been a programme for the spread of “Westernization” and “Americanization”. Emphasizing the diversity of civilizational identities could create an environment conducive to elaborating alternative ways of approaching human fulfilment.

He said that by engaging in the present dialogue, participants were searching for a “normative architecture” to help resolve the differences that brought peoples into conflict. It was vital to recognize the historic degree of internal conflict within societies, among opposing ethnic and cultural groups. Was it possible to build a normative architecture that invoked the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other widely recognized human rights and development instruments? For all that those instruments had achieved a certain degree of global acceptance, they should be viewed critically, bearing in mind that not all the great world civilizations had participated in their articulation.

While it was crucial to use such normative material to improve the normative architecture, premature insistence on universal standards should be avoided, he said. There was a danger in the call for dialogue, of “ethical impatience” -- an unwillingness to acknowledge that there were some boundaries that were real and difficult to cross. He did not want the dialogue to fall into the trap of a false universalism that concealed the reality of a particular culture trying to project its influence on the whole world. Extravagant expectations should be avoided, as should the implication that a particular way of knowing the truth was the only way.

ISMAIL SERAGELDIN, Vice President of the World Bank, said that, while global trade now exceeded $1 billion a minute, more than 1.4 billion people earned less than $1.00 dollar a day. There was a vast disparity between life for the majority of people and the superstructures driving globalization. It was not enough to look at economics and technological revolution. Would these changes bring more luxury to fewer people, or help the vast majorities around the world?

There was a rising inequity both within and among countries, he said. It was difficult for civilizations to talk with each other if they were coming apart from within. The fear of the homogenizing influences of globalization was less crucial than the spectre of poverty that still haunted the globe. How could there be talk about human rights with 800 million people going hungry? Their most basic human rights were being denied. Inherent in any dialogue between civilizations were universal moral values. The universal human rights asserted in international conventions represented the collective judgments of the nations of the world of what constituted respect for humanity.

The United Nations was the ideal forum and focal point for a dialogue between civilizations, he said. The United Nations was the greatest idea of the century -- to replace war with dialogue, and articulate shared values and a vision of the future.

Tolerance was not enough, he said. Too often it meant: “Don’t bother me; I won’t bother you”. Engagement was far more profound; it involved listening and learning from each other. Civil society had a crucial role to play in such an initiative. He hoped the dialogue would permeate the thinking of the times and give people an opportunity to view civilizations. He also hoped the initiative would engage youth. There should be multiple avenues of engagement. Each country should engage in cultural exchanges, emphasizing common ground, recognizing the “big issues”, reaching out and giving voice to the 3 billion people who had no avenue of expression. There should also be space for artistic expression.

KISHORE MAHBUBANI (Singapore) said he was speaking in his own capacity. He agreed with fellow panelists that the time had come for a dialogue of civilizations, but certain conditions had to be met and difficulties addressed. Such a dialogue was needed because of the undeniable reality of today’s “shrinking globe”. The peoples of the world were passengers on the same boat.

Not only had the world shrunk, but it had created a dense web of interdependence; all lives were now intertwined, he said. The best illustration of that phenomenon had been the Asian financial crisis, which had begun in one small south-east Asian country and then spread throughout the world. Indeed, the world was entering a new and unprecedented era. For most of human history, civilizations had flourished at different times. But now, multiple civilizations could flourish in different parts of the globe at the same time. Because of that, a dialogue of civilizations was needed.

The first condition for such a dialogue had to be a tolerance of diversity, he said. Despite globalization, most of humankind had grown up in a mono-cultural environment. As a result of television and tourism, for example, images were being widely viewed, but they lacked a true understanding of how different cultures lived and thought. The result of bringing countries closer together in a shrinking globe was a great unknown, which could produce either harmony or conflict. Events in the Balkans had raised the question of whether the world would move into the twenty- first century with the baggage of the last century. Was the situation in the Balkans a legacy of the past or a harbinger of the future?

He said a second condition for dialogue was tolerance of change. The current pace of change was of a scale and speed never before experienced in human history. As a result, everyone needed to adjust their lifestyles and learn to tolerate such change. A tolerance of learning was a third condition. While everyone praised dialogue, it was never easy; and its difficulties in the current context should be squarely addressed.

Question and Answers

Mr. FARIDZADEH, in response to a remark made by the representative of India on the universality of spirituality, said that spirituality was indeed a human legacy, and that this legacy should be used to build dialogue among civilizations and cultures.

Mr. FALK, asked how to avoid using the dialogue to define those we might deem uncivilized, said that the word "civilization" was indeed problematic. The claim of moral advantage could be used as a mandate for intervention and for by-passing international law. Everyone agreed on a minimum content of what it meant to be human. If that minimum were violated, one was outside the framework of acceptable behavior. Still, he preferred not to call such behaviour uncivilized.

Responding to a question on the future of democracy, he said that the discipline of global capital could endanger democracy by pushing market forces into the realm of politics. The economic community exercised a sort of veto power over political processes, but democracy needed to allow for alternatives. Otherwise, people felt unmotivated to participate because it didn’t seem to mean much.

Mr. SERAGELDIN, on the same subject, said that people spoke of market forces as if they existed independently of government, whereas markets did not exist without a state. He would like to abolish the term "free market" and replace it with "competitive market". So-called free markets were actually highly regulated. A totally free market with no regulation resulted in chaos.

Regarding the issue of using the dialogue to brand certain states as "non- civilized", he said that South Africa was a good example. The community of nations censured the previous government there, branding its racial discrimination uncivilized. He was very optimistic about the future, he said. The twentieth century, among other advances, had witnessed decolonization, the banning of racial discrimination, and the large-scale emancipation of women. All this was part of the continuing advance of freedom. A dialogue on civilization would bring about a holistic view of the fragments of issues usually dealt with.

Mr. MAHBUBANI responded to a comment on the disparity of information flow. He said the flow went almost entirely from West to East. The decisions made by a few corporate heads in New York and London did not reflect the reality of the world’s majority. Redressing these disparities was an enormous part of the dialogue between civilizations.

In regard to the question of democracy’s future, he said it was now clear that in the long term, all societies were headed towards democracy. How fast and what kind of democracy remained to be seen. There needed to be a thorough discussion on what exactly the important aspects of a democratic society were. One of the key lessons of history was that people and society could not be changed overnight, and that gradual evolution was sometimes much better.

In closing, Mr. PICCO said that if there were one characteristic of the present international situation, it was hyper-complexity. Cold war times had been simpler. One idea of the dialogue between civilizations might be to devise a new paradigm in international relations. There were no more monolithic structures, but rather different patterns of relations and behaviours. Could dialogue open the door to better assessment of “human face” in globalization? In his mind, there were only two sets of civilizations: those that perceived differences as threats; and those that perceived them as opportunities for growth.

* *** *