General Assembly Session 56 meeting 42

The President

At this meeting of the General Assembly, we are discussing what the United Nations should and can do to promote understanding and dialogue among civilizations. The General Assembly, recognizing that this question is closely bound up with issues of peace and security, economic prosperity and human rights -- which are central to the work of our Organization -- has taken up and considered the item since the fifty-third session in 1998.

Since then, the General Assembly has adopted several important resolutions regarding this item and the Secretary-General has reported on the implementation of the resolutions. However, as we near the end of the Year of Dialogue among Civilizations, I believe it is appropriate and timely for the General Assembly to provide a strong impetus for further progress in this vital area. In particular, we expect that the draft resolution entitled "Global agenda for dialogue among civilizations" will be adopted by consensus after today's debate. It is my view that the global agenda, if adopted, will mark a milestone in our efforts to promote dialogue among civilizations.

Over the course of millennia, humankind has developed and nurtured a wealth of cultures and civilizations. From the beginning of history, they have interacted with and enriched each other, while contributing to the progress of humankind as a whole. As globalization accelerates and is driven forward by advanced technologies, the process of cultural interaction and exchange is also accelerating.

The United Nations designated the year 1995 as the United Nations Year for Tolerance and proclaimed 2001 as the United Nations Year of Dialogue among Civilizations. Indeed, tolerance and dialogue should be included among the core values of the international community. Without them, peace and security cannot be achieved and would hardly be worth achieving. Moreover, they are instrumental to the pursuit of human rights and human freedom.

We find ourselves at a critical juncture in history. Along with the advent of the age of globalization, terrorism has now surfaced as the major threat to international peace and security. Terrorism represents the very embodiment of intolerance. All great civilizations and religions in history have preached tolerance and compassion. Dialogue among civilizations, by promoting tolerance, undermines the basis of terrorism and thus contributes to global peace and security.

In our globalizing and increasingly interconnected world, diverse cultures can provide a needed source of stability and continuity. The challenge is to balance this need against the risk of cultural stagnation. There is no simple solution, but we must always remember that cultures are living, evolving entities, not lifeless artefacts. I hope that this is one of many important lessons that the dialogue has taught us.

In this regard, I would like to extend a warm welcome to the eminent persons from all over the world who have come here to address this Assembly. I thank them very much. I have no doubt that their presentations will do much to make this dialogue one of the United Nations foremost contributions to cross-cultural understanding.

In closing, let me express my gratitude to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran for its initiative in proposing this agenda item. I wish all the participants a very productive and successful dialogue, thus advancing the goals and ideals for which the United Nations stands.

I call on the Secretary-General.

The Secretary-General

It is a special pleasure for me to join the General Assembly for a debate on a subject of profound moral and political significance to the United Nations. If ever one doubted the need for a dialogue among civilizations, let them doubt no longer. 11 September made the need for such a dialogue crystal-clear.

That is why our response -- the response of the United Nations -- must be to bring nations, cultures and civilizations ever closer together through dialogue and cooperation. Throughout history, civilizations have grown and flourished through dialogue and exchange, learning from other cultures and finding new inspiration to pursue knowledge and understanding.

The dialogue among civilizations is a central pillar of the global response to conflict and violence of every kind, particularly when it is based on bigotry and intolerance. With this dialogue taking place in every part of the world, appeals to war will be met with appeals to compromise. Hatred will be met with tolerance. Violence will be met with resolve. A dialogue among civilizations is humanity's best answer to humanity's worst enemies.

I wish to pay tribute to President Khatami of Iran for launching the dialogue among civilizations within the United Nations and to other leaders and Governments who have sustained this dialogue over the last year. By doing so, they have not only advanced an essential vehicle of understanding, but served the noblest aims of the United Nations. Over the last year, the idea of a dialogue among civilizations has engendered wide interest in academic institutions, non-governmental organizations and wherever people have sought to find common ground.

From Austria to Costa Rica to Egypt, Mali, Korea and many other countries, Governments and civil society have joined United Nations agencies in advancing this dialogue and bringing its message to every culture and continent. A special contribution has been made by the Group of Eminent Persons, as the President has indicated, and I would like to congratulate them on their service to humanity and to the United Nations. I thank them very much.

The dialogue among civilizations is based not on the premise that we, as humanity, are all the same or always in agreement, but rather on appreciation of the fact that we represent a diversity of cultures and that our beliefs reflect this diversity. The idea that there is one people in possession of the truth, one answer to the world's ills, or one solution to humanity's needs has done immense harm throughout history. We need look no further than the composition of this great Assembly to know -- as an unmistakable, incontrovertible fact of life -- that there are many ways of living, many beliefs, many cultures.

It is when this diversity of identities is under siege, when a way of life is denied, when the basic freedom to live as one chooses is threatened, that conflict, violence and suffering become inevitable.

The dialogue among civilizations, in this sense, is not an expression of hopes, but a reflection of the world as it is. Diversity is the basis for the dialogue among civilizations and the reality that makes dialogue necessary. We understand as never before that, however diverse we are, we are fully human and fully worthy of the respect and dignity that are essential to our common humanity.

We recognize that we are the products of many cultures and memories; that tolerance allows us to study and learn from other cultures; that our strengths lie in combining the familiar with the foreign; and that those who perceive diversity as a threat deny themselves and their societies the best of humanity.

All of us have the right to take pride in our particular faith or heritage. But the notion that what is "ours" is necessarily in conflict with what is "theirs" is both false and dangerous. In contrast to what some would suggest, we can love what we are without hating what we are not.

Of course, there are often profound and very real issues of self-determination, security and dignity at stake in the relations between peoples. Words alone will not resolve them. But a dialogue of words and deeds -- that is, of reciprocal actions based on respect and a genuine understanding of the other side's grievances -- can resolve disputes and prevent conflict.

I am not saying that this dialogue will be easy. But we must not allow the difficulties we will face to deter us from pursuing it. I am convinced that it can make a genuine difference in the lives of ordinary men and women throughout the world. Ultimately, that is the standard by which this dialogue will be measured: its ability to help alleviate suffering and protect the fundamental human rights of future generations.

The dialogue among civilizations has a purpose and promise beyond the challenges we face today. Throughout history, such dialogue has fostered understanding and compromise, and can do so to an even greater extent in a world that is ever smaller and more closely linked. It can support and sustain every effort at peace and every attempt to resolve conflicts between and within nations.

It is my hope that, in the months and years ahead, all nations will join this dialogue and make it genuinely valuable by placing it at the service of the weakest and most vulnerable of our world: the victims of intolerance, bigotry and hatred. It is for their sake that the dialogue among civilizations must succeed.

President Khatami (Iran)

In the circle of those who cherished rational thinking 2,500 years ago, Socrates would employ the method of dialogue to discuss philosophical questions. Those who, unlike the philosophers, felt less love for wisdom yet showed more passion to possess it -- that is, the sophists -- did all they could to defeat Socrates, and when his life was found to contradict their interests and credibility, they eventually had him put to death.

The call to dialogue, however, did not die with Socrates. In places of learning and places of worship, as well as in forums on world politics and culture, we can still hear Socrates inviting us to dialogue. That appeal transcends realms of formal learning and philosophy, for Socrates was more than a philosopher. He was, indeed, a great mentor of morality and a master of culture and politics. It is precisely for this reason that dialogue presupposes and embodies a principled moral discipline of culture and politics.

Today, as in ancient centuries, engagement in dialogue requires wisdom, discipline and goodwill. Today, as then, any exclusive claim to absolute truth needs to be relinquished. Truth, as absolute as it is in its essence, should drive us, in the light of its true unity, not only to recognize plurality in human culture, religion, language and race, but also to embrace this variety as a unique opportunity for establishing peace, freedom and justice in our world. In order to do this, we will need to stop playing deaf. Devastating wars have always erupted when one party has refused to listen to what others have had to say.

When Iran proposed the idea of dialogue among civilizations in the General Assembly, few foresaw how soon this proposal could be so instrumental in saving the world from an imminent war of carnage and devastation. The horrific terrorist attacks on the United States of 11 September were perpetrated by a cult of fanatics who had mutilated their own ears and tongues and were able to communicate with perceived opponents only through carnage and devastation. A perceived need for revenge, coupled with a misplaced sense of might, could lead to failure to hear the calls of people of goodwill and the cries of children, women and the elderly in Afghanistan, whose lot in life has been no more than to suffer a prolonged death in the shadow of perpetual horror, hunger and disease.

In the opening years of the twentieth century, some prominent political thinkers rightly prophesied the imminence of a century of war and revolution. This was later attributed to the escalation of violence in the twentieth century, and violence was seen as a characteristic common to both wars and revolutions.

War, of course, is always concomitant with violence. But it would be incorrect to identify all revolutions with violence. One could cite examples of revolutions based on the very renunciation of violence. Apt consideration of the liberation movement in India should suffice to patently rebut such a claim. The Islamic revolution in Iran, which in a sense breathed the soul of morality back into the body politic, was also a revolution that responded to bullets with flowers and did not combat its opponents exclusively with retaliation and revenge. It was the Government that emerged from our revolution that eventually, in the closing years of the twentieth century, proposed to the United Nations the idea of dialogue among civilizations.

I am grateful to this august body for embracing this proposal; to the Secretary-General and his Personal Representative for their invaluable efforts; and to the Group of Eminent Persons for its thought-provoking and insightful contribution in its recently published book, Crossing the Divide: Dialogue among Civilizations.

I am also pleased to introduce, on behalf of the co-sponsors, the draft resolution (A/C.1/56/L.3), "Global agenda on the United Nations Year of Dialogue among Civilizations, which has been prepared in a true spirit of dialogue. We hope that this important document receives the unanimous support of the General Assembly.

Regrettably, the dawn of the new millennium has turned out to be bloody and filled with gloom. The apparatus of terror and violence did not pause for a moment. A most brutal and appalling crime has been perpetrated against American civilians.

In the name of the people and the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, I have firmly and unequivocally condemned this inhuman and anti-Islamic act of terror. I have already asked the Secretary-General of the United Nations to bring together heads of State to set an agenda for combating terrorism and to unify international political will in uprooting this evil phenomenon. This moment provides the most opportune time to reflect upon the causes and means of this catastrophe.

In our world today, the concept of political seclusion transgresses the boundaries of morality and falls into the realm of impossibility. All cultures, civilizations and faiths are now compelled to inhabit the same world by the inviolable verdict of technology. Now is therefore the best of times to bring about harmony and foster empathy amid diversity. A rare opportunity has now presented itself, which could lead either to interminable war or to enduring peace and compassion among human societies.

Terrorism is begotten through the ominous combination of blind fanaticism and brute force, and it always serves a systematized illusion. In spite of the propaganda it utilizes and the nomenclature it employs, terrorism is nothing more than a projection of the destructive forces of the human unconscious.

Should human beings be deprived of compassion and divested of morality, religious spirituality, a sense of aesthetics and the ability to engage in poetic visualization, and should they become incapable of experiencing death and destruction through artistic creativity, then the horrendous hidden forces of the unconscious would wreak havoc, death and devastation upon the world of humanity.

Whoever chooses to reduce religion, art or science to a destructive weapon bears no other than an inimical relationship to them.

In the intellectual world of Iran and Islam, magnificent achievements attained in the realm of literature are all rooted deeply in the rich resources of the divine revelation and Islamic tradition. For instance, such an understanding of tradition would be expressed by a Muslim mystic saying:

"From the East to the West, should any one man be hurt by a thorn in his finger or by a stone in his way, I would feel the pain. My heart would share the burden of any heart encumbered with chagrin."

In the same way, the essence of religious spirituality is expressed by a poet writing in the Zen tradition: "If I had had a black cloak large enough, I would have covered all the needy of the world."

Human beings are capable of unbounded love. This is shown in the Gospels, which present the love between neighbours as on par with the love of God. The Upanishads teach that the human soul, the lily of the heart, grows from the soil out of which all human beings have been created. Precisely because of the homogeneity of this common soil, which cannot be moulded by politics and geography, empathic dialogue among human beings is possible.

A Manichaean perspective on world geopolitics, which dualistically assumes one religion to be the source of light and the other the source of darkness, would have appalling political and security consequences. The ancient trick of "making enemies" is a product of paranoid illusion, but its products are nonetheless real.

Another question remains to be elaborated: in what soil would the seed of enmity and the making of enemies grow and produce such unpalatable fruit? It is evident that the seed of infinite enmity grows well wherever infinite injustice is entrenched and begets utter despair and frustration. Politicians and military generals could simply attribute the recent catastrophe in the United States, as well as all terrorist atrocities and casualties in various regions, to the evil deeds of a certain State, group or religion. Yet this would simply amount to evading the question, not answering it. The correct answer to this question, like many other correct answers in philosophy and politics, has a long history. However, a long history does not provide a remedy in and of itself. We can hope to learn a new lesson from an old answer only if we are prepared to accept the verdict of fairness and justice.

Injustice is neither unknown to nor confined to particular communities. However, when injustice accumulates so much that it engenders despair and frustration, it turns into an explosive brew. Only when people are deprived of a right to life -- merely life as survival, not even a good life of equality -- do they become capable of perpetrating crimes of which they are the first victims. People should not be led into utter despair. I intend this not merely as humanitarian advice, but also as a precondition for social and political coexistence in a world in which our fates are inevitably intertwined. Even for those of us who have lost the capacity to have compassion for others, and whose motivation is based on self-love and an urge to survive, it remains imperative not to push others into the dark realm of frustration. A frustrated person may choose death as the only remedy of his predicament: his own death and the death of others. At least part of our minds and hearts need to be set free from the clutches of instrumental and utilitarian reason and be opened up to moral rationality and altruistic reason. In this way it should become possible to have compassion for others. Let us have compassion not only for ourselves but also for others. Let us have compassion for others within their own idiosyncratic realms. Having compassion for others means not coercing them to assimilate to us or to succumb to our values. Compassion should come unconditionally. The only condition is a mutual agreement to refrain from atrocity and violence.

Let us welcome any plea to refrain from violence and to embrace compassion. Let us welcome any call that prefers the voice of humanity over the noise of explosions. Let us welcome any party that invites us not to racism but to respect for the human race. Let us respect the fundamental right of all parties to exist.

Moral rationality, heartfelt compassion for others and the ability to share in both the sufferings and the happiness of other people have so far managed to sustain our world. Let us breathe into the solemn and dry body of politics the soul of morality and ethics, thereby making it humane. When it comes to enmity and revenge, let us be as inclined to remember as a mirror. A tall, clean, truthful mirror can reflect to infinity our own beauties and those of others. It is unwise to shatter the mirror.