It
is indeed a great pleasure and honor for me to participate in this important
gathering, commemorating the centennial of one of the foremost advocates of
dialogue, Raul Prebisch. His dedication to institutionalize dialogue was
translated into concrete action when UNCTAD and the Group of 77 came to
existence, to encourage and promote dialogue between developed and developing
countries in dealing with the major challenge of the day; namely
underdevelopment.
Today,
we are indebted to the Secretary-General of UNCTAD, Mr. Ricupero, for his
vision in bringing Dialogue among Civilization to the focus of attention of
UNCTAD, the top development-oriented body of the United Nations system.
The
tragic events of
I
pointed out in my statement before the General Assembly last week that
"Terrorism is a heinous product of the outdated paradigm of international
relations. That paradigm was founded on
the "will to power" and the arrogance that was associated with it:
that "might makes right". As
"might" ruled, injustice prevailed and hatred flourished, some who
were dispossessed were inclined to resort to terror and violence [to compensate
for their lack of conventional might.]
We must eradicate terrorism by changing the prevalent mentality that
provided a fertile ground for the growth of this menace."
An
important characteristic of that outdated paradigm of global interactions is exclusion
in its various forms. It defines the
world in terms of modes of loyalty into “coalition members” and “enemies”, and on
that basis distributes rewards and blames.
The need for an enemy is so strong for governance, that at times enemies
are forged as a managerial tool. This
approach to global politics has brought bloodshed and devastation to human
society, suppressed much potential, wasted much precious human capabilities and
scarce natural resources, and instead gave rise to domination, violence and
underdevelopment.
Globalization
which can potentially contribute positively to the comprehensive and
sustainable development of the developing world, addressed within the paradigm
of exclusion, has lead to further marginalization of the underdeveloped
economies, exacerbation of poverty and hunger in vast parts of Asia, Africa and
Latin America and the further widening of the gap between the rich and the poor
in other parts of the world. Furthermore, it is increasingly depriving the neediest
areas of the planet from the scarce international development resources.
The
desire of the international community to break away from the paradigm of
exclusion was demonstrated by the designation of this year as the United
Nations Year of Dialogue among Civilizations.
The new paradigm is emerging because today there is greater appreciation
that what unites us is by far greater that the differences that divides us. But
more importantly and probably more vividly today than only a month ago, because
of our appreciation of our common vulnerability to threats ranging from terrorism
and organized crime to poverty and environmental degradation. In the era of
globalization, there can be no island of security, prosperity and development.
Thus our common humanity and common vulnerabilities are emerging as better
tools for global governance than the perceived or imaginary enemies. Let me
quote here from the draft of a forthcoming book called Crossing the Divide
written by the Group of Eminent Persons on Dialogue among Civilizations of
which I am privileged to be a member:
The
processes of globalization are giving birth to a new paradigm of global
relations: equal footing; re-assessment
of the “enemy”; dispersion of power; stakeholding; individual responsibility;
and issue-driven alignments. The current reality is a mosaic of the old and the
new. The elements of the new paradigm are already there, but to a certain
extent we are blinded by the old paradigm, which prevents us from seeing what
is emerging.
The
new paradigm also starts from the assumption that the sources of knowledge and
wisdom are inherently diversified; that each civilization has much to offer;
and that inclusion will bring with it mutual enrichment and benefit. Thus the emerging paradigm of dialogue among
civilizations is founded on "inclusion, and a collective desire to learn,
uncover and examine assumptions, unfold shared meaning and core values, and
integrate multiple perspectives through dialogue."
In
debate, which has been so prevalent in the United Nations, we attempt to
convince the other side of our view, and often without even listening to the arguments.
[Sounds familiar?] But, we start a dialogue with a readiness and in fact a
desire not only to listen but to be persuaded. Debate was itself once a major
step forward from fighting, but it was in essence an attempt, like in war, to
overcome the adversary albeit through a more civilized means. A paradigm shift
would require a revolutionary change from debate to dialogue. According to the
Group of Eminent Persons:
Dialogue brings with it equal footing….as it is a process by which we accept, as much as we want to be accepted. We include, as much as we want to be included. We listen, as much as we want to be listened to…In these terms, dialogue can perhaps eventually usher in a new paradigm of global relations because it challenges the old paradigm of hegemonism, the politics of power, in other words, of “might makes right”…dialogue can be a framework where the weakest is accorded the privilege to be listened to, and where the strongest finds it necessary to explain its case to others.
This,
in my view is at the very core of the objectives and principles of the United
Nations and of this august body, UNCTAD.
I am reminded of a visionary statement in this context by Raul Prebisch
in the plenary meeting of UNCTAD in 1964:
A
fruitful dialogue is now about to commence….Developing countries…are not merely
called upon to solve their own economic problems. They can contribute a great deal because they
have a concept of life and of human values which will, I am sure, enable them
to contribute decisively to resolving basic incompatibilities between
technological and spiritual values. Many
developing countries bear the imprint of thousands of years of civilization.
They could do much to ensure that, in our common efforts to control economic
forces, we do not subordinate man to the demands of technology or purely
economic processes, but enable him to free himself from economic need, from
poverty and from his inherent ills…
In the Group of Eminent Persons on Dialogue among Civilizations, we have been investigating how this vision can be brought to reality. That is how mutual enrichment through integration of multiple perspectives can lead to emergence of a set of common values which can be embraced by all and develop into global ethics. While "liberty, right and personal dignity" have received universal recognition and reverence, the contribution of the countries of the East and the South in bringing to focus corresponding values such as "duty, human responsibility and the good of the community" can help develop a fuller agenda in addressing social disintegration, environmental degradation and abject poverty.
In the same vain, while values such as "liberty, rationality, legality and rights" have received considerable attention in contemporary political discourse, we may be able, through dialogue to integrate "liberty with justice", "rationality with sympathy", "legality with civility", and finally "rights with responsibility."
When and if such dialogue gain momentum and begin to bear fruits in terms of reaching common understanding on shared global ethics, then progress in other fields of human existence is bound to be facilitated, and we will gradually learn that we need to be each other's keepers.
Globalization
and the information revolution in our increasingly shrinking world now
empowers each and every one of us to
directly or indirectly affect the quality of life of the rest of the world's
population. This is a tremendous power. We ought to reflect collectively on this
in the context of a set of shared global values and ethics to discern the global
accountability and individual responsibility that must accompany the
unprecedented power of every one of us to affect others, albeit in
significantly varying degrees, across space indeed time. Only under such
circumstances we will all realize that we are part of the whole. And with that
realization we all become stakeholders of the whole world. Let me quote from Crossing the Divide:
Those
who hold dear to their hearts and minds the ecosystem of the earth, which is
one; those who hold dear the objectives of the free market, which they believe
is one; and those who hold dear the dignity and human rights of their fellow
human beings irrespective of their latitude or longitude on this planet, have
something in common. They all believe consciously or unconsciously that we are
part of the whole, of the world community which is interconnected and whose
parts mutually affect each other. The
greens, the global financiers, and the human rights advocates perhaps
unknowingly share a common vision: that
the world is one for all, and we are all component parts of that entirety. In other words, each assumes that they have a
stake in the world.
We
will realize that as stakeholders, humankind has a common destiny from which
there is no escaping. With stakeholding the idea of "us" versus
"them" will begin to lose utility and a zero sum game will not no
longer be applicable as the predominant mode of rational and objective analysis.
Most situations ranging from environment, global economy, trade and transfer of
knowledge and technology to eradication of terrorism, organized crime and
weapons of mass destruction can be analyzed as "positive sum" or
"negative sum" situations. In
fact, I should correct myself. We can
make them "positive sum" or "negative sum." If we approach
the realities of the era of globalization with a "zero sum mentality"
which is remnant of the old paradigm, we would all lose and end up with
"negative sum" situations. Environmental degradation, instability,
drugs, terrorism and chemical or biological weapons recognize no
boundaries. This must have become
abundantly clear to all of us at least after September 11th. Thus, we need to shift to a paradigm and a mindset
based on dialogue and stakeholding, which allows us to appreciate this clear reality
of being all parts of one unit. Another visionary, the renowned Iranian poet,
Sa'adi, eloquently articulated the fundamental underpinning of such a mentality
700 years ago:
The descendents
of Adam are limbs of each other,
Having been created of one
essence.
When the calamity of time
afflicts one limb
The other limbs cannot remain at
rest.
If you have no sympathy for the
troubles of others
You are unworthy to be called human.
Nearly
forty years ego, Raul Prebisch had the realism and the courage to lambaste market
forces that despite promises failed to "solve our problems of development
(and) income distribution…and spread…the benefits of technological
progress." The global economy is comparably not better today. He also had
the vision and farsightedness to prescribe that "a new rationality must be
sought, but not one based on hegemonic interests; rather, one based not merely
on economic and social objectives but on eminently ethical ones." Being
among the lonely voices of introducing rationality and ethics in global economy
forty years ego, Raul Prebisch was not quite optimistic. But, I wish to pay
tribute to him for his vision, and to express the hope that a new paradigm of
dialogue aiming at realization of equal footing, stakeholding and global
accountability could indeed gain increasing momentum.