Remarks by
Dr. Javad Zarif at the Forum Global Issues
In the name
of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful
Madam Chairperson, Minister Fischer, President
Weitsaker, Distinguished Friends,
It
is indeed a great pleasure for me to share a few thoughts on dialogue among
civilizations at this important forum.
For centuries, social philosophers and
statesmen have explicitly or implicitly defined relations among groups, peoples
and countries in zero-sum terms. Thus, in
order to maximize one’s interest, those who considered themselves “realist”
prescribed denying “the other” the
opportunity to do the same.
The “zero-sum” approach to
international politics coupled with a related tendency to divide the actors into
two distinct camps: “us” and “the other,” has provided a fertile ground for the
growth of the “politics of exclusion”.
In this context, diversity, whether
geographical, political, civilizational, cultural, religious, or patterns of
military alliance and levels of economic development, has been utilized to
construct the “hostile other” and thus justify its exclusion.
Perception of diversity as a threat
has usually accompanied glorification of one’s own way of life and demonization
of “the other”. As demonization often requires and in turn breeds ignorance of “the
other”, there has been no need to understand, no need to even listen. From wars
to debates, the objective has always been to defeat “the demonized other”, the “enemy”.
The need for an enemy not only as a justification for exclusion, but in fact as
a managerial tool for governance, has become so pervasive, that at times
enemies have been forged.
However, the realities of our
globalized world have shattered the applicability of a “zero-sum game” analogy.
Most global challenges ranging from the environment and trade to eradication of
terrorism, organized crime and weapons of mass destruction have in fact become
beyond any doubt “non-zero sum” situations.
At least after the tragic events of September 11th, our
common vulnerability to these threats must have become abundantly clear to all
of us. Sooner or later, even the ardent unilateralists will come to understand
that in the era of globalization, there can be no island of security,
prosperity and development, amidst a sea of turmoil and poverty.
This fundamental change of objective
reality coupled with the gradual recognition of our common vulnerabilities has
necessitated a shift from the outdated paradigm of exclusion. A new paradigm is
emerging because today there is a growing appreciation that our common humanity
and common vulnerabilities are better tools for global governance than the need
for perceived or imaginary enemies. Thus, “Crossing the Divide” is not just a
moral prescription, but rather a realistic appreciation of the new global
environment.
It was perhaps a response to this
realization that 147 Heads of State and Government, and 191 world leaders in
total, who took part in the Millennium Summit at the United Nations, resolved
to halve, by the year 2015, the proportion of world’s people whose income is
less than one dollar a day and the proportion of people who suffer from
hunger and, by the same date, to provide clean drinking water and education for
all, to reverse the spread of AIDS, and to make the right to development a
reality for everyone and freeing the entire human race from want. The world
leaders underscored freedom, equality, solidarity, tolerance, respect for
nature and shared responsibility as fundamental values to be essential to
international relations in the twenty-first century.
But, we can rise to the challenge
only if we revisit our approach to problem resolution. This is why, I believe,
the call for a dialogue among civilizations has been welcomed across the world
by both the public and private sectors. The objectives our leaders set out to
achieve are within reach when we dare to rise above short-term and narrow
interest and take responsibility; when we dare not to fear our differences, and
attempt to understand one another’s concerns and aspirations; when we accord
each other the respect, compassion, tolerance and the dignity each human being
across our shrinking world intrinsically deserves; when we truly avoid the
tyranny of indifference and dare to genuinely care for our neighbor and fellow human
being. Or to put it simply, when we dare
to dialogue at all levels and in all fields.
Dialogue among civilizations has the
potential to usher in a new paradigm of international relations. Dialogue, as
distinguished from debate, indicates the readiness of the participants to
listen and to be persuaded, as it rests on the proposition that the sources of
knowledge and wisdom are inherently diverse.
It follows from the same premise that
inclusion will bring with it mutual enrichment and more judicious choices by drawing
upon the wisdom of various civilizations. But more importantly, it would
provide greater legitimacy through wider participation of not only all states,
but in fact active involvement of civil society, particularly public
intellectuals, artists, scientists and the youth. Civilizations by definition
are much wider than nation-states, and no nation-state can claim to represent a
civilization. The United Nations, by embracing and encouraging dialogue among
civilizations, has recognized the expanding and indeed indispensable role of
the non-state actors and in fact the gradual emergence of a global civil
society.
Distinguished Friends,
The new focus on dialogue among
civilizations could not have been more timely; in the beginning of the third
millennium, when the forces of globalization are gaining momentum, and the
information technology is practically crumbling all barriers. A focus on
dialogue, understanding and multilateral cooperation has become even more
imperative when post September 11 world is marked by an unfortunate reversion
to posturing, unilateralism and threat or use of force.
Dialogue among civilizations is
timely, because it has the best potential to help dissolve the barriers in our
minds and hearts as peoples with different cultures and traditions. Only in
this context, globalization will become a welcome process; when it would
make an ultimate, unified and complete whole out of all cultures and
civilizations which, as willing components, will not only preserve their integrity
and uniqueness, but also are enriched in the process of constructive
interactions -- a process that should ideally grow parallel to the
process of globalization.
Therefore, the delicate balance in a
globalized world is how to celebrate each and every culture and civilization
and allow each to make its contribution to the fullest of its potential to
the ultimate shape of our world.
Admittedly, dialogue is difficult and
we need to develop the requisite human skills for it. President Khatami, who proposed the need for
dialogue among civilizations, is first to concede that “dialogue is not easy.
It is even more difficult to prepare and open up vistas upon one’s inner
existence to others.”
However, we must recognize that
despite its difficulty, there is no realistic alternative to “dialogue” if as
human beings, we are to secure a common destiny that befits us as rational
beings. President Khatami hastens to point out that “ a belief in dialogue
paves the way for vivacious hope: the hope of living in a world permeated
by virtue, humanity and love, and not merely by the rein of economic indices
and destructive weapons. Should the spirit of dialogue prevail, humanity,
culture and civilization will prevail. We should all have faith in this
triumph.”