|
IN THE NAME OF GOD THE MOST COMPASSIONATE THE MOST MERCIFUL Your Highnesses, Your Excellency Mr. Director-General of UNESCO, Ladies and Gentlemen,
The choice of ”Dialogue among Civilizations” as a theme for this Roundtable, an activity within the framework of the Millennium Assembly organized by the United Nations, was opportune due to the utmost importance this subject represents to the world in the post-cold war era. We are, therefore, indebted to President Mohammad Ali Khatami of the Islamic Republic of Iran for his initiative in raising this subject. Indeed, it is not surprising that such a call should emanate from him due to his profound knowledge of both the Islamic and Western cultures and because of his past responsibilities of cultural affairs and his present responsibilities as President of the Islamic Republic of Iran. 
Likewise, we would like to extend our thanks to His Excellency, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, to His Excellency, the Director-General of UNESCO and to all members of the group involved in preparing for this noteworthy event. We would also like to express our sincere thanks and deep appreciation for the invitation to speak in this round table discussion and address this outstanding assemblage of Heads of State or Government. Your Majesties, Highnesses and Excellencies, Mr. Secretary-General, Mr. Director-General of UNESCO, Ladies and Gentlemen, The importance of this meeting is evident from the theme chosen for it – Dialogue among Civilizations. The theme is also indicative of the positions of those present here regarding the issue of the relationship between different civilizations and the fact that it is based on positive interaction which we all enrich. It is, accordingly, a most eloquent repudiation of those counter claims that were circulated a few years ago and culminated in a well-known essay entitled “The Clash of Civilizations? ” written by the American political scientist Samuel P. Huntington and published in the summer 1993 issue of the periodical Foreign Affairs. In that essay, Mr. Huntington gives expression to the dangerous idea that the post-cold war world will witness an increase in conflicts within and among states because of cultural differences. Basing his theory on the premise that differences among civilizations are not only real, but also fundamental, he asserts that in a world that is becoming smaller, shrinking distances are increasing interactions between the peoples of different civilizations, thus intensifying the awareness of differences between civilizations; local identities and loyalties as well as national ties are weakening and are being replaced by allegiance to religion; the growing power of the West is creating an increased animosity towards it among the members of the other civilizations; and cultural characteristics and differences do not readily disappear but could, perhaps, acquire regional dimensions leading to the emergence of major regional groupings in North America, Europe and East Asia. For those reasons, he foresees the clash of civilizations occurring at two levels. At a lower level, namely within states, tensions would escalate between culturally different groups, and may explode into violence, as a result of rivalries for control over territory and people. At a higher level, States from different civilizations would compete among themselves in order to acquire greater military and economic power, gain control over international institutions and third parties and spread their own political and religious values. No doubt, this hypothesis, although put forward by a well-respected intellectual such as Mr. Samuel, is replete with contradiction and is inconsistent with historical facts and with reality. Moreover, it has dangerous political consequences. The shrinking of distances in the world as a result of scientific and technological breakthroughs might, for instance, result in bringing people closer together, when they discover that despite differences in colour, religion and language, major common and shared interests bind them. Examples of such interests are many and varied, such as the hundreds of millions of viewers around the world who simultaneously enjoy a historic moment of happenings somewhere on the globe, or political events taken place in a certain country, or those who watch transmitted pictorial programs or empathize with the same ideas, to cite just a few. In addition, the process of modernization throughout the world may well weaken the effect of the primary ethnic or linguistic loyalties in shaping peoples consciousness. This theory also ignores the fact that substantial differences exist between members of the same culture. Had there not been wars between Britain and France, China and Japan or Iraq and Kuwait? Yet in each of those examples the combatants belonged to the same cultural-religious group. Finally, it is still States, not civilizations or cultures, that form the basic units in international relations. States act in accordance with the dictates of their strategic economic, political and military interests and not necessarily on the basis of their cultural affiliations alone. More importantly, however, are the dangerous political consequences inherent in this theory, since it presumes that because people differ in their cultural affiliations, this would, by definition, create tensions and conflicts between them. The most acute, and the most perilous, of such differences would be between the West and the rest of the world, particularly the Islamic and Confucian civilizations. Indeed, there is evidence that foreign policy planners and some members of parliament in major powers have started formulating policies for confronting countries of different cultures, civilizations and religions and taking the position of both judge and watchman towards them. Proceeding from our Arab Islamic civilization we, in fact, utterly reject such orientations. In our view, differences among people are reasons for cooperation and collaboration, for the welfare of all. Our Holy Quran states “We have made thee peoples and tribes that ye may know each other.” And emphasizes that the best humans in the eyes of God are the most pious and the most dedicated to their work: “The most honoured among thee in the sight of God are the most pious.” Islam’s Prophet Mohammad, the prayers and praise of Allah be upon him, stressed that same idea: “Arabs are not privileged over non-Arabs except in piety”, and added that it is the duty of Muslims to search for knowledge everywhere and in every group of humans, when he said: “Seek knowledge even in China.” These values of tolerance have been reflected in our Arab Islamic civilization which was characterized by acceptance from the adherents of the other heavenly religions, Christianity and Judaism, and by the quest for the sources of knowledge in the old Indian, Persian and Greek civilizations. It is this openness to the various civilizations of the world as experienced by the Muslims during the peak of their civilization between the seventh and thirteenth centuries that enabled them to add some brilliant contributions to human civilization and to become the link not only between what was then known as the West of the world and its East, but also between the older and new civilizations. Through the quills of the likes of Ibn Rushd, Al-Farabi and Ibn Sina (Avicenna), to cite a few, the Arabs transmitted a great part of the knowledge of the Greeks to the rest of Europe near the end of its medieval age.
As regards the subjects for discussion in this round table, such as the definition of the parties to the dialogue of civilizations and the role of the United Nations and its Agencies in this respect, we believe, first, that the definition of culture or civilization should not be rigid. It should not link culture exclusively to religion or language, nor to geographical affiliation or shared historical experiences alone. Second, the dialogue should be open between the representatives of all the governments and peoples, regardless of their diverse affiliations. Without doubt, the United Nations, with its specialized agencies and numerous activities aimed at consolidating international peace and security and promoting friendly relations between peoples, is an outstanding example of this effective and fruitful dialogue between civilizations. Its member governments represent most of the fundamental cultural groupings in the world today. They participate in its activities for the good of them all, be that by putting an end to armed conflicts and finding solutions for them, or by furthering international cooperation in many fields – from drug control to catastrophe management – and promoting economic and social development in all its aspects. However, the danger in advocating the clash of civilizations by some of the mass media in the West requires specific action by the United Nations aimed at combating the various effects of this theory which would lead to an escalation of tensions in the world, at the time when we were hoping that the end of the cold war would mean reducing the reasons for these tensions, and bringing about harmony and concordance among all peoples, regardless of any divergence in their cultural affiliations.
For this reason, we could perhaps suggest that the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) play an essential role in this respect. UNESCO’s constitution says that it is in the minds of men that wars first start. Similarly, it is in the minds of people that any probable clash of civilizations would also start, through an erroneous perception and a fallacious mental image of other human groups. UNESCO may want to conduct the dialogue on strengthening relations between human groups from different cultural backgrounds at three levels The first level, to be comprised of a purely scientific activity involving scholars in history, politics and social sciences, with a view to disclosing the truth of the claims of the so-called clash of civilizations and whether what appeared to be a clash of civilizations was, in actual fact, a result of either conflicting strategic, economic, political and military interests, or manipulation of the basic loyalties of people in order to serve the narrow interests of political leaderships. The second level, to be mainly geared towards the men and women who are the opinion shapers in the public information field and all its media, with a view to exploring the best ways to clarify the effects of erroneous images that the media might convey of groups from differing cultures. This activity could also include the faculties and administrators of educational institutions, especially those responsible for deciding the curricula, particularly those intended for the young in their earlier formative stages. The third level would bring together political leaders and statesmen from different cultural groups with the aim of eliminating tensions between those groups and reducing the prospects for clashes between them. Discussions that would take place at those three levels do not necessarily have to stay confined within the walls of UNESCO or the United Nations. Their proceedings and findings should rather be made available at the widest possible scale through television, radio and the press, as well as books and electronic information systems. We, in Qatar, are ready to participate at all three of the proposed levels, should recommendations materialize to transform them into reality, or in any other activities conducted for this purpose through the United Nations or its specialized agencies. Moreover, in appreciation of the important task of the Committee of Wise Men, the first session of which will be hosted by Brazil, we would welcome hosting the second session of that Committee in Qatar. Naturally, we shall provide it with all the facilities that would ensure its functioning in a smooth and fruitful manner. Your Highnesses, Your Excellency Mr. Director-General of UNESCO, Ladies and Gentlemen, We believe that different cultures and diverse civilizations are a source of wealth for humanity and a firm foundation for cooperation among nations. For this reason, we attach great importance on the outcome of the meetings of this round table. May God lead us all to serve the best interests of the human family. Peace be upon you all and may the mercy of God and His blessings be with you.
|
