Editor's Note

In a landmark address to the United Nations General Assembly on 21 September 1998, President Mohammad Khatami of Iran called for a “dialogue among civilisations” to replace hostility and confrontation in interstate relations. His proposal was unanimously endorsed by the General Assembly on 4 November 1998, when it passed a resolution proclaiming 2001 as the “United Nations Year of Dialogue among Civilisations”. The concept of civilisational dialogue has subsequently been hailed as a new paradigm in international relations. This issue of Global Dialogue examines its theoretical and practical ramifications.

Our first article is an illustration of dialogue in action, featuring a discussion between President Khatami and the religious scholars Hans Küng and Josef van Ess, chaired by President Johannes Rau of Germany. President Khatami, the leading figure in the initiative to promote civilisational dialogue, valuably expands upon his vision of what such dialogue requires and entails. The discussion also shows that while dialogue must be founded on mutual respect between the participants, it need not preclude the asking of challenging questions.

Giandomenico Picco is the UN Secretary-General’s Personal Representative for the Year of Dialogue among Civilisations. He focuses on an issue central to intercultural relations: diversity. This is a boon, not an evil, he argues, and civilisational dialogue can be understood as an encounter between those who perceive diversity as a threat and those who regard it as an element of betterment and growth.

The proposal for civilisational dialogue may be seen, in part, as a counter-response to Samuel Huntington’s famous “clash of civilisations” theory. Mohsen M. Milani and Michael Gibbons, both of the University of South Florida, subject Huntington’s theory to a sustained critique, arguing that it has the self-fulfilling potential to increase international hostility and strife.

A premise of civilisational dialogue is acceptance of the equal dignity and worth of different civilisations. Yet one civilisation today, the Western, not only seems pre-eminent in terms of power and global reach, but is also hailed by some of its champions as the “universal” civilisation whose values, customs and institutions should be adopted by (or imposed upon) other civilisations. Ali A. Mazrui of the Institute of Global Cultural Studies at Binghamton University, New York, examines the pretensions to universal validity of Western culture.

Our next three contributions address some of the theoretical issues raised by the civilisational dialogue paradigm. R. K. Ramazani, professor emeritus of the University of Virginia, believes the paradigm has been the target of various superficial and reductionist interpretations precisely because it has yet to receive a systematic theoretical exposition. In an attempt to reduce the grounds for misunderstanding, he identifies some of the paradigm’s core attributes.

Hossein Bashiriyeh of the University of Tehran argues that civilisational dialogue must be seen in a historical–dialectical perspective. Synthesis and combination are the fundamental principles governing relations among cultures. Civilisational purity is as mythical as racial purity. Civilisations mature and develop by combining with each other, the most successful being those that combine a greater number of elements from other and previous civilisations.

Fred Dallmayr of the University of Notre Dame undertakes some essential philosophical groundwork by inquiring into the meaning of the paradigm’s component terms, “civilisation” and “dialogue”. Drawing on the insights of one of the foremost of contemporary European philosophers, Hans-Georg Gadamer, Dallmayr deepens our understanding of the significance of civilisational dialogue.

How can dialogue be promoted between peoples in conflict? Someone in a good position to know is Haim Gordon of Ben Gurion University in Israel, who has long worked for peace and understanding between Israelis and Palestinians. He reports on the lessons of this experience, stressing that dialogue requires a willingness to confront evil and work jointly for justice.

Education is crucial to dialogue, not least in fostering that culture of understanding—of the beliefs and practices of the “other”—without which dialogue is impossible. Hans van Ginkel, rector of the United Nations University in Tokyo, offers some practical proposals whereby universities, in particular, may enhance intercivilisational understanding.

Globalisation, by disseminating Western culture worldwide, acts as the motor of the ideological hegemony of Western civilisation. But, argues author Victor Segesvary, globalisation also inevitably brings civilisations into contact with each other, so that the dialogue of civilisations may be seen as the other face of the globalising trend. He offers some recommendations as to the form and content of civilisational dialogue.

The United Nations is the chief global institution articulating and promoting the ideal of dialogue among civilisations. Yet such dialogue also has implications for the nature and identity of the world body. Kaveh L. Afrasiabi of the Fernand Braudel Center at Binghamton University, New York, sees the civilisational dialogue paradigm as furthering the United Nations’ evolution away from traditional state-focused multilateralism towards broader, more cosmopolitan frames of reference.

Are we on the brink of a new global civilisation, driven by information technologies encompassing the entire earth? That is the contention of Majid Tehranian of the University of Hawaii. He provides a historical framework for understanding our passage to this new “Fourth Civilisation”, adumbrated in the “Gaia” theory of James Lovelock and the “noosphere” of Teilhard de Chardin.

In concluding, it is my sad duty to note the death of the philosopher Ninian Smart, who passed away in January. A member of our journal’s international advisory board, Professor Smart by his many brilliant writings on the world’s religions contributed immensely to better understanding among civilisations. This issue of Global Dialogue is dedicated to the memory of a great scholar and true gentleman.

Paul Theodoulou
Winter 2001