________________________________________________________________ ______________

Round Table: Dialogue among Civilizations United Nations, New York, 5 September 2000 Provisional verbatim transcription

Address by Alexandre Yakovlev (Russian Federation)

Mr. Yakovlev (interpretation from Russian): I fully agree with the previous speaker that perhaps the most important condition for universal dialogue in the area of culture and not just in the area of culture, is depoliticization of that dialogue. If we look at the great religions of the world we will see that the Buddhist philosophy before Christianity and before Islam spoke of dialogue as the most important content of human relations. The same thing can be found in the Bible, in the Koran and, perhaps I am exaggerating, but I personally do not believe in the absence and lack of dialogue between people. I do not believe that people want to be enemies and to be antagonistic. I do not believe that they want violence, and that they want wars. I am personally convinced, even from my personal experience, that all this is a matter for the politicians, a matter resulting from selfish groups reflecting political concerns. In that sense I believe that perhaps the most effective way to bring about a universal dialogue in the new millennium in the conditions of globalization and in a new world is of course contacts between people.

If governments were to agree to a full cessation of financing of military expenditures, and if those funds instead were to be used for contacts among people, then people in all countries would be able to overcome that unfortunate barrier raised by politicians against dialogue among people. But nevertheless, for all that, before we speak about dialogue we need to determine the sources of existing quarrels and disputes.

First, I am concerned, in this sense, by the environment in which we live. The twentieth century has brought enormous scientific and technical change to our lives; inter alia the scientific and technical revolution in fact has built within our lives such an artificial body as a world economy which gradually and inexorably is destroying us. We are acting as if we do not see or understand what is going on, although in my view the major resources of nature, that ability of nature to engage in self-cleansing, is nearly exhausted. Man has passed a fatal boundary. When we talk about dialogue for an entire millennium then it may be useless and fruitless to continue to lie to nature the way we do. We are lying to nature. Sooner or later nature will take its revenge. It has already started to do so. Without that foundation we cannot continue to exist. We must move on to a new principle of spiritual and material progress. I would call it eco-development. This includes ecology, philosophy and economy, in fact an entire way of life.

The second thing that perplexes me when we talk about globalization and its problems, and about a new information era, is the apprehension, the fear, that it is possible gradually to have a univeralization of life and its values; not globalization X that is understandable, an inevitable phenomenon, a way of life X but a universalization at the level of television culture. Now, in the area of the mass media, a kind of monopolism looms over us which is fraught with that danger. That danger is linked to a degradation of mankind. If we lose that unity of culture in diversity. If we do not defend diversity of cultures, then it makes no sense to speak of dialogue because that will be a dialogue of the deaf. People will be speaking about one and the same thing because they will be like [Mankurtz?] non-human beings. We speak about unification and universalization of culture that will mean the spiritual end of mankind. I, of course, am against any kind of apocalyptic assumptions here but we need in this dialogue to achieve one very important thing, to fight for a culture which would not become universal but will be diverse and national with all its traditions. Only on that basis can we achieve its unity. I at the least am convinced that no kind of unified culture will come about. We will be able to avoid that.

Lastly, when I am talking about our environment as the basis for our hopes, our shared life in common, I believe that the only paradigm for our development in these conditions, despite any scepticism we may have, is freedom and the sovereignty of the individual. Without sovereignty of the individual, in terms of dialogue we will not achieve anything. That is why I am convinced that there is a need first to single out those most burning issues of our time on which we have division, that is, the environment in which we live, the diversity of cultures, and the problem of the sovereignty of the individual. It is precisely on these three issues that we must have a dialogue for the future.

Of course, all these issues would seem to be issues involving a great deal of demagogy. Everybody loves the people, everybody loves nature, everybody loves sovereignty, everybody is against violence, etc. But nevertheless apparently our task here means that on these questions we must overcome the demagogy which we very often hear from politicians, scholars, etc. I think we will be able to do that.

Finally, where do I see the danger lying ahead. I believe that the dialogue of the future, that dialogue, which will indeed make us into a unified world and fit us into that single world, can only exist on the basis of relations among people and not relations between bureaucrats. We should not hand over that sacred thing into the hands of a universal bureaucracy although I believe that this United Nations must be a strong organization and must become a world government.

Mr. Picco: Perhaps I can now ask Dr. Nettleford and Dr. Ramazani to help us to take the next step and front up to what is part of the conversation and dialogue, probably a part that cannot be avoided, and that is a little reflection on the so-called dichotomy between diversity and the common denominator of shared values.

________________________________________________________________ ______________

© UNESCO 2000 | www.unesco.org/dialogue2001