First, I would like to thank His Excellency, the President of Macedonia, and the honourable Director General of UNESCO for inviting ALECSO to this conference. I would also like to thank the Macedonian authorities for the warm welcome they have given us, and the kindness they have shown to the organisation that I represent.

Addressing the issue of cultural diversity begs the question of how we can approach it in the context of the globalisation that pervades our world today. What action should we take, in this era of new information and communications technology to prevent a range of different cultures from dying out, giving way to a single culture? How can the universal and the particularistic flourish in tandem, rather than hinder each other? It is incumbent upon us all today to address this critical and pressing question.

One can hardly forget that the sad events of 9 September 2001 at the World Trade Centre have unfortunately given a new lease of life to the notorious theory of the doomsday scenario of the clash of civilisations. The rift caused was deep indeed, and the wound inflicted, painful. The proponents of sedition lost no time in using these regrettable events. They launched into the wide-scale dissemination of a culture of hatred and exclusion of the other. They turned diversity into antagonism, otherness, into hostility. Difference became an unbridgeable gap.

Consistent with its mission, and with the support of men of good will, foremost of who is Mr. Koichiro Matsuura, Director General of UNESCO, ALECSO has never failed to make every effort to disseminate a culture of peace, freedom and active fraternity among men. In keeping with the political and ethical guidelines set for it by Arab leaders, ALECSO thus only expresses the essentially pluralistic option of Arab culture, a choice that has persisted for thousands of years.

A view of pluralism, as the mere accumulation of unrelated, diverse elements would be very wrong. Pluralism cannot result from duplication, the juxtaposition of different elements, or the mere addition of homogeneous components. On the contrary, well thought-out, the pluralism of a culture is what makes it the living and creative expression of an original synthesis of diverse elements.

Indeed, inherent in culture are unfailing grace and inadmissible generosity, and a sense of giving and welcoming, integral to its make-up. Judging from the spirit of Arab culture, for example, the latter is not so much a closed system recognisable by its objective relational structures, and by the customs and outward appearance of those who have adopted it. Rather, it is more of a tangible, unified organic entity, of a highly spiritual nature. The very fact that each part of this culture is a living culture in its own right, with an independent way of thinking and a living soul of its own, bears testimony to this.

A foundational generosity, “the spirit of Andalusia,” precisely forbids turning a culture into an exclusive doctrine or an instrument of domination. As the cult of humanity, culture enshrines respect for the other, as much as self-respect; at its very core is communication, nay communion. Failure to acknowledge this will unavoidably lead humankind to mistake the lack of culture for a culture.

What name should indeed be given to the surging aversion to Islam, often coupled with a creeping hatred of Arabs? How can we term this kind of terrorism, feeding on bad feeling all over the world, to these sermons full of hatred delivered by all sorts of fundamentalists, both religious and secular, both in the East and in the West? These fundamentalists in fact invent the very components of the “clash of civilisations,” by promoting their duplication worldwide, and, most of all, by implementing them.

Cultural diversity provides us with a substantive argument that cannot be reduced to “polite manners,” respectful of customs and civilities, and susceptible to picturesque or exotic attractions.

The promotion of cultures and intercultural dialogue requires an ethical and political stand.

Since cultural diversity does not result from geographic difference, it is not the product of racial diversity either. It does not depend on the size of the body, the colour of the eyes, the shape of the skull, or any hierarchy of cultures. Rather, it is the result of the long historical process of continuity of cultures, in which accumulation and accretion have made us what we are today.

Admittedly, since Hippocrates, the famous Greek physician and author of On Airs, Waters, and Places, an axiomatic determinism has, with varying degrees of inflexibility, ever subordinated values to facts, the ideal to the real, and culture to climatic or biological factors in the human estate. Neither Plato in his Laws, nor Aristotle in his Politics, nor Ibn Khaldoun in his Prolegomena, nor even Montesqieu in The Spirit of Laws have questioned it.

Alas, this long positivistic tradition seems to leave little room for the uncertain experience of history, the spontaneity of human liberty, and the gracious, unfathomable and ever unpredictable, creative impulse of man.

In our opinion, all cultures are equal in terms of dignity; none is naturally doomed to rejection, or deserves to die. Most of all, none is destined to inevitably dominate the others. The very existence of a culture alone is its raison d’être. It alone is enough to guarantee its right to prosper. At the end of the day, a theory of culture can be identified with a theory of humankind, and no man deserves to die.

On the international scene, this position of respect for all cultures started with legitimately claiming for itself the status of a mere cultural exception. Thanks to the efforts of UNESCO and regional educational organisations, including ALECSO, we now have a new instrument that can be used worldwide, the universal declaration on cultural diversity. This is a frame of reference designed for states, government bodies, NGOs and civil society associations. It provides the necessary regulatory principles for any action to promote the culture of peace, respect for difference and acknowledgement of the other.

ALECSO, which works at achieving the same ideal, and has the same ambition as UNESCO, is delighted at this. It is necessary today that we close ranks to confront lack of culture, ignorance and fanaticism, the breeding grounds of every form of terrorism throughout the world.

In these conditions, it is incumbent on those who uphold peace in the world to work for dialogue among cultures, religions and peoples.

Fight ignorance with knowledge, dispel darkness with light, defeat the logic of war with a logic of peace, this is, in sum the mission entrusted by Arab states to ALECSO.

In its action, ALECSO is only putting into practice the spirit that marks the entire Arab culture, irrespective of any protocol or concern for “political correctness,” and regardless of burning issues and sad current events, particularly in the Middle East. Indeed, because of both its history and structure, Arab culture is fundamentally varied and pluralistic, and has always cultivated difference.

In our opinion, rehabilitating Arab culture in other people’s eyes begins with a step forward towards the other. At any rate, we have made this choice.

Age-old Arab culture, we all know, is a synthesis, born of the marvels of Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt, patiently brought together with the mysteries of India and the Far East, the feats of the Phoenicians, the boldness of the Carthaginians, and the wisdom of the Greeks and Romans. In truth, it would be more appropriate to describe it as a melting pot of highly spiritual cultures, in which the human soul, totally purified, was able to open up to the Absolute and receive the Heavenly message.

Indeed, God chose our land as the locus of divine revelation, first Ur, then Egypt, Palestine and Arabia. Abraham, the father of all prophets, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad all had the same message: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, love your neighbour as yourself.

By adopting the Greek heritage, Arab culture has brought together the rational approach of scientific investigation and this sublime spiritual dimension, now the common heritage of humanity, which some people are now trying to misrepresent and pervert. Humanity today is indebted to this element for its scientific advance and its technological achievements. Thus, without incurring any distortion, Arab culture has been able to have a good understanding of the world, and be attuned to both men and God. Similarly, it has been able to make its voice heard in the world.

For this reason, by virtue of both its historical development and its political and ethical content, Arab culture is universal; yet it still lacks the adequate means, and the highly sophisticated tools of our time, to duly make itself known throughout the world.

This is why no one should be allowed to use cultural diversity to argue for a particularistic view of culture contrary to freedom and human rights. The theory of cultural diversity should not provide an alibi for those who, like any backward-looking people, are directly or indirectly trying to evade the demands of modernity. Neither can it be used to impose on humanity a frame of mind, and likes and dislikes.

However, universality cannot be achieved spontaneously or mechanically. It results form the action of man in his grappling with the inertia of the material world, the vicissitudes of history, and the dangers threatening some culture or other for geopolitical reasons.

Admittedly, the values of modernity, democracy and human rights, are not accessible to all in an identical manner. As an ancient eulogist of human wisdom has said, una est religio in rituum 
varietate. In this respect, a pedagogic approach is in order.

Failure to consider this aspect has caused, at least for the most part, the collapse of many modernisation attempts. Rashness can be lethal sometimes.

Nonetheless, we should be wary of realistic laziness. As we have already seen, cultural diversity cannot adapt to naturalism at theoretical level. Nor does it fit in with realism at practical level. In the first case, the result would be necessitarianism and racism, in the second we would be reduced to inaction and quietism. Only a voluntaristic approach can be salutary. It may be pedestrian and painful, but it is the path of generous and conquering faith. Humanity can indeed expect a lot of it.

Only a voluntaristic policy can meet the requirements of peace on the international scene. We certainly have a lot to do before we can learn to live together: rethink our cooperation methods and modes of exchange, reform our educational systems, disseminate a culture of tolerance and mutual understanding, make headway in the fight against poverty, and reduce economic, social and cultural disparities as much as possible.

We must say loud and clear that globalisation is liable to change. It never manifests itself as a destiny or an inescapable fate. It is, on the contrary, a dynamic process and a historical moment in the general evolution of humanity. It is to be apprehended as a way to recreate our world, and change our common abode. For this reason, it cannot be foisted on people. Nor can it be improvised.

What is required is a thoroughgoing, consistent approach, which closely binds together the cultural, intellectual, spiritual and political dimensions. The success of such an undertaking depends in the final analysis on the actual improvement of living conditions on a daily basis. Indeed, people have no reason to entertain lofty thoughts if they have to lead a low – and often very low – life. 

Cultures cannot engage in dialogue with each other, and get to know and recognise one another, without sustained attention being given to teaching languages and the humanities. Similar emphasis should be laid on the human sciences, comparative religious studies, and a re-reading and re-writing of one another’s history. This will help foster open mindedness, discernment and aesthetic and moral sense among the rising generations, thus providing them with the best bulwarks against fanaticism and terrorism.

As long as our schools are the breeding ground of our future, educational reform will be a moral imperative and political duty that no one can evade.