Mr. President, Mr. Prime Minister
Distinguished Presidents
Director General of UNESCO
Honourable guests

Allow me at first to convey to you all the greetings of the United Nations Secretary General. The United Nations has recently suffered much by the hand of those who are pursuing a clash of civilizations. Dialogue among Civilizations is the long term answer to terrorism.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

When years ago I was asked by Kofi Annan to pursue this idea of a dialogue among civilizations I encountered different reactions. Some discarded it outright by defining it a “luxury item” which they could not afford for other more important matters had to be attended to. Other belittled it as one of the ideas whose time had not yet come.

This in itself proved to me that the case for a real dialogue has not yet been made successfully. Yes, many around the world heeded the call in Academia, in some religious quarters, in some political quarters as well. But clearly the critical mass has not yet been reached. 

The issue is that as we in this hall know well, we do not have to convince ourselves. We are here because we believe in the relevance of a dialogue. I would submit that we have to take the issue of dialogue among civilization at a new level of political discourse.

Can dialogue become a real tool of international diplomacy? Can it become the ideological answer to what I call strategic terrorism? 

Much of the confrontations we have seen in this world is based on the perception of ones own identity. To a large extent it would seem that many believe to have one identity only and once that is spelled out it becomes the element of separation from the others. Entire ideologies and literatures are based on the misconception that each of us is the depositary and the carrier of one identity. But is it not more correct and true that all of us possess several identities?

Many years ago, in the Middle East, in circumstances which I hope would never be replicated for anybody, I found myself blindfolded and constrained, so to speak. Transported like a package by car and by foot, I ended up in a location to this day unknown to me. I was whisked into what I perceived to be a house or a building of sort and I was made to sit. As my blindfold was lifted I saw in front of me two masked men. 

It was probably a correct assumption that their identities may have somewhat been different from mine. Surely we had not gone to the same schools, likely we had not shared the same readings nor the same places of worship. Our outlook on life was surely quite different.

One of my first sentences was to ask them if they had any children. They showed a degree of surprise, for the business at hand had not much to do with family matters nor we had had any previous acquaintance.

Indeed our respective main identities were different; indeed anybody could have come out with a long list of what separated us. But what good could that have done?

If indeed as it turned out we both had children that made us both parents:
We had one identity at least in common. That is from where we started. That was the beginning of the liberation of the Western Hostages in Lebanon.

Multiple identities is not only a reality but it is a useful reality that sometimes we forget. If we look at what we have in common perhaps it would be easier to get over what we have which is not in common.

Some political cultures seem to emphasize what separates us as if we all had one identity only. To recognize how many identities we have is the first step. The multiple identities allow us to find a common ground with almost anybody; no matter how small that common ground is it is surely more that none at all.

The myth of single identities has to be revisited; it is exactly this myth at the origin of so many social and political theories. How can we accept to let our personality being monopolized by one identity? How can I be a member of my own family and nothing else? What about my region, my country, my profession, my artistic inclination, my culture, my status as father and son at the same time, as husband and most of all as member of the human family? Why do I have to choose when I can be all that at the same time because all those are the identities that make me what I am.?

Indeed on the other hand there is an identity which is mine alone and nobody else’s in the entire world for all of us are individually unique. If we were to choose only one identity and paradoxically we chose our individual uniqueness does it follow then we should go to war with each other because we are also unique and different from each other?

Thus I feel uneasy to speak of dialogue among groups defined by their religious identities or even cultural or national lines of divide. Because that dialogue starts from the very concept of what divide us instead of what unites us. 

And more that that it seems to me that within each of the groups we define as the actor of that dialogue religious, cultural, ethnic, there are good people and bad people; our being good and bad is not usually determined by our identity but by our choice of interpreting our identities.
If dialogue is for the purpose of enlarging the common denominator then I may have more in common with a good man ten thousand miles away then with my immediate neighbour, perhaps not such a good man.

Some may well say some political and religious traditions are inclined to interpret diversity as a threat or in any case in some negative sense. Some may say that exclusion is inherent in some religions and in political ideologies. But I would like to ask: is this an artificial divide by focusing on the differences across religious, ethnic or cultural lines. By doing this we may even risk to increase the gaps. 

It seems to me that the real divide across which a dialogue has to be pursued most of all is between those who perceive diversity as a threat and those who perceive diversity as an element of betterment and growth. We will surely find both kind of people in every religion and political affiliation. 

This is the divide across which the dialogue is to be pursued in my view.

I never found any difficulty in communication simply because my interlocutor was of a different religion, or ethnic group or civilization. The difficulty came when he or she perceived that our being different meant we were enemies. 

The reason of course while it is easier to speak of dialogue across religious or civilizational divides is because that is the way we have been dividing the world ourselves already. We have already created a mind set for ourselves that look at this divides as a problem or a potential problem.

Boundaries are first set in the mind and then in society. The nation’s boundaries have at least partially been overcome by alliances and open trade, by common endeavours and jointly tackling global challenges. How can we change the mind set that looks at the religious, civilizational an ethnical boundaries as separations?

Working together it seems to me that common endeavours are the answer. In the peak of the troubles in Northern Ireland, a man who would eventually be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize began to take young men from both religious communities and put them together to re-construct, I mean to physically rebuild, the houses that bombs had destroyed. Working together was the first step that allowed John Hume to eventually bring the parties to an agreement. Common endeavours to be carried out irrespective of the sense of identity of each participant is the path to real dialogue. Working together from the grass roots up and from the top down is the practical answer to the mind set that makes us perceive diversity as a threat.

It will be said that one cannot work together until the dialogue has been successful. I beg to differ. There will always be a few at least ready to go first where other have not gone and thus begin a common endeavour when the conditions do not seem ripe. They may encounter obstacles of all kind and they may even be struck down by those who need an enemy to be. But other will then follow and pursue the common endeavour further. They are the vanguard, the commandos, and the heroes who are fully aware that nothing impacts our world as deeds: no theory or word, no preacher or scholar would be enough to raise the hope and inspire others and thus write the future like our heroes, like our heroes of dialogue. Sergio di Mello was such a hero. 

They wait not for the conditions to be perfect, for the times to be ripe; when it comes to lead and carry the hearts and mind, the action of the few has more value than the reflection and caution of the many.

We will not win the battle for the hearts and mind of our youth or those who feel unjustly treated by theories alone. We will only win the battle by our deeds.

The world of the balance of powers has been at least partially superseded by a world of asymmetry. In such a world even the small may affect the large in so many dimensions.

Only few decades ago a financial crisis in a small country would not have affected the entire world markets; a contagious disease within one human being would not have created a world epidemic and a forgotten failed state would not have provoked a global security crisis. By now all this has happened.

Many would not like to hear this but we are all very vulnerable. All this is daily routine for us now because we live in an asymmetric world. The might of the mighty is no longer sufficient, the wealth of the rich may not be enough, and the knowledge of the learned may need to spread further to avoid the world from going mad.

Endeavours and projects that embrace people across divides of all kind are the recipe. No matter how hopeless, no matter how hard, no matter how small our practical effort is. As long as we make some who think to be different work together.

Perhaps we need a new manifesto. A manifesto of reconciliation an antiterrorist manifesto if you like. A manifesto to oppose the call to arrogance and murder by those who seem to need an enemy at all costs.

If the key indicator for a successful democracy is the respect for minorities, the key indicator for the success of a dialogue is the lack of arrogance by the parties involved, In this case arrogance to believe to be in the sole possession of the truth.

Indeed many years ago in a place that could have been anyplace, I listen to a conversation between an elderly gentleman and a young boy. The old man was teaching the bits of wisdom of life he had acquired over so many years. He warned the young boy that the greatest enemy at times may come from within his own family and with it the greatest pain. 

There are those in today’s political scene, groups or individuals, who appear to search for an enemy as a requirement to define who they are. The need for an enemy is proper of those who perceive diversity as a threat. They need an enemy because they have not much positive to offer - I would submit; they need and enemy because without it they would be unable to project a vision that many would follow. 

Let me end by quoting a passage from “Crossing the Divide, Dialogue among Civilizations”:

“Whether we are moving towards a clash of civilizations or towards greater human solidarity against those who murder innocents only because they are different, is really up to each of us. The choice is neither predetermined nor unavoidable; that is why each of us individually chooses and takes personal responsibility. We can let the small minority take over and throw us into continuous conflict at all levels; or we can enlarge the coalition of those who respect each other’s dignity and common humanity, who value the life of our family members as well as the life of our fellow human beings on the other side of the planet. We are the majority; we come from all corners of the world; we are the builders; all can see our work where peace prevails. We believe in the greatness of the human spirit because we offer positive values and need no enemy to sustain our beliefs.

Our children can do better than we. They can go where we have not gone, they can achieve what we have failed to do, and they can discover what we do not even know exists. They can give new forms to human solidarity and enlarge the common denominator of human values. Many will cross the divide – over and over again, until there will be many more bridges and no more walls.”