Address by Excellency Leonid Kuchma,
President of Ukraine,
at the International Conference
“Dialogue among Civilisations”

Your Excellencies,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

First of all let me express my sincere gratitude to the organisers of the Conference “Dialog among Civilisations”.

            In my opinion it is rather symbolic that this important and extraordinary forum is taking place in the charming atmosphere of the ancient Vilnius where different cultures, religions and traditions have interacted and coexisted peacefully for hundreds of years.

            I am very pleased that the Conference is held under the patronage of my good friends Presidents Valdas Adamkus and Alexander Kwasniewski as well as the UNESCO Director General Koichiro Matsuura. Their addresses have already created a high intellectual atmosphere in this hall. I am convinced it will provide a stimulus for real breakthrough in further discussions on dialog among civilisations.

            I believe that the objective of this forum is to define the most efficient forms of interaction between civilisations in modern world and to separate the truth from the stereotypes.

            Two options for such an interaction – catastrophic and optimistic – have been the most common ones. The catastrophic option is represented by a well-known theory of collision by Huntington and the optimistic option – by the teary of victory of liberal values and ‘the end of history’ by Fukuyama.

            I think that the truth is to be found somewhere in the middle.

            Can we regard the collision of civilisations as an inevitable factor of modern history? I think we lack sufficient grounds to say yes.

            Human history is full of instructive examples of mutual penetration, cultural and historic enrichment.

            Let us ask whether the West or the Western Orthodox civilisations would be proud of their intellectual heritage if the Middle Age Europe had not been enriched with accomplishments of other cultures in mathematics, astronomy, medicine, architecture, philosophy and many other areas.

            I believe the key is not in attempting to thrust one’s own outlook, but in perceiving the values of other civilisations.

            Undoubtedly, it does not mean that we have to turn a blind eye on the serve violations of human rights, justifying them by local traditions.

            But we ought to see something else: obliteration of cultural and religious peculiarities of any nation can result in extremely serious consequences.

            Certain danger also lies in spreading simplified ideas about the modern process of globalisation.

            One may sometimes get an impression that the revolution in the area of communication, the development of Internet mean, first of all, the wider spread of ideological and cultural influence of the West and not the whole West but the small group of countries that possess technological resources.

            But the fast spread of technological ideas does not mean that only one civilisation holds the monopoly ownership on them as well as that they are more eligible than the others are.

            Many people associate democracy, pluralism and tolerance with western cultures.

            But just two and a half centuries ago democratic ideas were only pertain to a small group of philosophers and did not have any influence on actual state policy in the feudal and monarchical Europe.

            At the same time a well-known politologist and economist Amartya San described in his work ‘Democracy as a universal value’ the laws of Indian Emperor Ashoki written in the third century BC. Those laws depict the Emperor as the supporter of tolerance, pluralism and protection of minority rights.

            Few people know that the Ukrainian Kozak State was an example of a democratic country in the 17 century. The first Ukrainian Constitution was adopted in a democratic manner in 1710 at the General Meeting of Zaporizhya Forces headed by Hetman Pylyp Orlyk. In order to properly asses this fact I can remind you that the American Constitution was adopted 77 later and the French Constitution – 81 years later.

            That is why I believe that one cannot draw demarcation lines between the civilisations on the basis of ‘collision theory’.

            In this context I would like to touch upon the present situation in Europe. It is not because the European affairs are of greater importance that the developments on other continents. It is just that after dozens of years of ideological confrontation the prospects for unification have caused a great deal of expectations among the European nations that one can not but notice the attempts to draw the old demarcation lines on whatever grounds.

            Dividing Europe into ‘Latin’ and ‘Byzantine’ parts where only one is perceived as capable of absorbing European values would be most dangerous. Such a division along the former borders of the long disappeared empires would forever cut half of Europe from modern integration processes.

The question arises: does it make any sense to impose artificial limits on the expansion of the European Union by stopping it at the western border of Ukraine? What will be the moral grounds and consequences of such a decision? Who will play the role of a supreme judge and an interpreter of the truth for the European nations?

Ronald Reagan used to say that demarcation lines do not exist on the maps but in the minds of the people.

It means that certain boundaries go through any society and even through our consciousness. Demons of the past raise their heads in western democracies in the form of extreme nationalism, xenophobia, racism and anti-Semitism.

Problems of the countries in transition do not lie in the deficit of democracy that is common everywhere, but they are lying in complicated problems that have to be resolved. The countries that used to exist under totalitarism are not renewing their democracies but actually build them again from the very scratch.

Generally speaking the forced influence of any values is as counter-productive as the export of revolution in the past.

I can not but agree with the ideas of French politician Hubert Vedrine who correctly pointed out that democracy had always been the result of the process parallel to social, economic and cultural transformations and had never been parallel to the one imposed from outside or spontaneous metamorphosis. He thought it was impossible to immediately demand from the new democracies the level of democratic development that could be reached in a couple of stages.

That is why post socialists and first of all ex-Soviet European countries need from the West caring support, assistance and understanding of the complexity of their road to Europe.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

International dialog among civilisations is not possible without the dialog inside civilisations, specific countries and social groups.

As Mr. Matsuura has pointed out in one of his latest addresses, the real dialog begins at home.

Despite economic problems during the years of its independence Ukraine managed to build a pluralistic multicultural society where different nationalities and religions coexist peacefully.

Our country unlike many ex-Soviet countries has managed to avoid conflicts and bloodshed between different ethnic groups and confessions.

History has proved groundless all the forecasts that Ukraine would split into the Western and Eastern parts.

What makes the Ukrainian experience valuable in the context of the dialog among civilisations?

Firstly, Ukraine can serve as a model of harmonic coexistence of numerous national minorities in a Unitarian state. Today my country is a common home to 128 big and small nations.

Secondly, it is the experience of repatriation of the nations that have been forced to leave their historical motherland in the times of totalitarianism.

First of all I mean the Crimean Tatars.

More than 250 000 representatives of that nation have come back since independence.

In order to asses this achievement let us recall how much effort have been made by the world community to return Albanians to Kosovo.

Ukraine is alone in carrying the Bergen of accommodating the Crimean Tatars and helping them to adapt to new conditions.

To some extent we observe a unique phenomenon where the state authorities to restore historical justice consciously involve another culture, Islamic in this case, in internal civilisation dialog.

Thirdly, a complicated and in itself unique dialog between different confessions is currently under way in Ukraine.

Mutual enrichment of different confessions in Ukraine took place many times. The orthodox Kyiv-Mohyla Collegium actively and intentionally used accomplishments of the Catholic theology in the 17^th century.

More than 105 various religious unions work in my country today. Dialogue between them is conducted within the framework of the All-Ukrainian Union of Churches and Religious Organisations. This forum was set up for the purpose of resolving the disputes by joining the efforts of the state and the religious communities.

We also count on the support of international religious unions and their leaders in carrying out the dialog between confessions.

In particular we have high hopes on the visit of John Paul 2 to Ukraine that is scheduled for June.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

In conclusion let me say that I am confident that the dialog among civilisations should become a permanent attribute of international life.

From the moral point of view we cannot wait until conflicts and confrontation make us look for a common understanding. Capabilities to run a dialog instead of monologue, the ability to listen and consider a different position have always been the shortest way to mutual understanding.

Because, to a larger extent, there is only one civilisation on this planet, and we call it humankind.

Thank you.