STATEMENT BY

 

H.E.MR.SRGJAN KERIM, PhD

PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE OF THE REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

TO THE UNITED NATIONS

on

United Nations Year of Dialogue among Civilizations

(item 25)

 

New York, 8 November 2001

 

Mr. Chairman,

 

The decision of the GA contained in its resolution 53/22 of November 4th, 1998 to proclaim the year 2001 as the Year of Dialogue among Civilizations was, undoubtedly, wise and most appropriate and, as such, well received across the world.

 

It is not only the conceptual underpinnings of the dialogue among civilizations, embodied in diversity and tolerance, which justify the presence of this topic on the UN agenda; it is more than that. It is the need to mark the beginning of the third millennium of mankind with a “great cross-breeding of cultures,” to use an expression from the charter of the Academie Universelle des Cultures in Paris, adopted upon the constitution of this multinational organization of artists and scientists a few years ago.

 

Being in New York, one does not need to undertake a journey in order to convince oneself of this true and visionary assessment. Here in New York, we see a reorientation of the melting pot concept in practice. Perhaps, it would be better to say that a cross-breeding of cultures exists: different cultures living shoulder-to-shoulder. Some ethnic groups have merged with one another, others have kept themselves separate (living in different districts, speaking different languages and following different traditions) and all come together on the basis of some common laws and a common, lingua franca (English) I would call it—gathered from all over the world.

 

Without speculating about the genuine intentions of the perpetrators of the assault on September 11th in lower Manhattan, one might even think of an attempt to challenge these values and way of life. Watching the replaying of the cataclysmic pictures of the collapsing World Trade Center Towers, one could ask, where is civilization heading? Will barbaric acts of terrorism provoke the opening of new gaps among people, nations, and religions, or widen already existing gaps?

 

In order to prevent dissension within the worldwide front, one thing must be clear in the decisive battle against terrorism: no religion, people or region should be targeted. However, the main goal must not be compromised: to subdue international terrorism.

 

The Secretary-General aptly pointed out in his report “…a dialogue among civilizations is not only a necessary answer to terrorism—it is in many ways its nemesis. Where terrorism seeks to divide humanity, the dialogue aims to unite us; …”  

 

On the other hand, we have to be aware of the fact that the world we live in is far from perfect. Some people believe there is a struggle between globalization and cultural diversity. Other people fear they will be left behind in this great global process. These fears are not groundless.

 

Recognizing these fears, political leaders as well as international organizations—including the UN—have realized that we cannot hand over the world to market forces alone. Recently addressing the General Conference of UNESCO, French President Chirac said, “La réponse à la mondialisation-laminoir des cultures, c’est la diversité culturelle. Une diversité fondée sur la conviction que chaque peuple a un message singulier à délivrer au monde, que chaque peuple peut enrichir l’humanité en apportant sa part de beauté et de vérité.”

 

With such an approach in mind we would like to emphasize that globalization cannot be separated from democracy, the rule of law, respect of human rights, individual liberty, social justice, respect for different groups and communities, and respect for cultural identities.

 

This implies that for the globalization to be governed by global principles of ethics and democracy, it is necessary to follow a course that leads to no other destination but worldwide progress. It is, therefore, the duty of political leaders and all other people in positions of power to civilize the process of globalization, to ensure that the interests of people—of all people—prevail.

 

Mr. Chairman,

 

Examples are the best means of conveying a message in a convincing manner. In terms of the scope of the dialogue among civilizations and its worldwide dimensions, allow me to mention some examples.

 

Is it not a common challenge for all societies, regardless of their religious background, cultural roots, or national traditions, to generate sufficient opportunities for all young people to obtain decent and productive work in conditions of freedom, equity, security and human dignity?

 

Let me also mention another example; a genuine dialogue between cultures and faiths could help the protagonists find their way to peace and a prosperous future. Who doesn’t remember the bitter experience of the interethnic clashes in the Balkans during the last ten years? Ethnic cleansing or the destruction of religious sites were integral parts of these conflicts. Unfortunately, we have been witnessing them in other parts of the world, also.

 

These are serious warnings. Even in the age of highly sophisticated information and communication technologies, mankind is suffering from the same reminiscent atavisms of the past, typical of the medieval times or the Crusades. In terms of mankind’s history, there is also the other side of the coin. During the period between the 8th and the 13th century, Jews, Christians and Muslims participated in flourishing examples of scientific, artistic, medical and philosophical endeavors.

 

It is of particular importance to stress that the dialogue among civilizations must play crucial role in overcoming every type of fundamentalism and integralism, as the two most obvious societal forms of intolerance, regardless of their religious roots and backgrounds.

 

Mr. Chairman,

 

My Country, The Republic of Macedonia, being a unique incarnation of the turbulent and manifold history of the region of southeastern Europe where Hellenic culture and Roman civilization left numerous traces, where during the ages Christianity and Islam fought for predominance, where Slavic, Greek, Albanian, Roman, Jewish and Turkish ethnicities have interwoven, had more than a good reason to be among the co-sponsoring countries as far as Resolution 55/23 on UN Year of Dialogue among Civilizations, adopted by the GA on November 13,2000., is concerned.

 

We welcome the activities undertaken by the personal representative of the Secretary-General, Mr. Giandomenico Picco, working together with the Director General of the UNESCO, along with a number of Governments and eminent persons, various civil society organizations and representatives around the world, in order to further the dialogue among the civilizations, through a series of organized manifestations, projects, gatherings, workshops, conferences and other events.

 

The Salzburg Dialogue among Civilizations—a new paradigm of international relations to be continued next year; the Vilnius Conference and Declaration on Dialogue among Civilizations adopted on that occasion; the International Conference on the Dialogue of Civilizations in Tokyo and Kyoto; the International Seminar and the Teheran Declaration on Environment, Religion and Culture adopted on that occasion; the 21st Century Forum—Symposium on Dialogue among Civilizations held in Beijing are a few examples.

 

Mr. Chairman, in accordance with the Programme of Action within the Global Agenda for Dialogue among Civilizations envisaged in the draft-resolution A/56/L.3, the President of the Republic of Macedonia, H.E. Mr. Boris Trajkovski intends to undertake an initiative to host a conference or seminar on dialogue among civilizations, in the framework of UNESCO, in the year 2002 in Ohrid.    

 

In view of the follow-up measures, as well as the prospect of dialogue among civilizations, we must give special attention to the work of the Group of Eminent Persons, established by the Secretary General, which has completed its work. The authors have embarked upon a daring mission focusing on the elaboration of a new paradigm of international relations.  

 

The reassessment of the concept of enemy, alignments based on issues rather than ideology, the concept of stakeholders, and, finally, the decision-making system based on equal footing and individual responsibilities, are certainly crystallizing this new paradigm. Not only does the intellectual endeavor of the Group deserve our full respect, but we also respect it for making the dialogue a more than attractive field of discussion.

 

The basic values and principles of a multipolar and interdependent world differ substantially from the one in which the organization of the UN was created. A sole implementation of the concept of enemy, or the alignments based on issues according to the new paradigm, would require a reconsideration of the UN Charter, or, at least, of some of its basic principles.

 

 To conduct a dialogue along these lines would not only engender the new paradigm of international relations, but would also imply the breaking of a taboo when it comes to the grassroots of our organization. On the other hand, one could rightly pose the question, are we really eager to make the UN a permissive organization, bearing in mind the clear commitment of the Millennium Summit Declaration to the principles which have proved timeless and universal?

 

In terms of the goal of dialogue, the ongoing discussion concerning the equitable representation on, and increase in the membership of, the Security Council, may be the most convincing landmark. It shows that building something together takes time, requires stamina, determination, courage and wisdom, thus becoming at the end of the day the real form of dialogue.

 

Let me conclude, Mr. Chairman, by stressing that, eventually, we all have to strive for inner courage and wisdom to help design an inclusive world, in which diversity is no longer perceived as a threat, but as an element of progress, in the growth of our civilization.       

 

Thank you.