Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Hans Köchler

Chairman, Department of Philosophy, University of Innsbruck, Austria

Life Fellow, International Academy for Philosophy (IAPh)

President of the International Progress Organization (I.P.O.)

Civilizational Dialogue versus Civilizational Coercion:

The Risks of Unilateralism and the Virtues of Co-existence

Statement delivered at the Second International Forum on

 Globalization and Dialogue between Civilizations

 organized by

 Dialogue Eurasia Platform

 Tbilisi, Republic of Georgia, 24 May 2007

I.P.O. Online Publications

International Progress Organization, A-1010 Vienna, Kohlmarkt 4, Austria

 © International Progress Organization, 2007

I

Since the first conference on “Globalization and Dialogue between Civilizations” in 2004 the threats about which the Tbilisi Forum alerted the international community have become more obvious and acute at the same time. The course of events has indeed demonstrated the danger of the paradigm of the “clash of civilizations” becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy (of which I had warned at the 2004 meeting).[1]

In the absence of a global balance of power, it is particularly tempting for the “beneficiary” of this (though temporary) constellation to exploit the issue of “civilization” in order to put his lasting imprint on the international system. Almost unavoidably, this strategy antagonizes those countries and peoples who are keen on preserving their distinct civilizational and cultural identities – and particularly so under the conditions of the present globalized environment. “Globality,” having evolved so rapidly in all areas of life, and not only in the economic domain, has brought about a “pressure to conform,” implying a trend towards uniformity in all fields of socio-cultural identity, leaving no chance of a “bucolic retreat,” whether in the geographical or metaphorical sense.

History teaches us that civilizational self-perception (identity) defines, to varying degrees, a nation’s role in its interaction with other states;[2] under specific historical circumstances, it may also be the driving force behind a nation’s quest for power. Exactly this is the case in the actual international constellation where we witness, in almost all corners of the globe, an increase in tensions related to civilizational identity.

Since the beginning of the new millennium, arguments related to “civilization” have been increasingly used to legitimize the use of force outside the framework of the United Nations Organization.[3] The project of a “New Middle East” testifies to that tendency. After the end of the East-West conflict, the “civilizational paradigm” has indeed become a basic element of international relations discourse, replacing the ideological rivalry of the Cold War era by an antagonistic discourse on civilizational values.

It is not surprising that in the absence of a balance of power the dominant players tend to “universalize” their civilizational self-understanding in the sense of a global mission and make it “binding” upon the rest of the world. Unavoidably, in a politically unipolar framework, the temptation to use “civilization” for the sake of old-fashioned power politics is far greater than under the conditions of a multipolar world order, which contains at least rudimentary forms of checks and balances, restraining the most powerful global actors in the advancement of their interests at the expense of the weaker states.

In the present international context, the principle of peaceful co-existence is more and more neglected; this principle is founded in the equality of all civilizations in the normative sense – something which obviously does not go along with a unipolar power constellation. The rejection, in fact negation, of the very idea of civilizational equality in the normative sense – implying the propagation of one’s particular civilization as the paradigmatic one – is thus transformed into a de facto rejection of the sovereign equality of states in terms of international law. The ongoing interventions in the Middle East – with the aim to recreate, or “reinvent,” that region’s Islamic civilization along Western notions of “modernity” – are a case in point.[4] This development has conjured up the danger of permanent confrontation along civilizational “fault lines” that cannot be contained to the Middle Eastern region and that will endanger global peace and security in the long term. The chaos, indeed tragedy, that has befallen Iraq must not be overlooked here – and should be a warning sign to all those who are honestly concerned about a lasting and sustainable order of peace.

If one intends to find a way out of the present impasse in military and political-strategic terms, one has to seriously develop an alternative to the use of civilization in the sense of the confrontational paradigm as it has originally been introduced in Bernard Lewis’ and Samuel Huntington’s discourse.[5] This alternative can definitely not lie in a broadening and intensification of military measures dressed in the guise of humanitarian interventions.[6] To the contrary, it is the hermeneutics of civilizational dialogue that alone may provide the guidelines for such a reorientation.

Mature self-understanding, i.e. the realization of the (collective) identity of a civilization, is to be considered the basic goal of “civilizational hermeneutics.”[7] Obviously, this can only be achieved by way of interaction with other civilizations on the basis of equality, not by subordination to a dominant civilization. This implies an essentially cosmopolitan outlook of each citizen’s civilizational awareness that does in no way contradict, but complement and enrich, his distinct civilizational identity. Thus, tolerance towards other civilizations is a natural accompaniment of a nation’s (people’s) civilizational identity. In terms of philosophical ethics, this implies the principle of mutuality (in the sense of mutual rights) as explained, inter alia, in Immanuel Kant’s practical philosophy.[8]

Acknowledging civilizational interdependence and the need for partnership necessitates, furthermore, the abolishing of a policy of “proselytizing by force” and its replacement by a credible doctrine of co-existence that perceives the free interchange of ideas as mutual enrichment and as an opportunity to achieve a more advanced understanding of a given civilization and culture, not as a threat to one’s civilizational identity. Only a “free and balanced flow” of cultural communication (to use an earlier phrase of UNESCO), based on the idea of equality, can lay the groundwork for genuine dialogue among civilizations – which (as we have explained elsewhere)[9] is an even greater challenge under the conditions of globalization with its tendency towards uniformity in all fields.

Vis-à-vis an emerging civilizational confrontation that may well get out of control of the existing intergovernmental institutions, the international community should seriously reconsider the merits of UNESCO’s hastily abandoned strategic program of a “New International Information and Communication Order” (which the organization had propagated during the 1980s).[10] I would like to refer here to the recommendations made by the participants of the symposion held in Nicosia, Cyprus, in October 1984 at the initiative of the International Progress Organization:

The participants stated that they are convinced “that the right to communicate of all people, everywhere, individually and collectively, is a fundamental human right enshrined in Article 19 of the Declaration of Human Rights, and which remains denied to two thirds of the world’s people;” they further recognized “that a New International Information and Communication Order is essential to the pursuit of world peace, universal freedom and human liberty, … [n]oting that the universal character of Unesco facilitates the promotion of the free exchange of information and ideas among men and nations and contributes to the avoidance of disputes and confrontation between Nations …”[11]

Accordingly, the norm of peaceful co-existence should also be upheld at the political level and it should be acknowledged that only the multilateral framework of the United Nations Organization provides the adequate mechanisms for its implementation. In our analysis, the present tendencies towards political-military unilateralism mirror the trend towards “civilizational unilateralism.” This tendency has become much more acute in a globalized environment in which the trend towards cultural syncretism has increasingly gained strength and where the dominant global actors define themselves the criteria for the “evaluation” of all civilizations that are different from their own. It cannot be denied that, at least to a considerable extent, the paradigm of the “clash of civilizations” has prepared the ideological ground for this new geopolitical approach according to which all civilizations are measured by the standards of the most powerful one and a new antagonistic discourse has taken roots particularly in East-West relations. It is to be hoped, however, that the Cold War’s East-West conflict along ideological lines will not be revived in a civilizational garb.

  II

In sharp distinction from this scenario, durable peace at the international level – within as well as between regions – can only be ensured by mutual respect among civilizations. Such an attitude alone paves the ground for sustainable forms of political and economic co-operation. Under the conditions of an increasingly globalized world (that absorbs virtually all aspects of international relations)[12] “non-interference in the internal affairs” is not only a legal norm regulating political and military relations, but also an indispensable principle for the cultural and civilizational self-realization of every nation. Unless the politically dominant powers appreciate the multidimensional nature of international society and understand the interdependence between cultural (civilizational) and political (more specifically: legal) “sovereignty,” the world is headed towards an era of prolonged conflict of which the so-called “clash of civilizations” will be the driving – or legitimizing – force on the one hand and the most visible expression on the other. (We have specifically warned of this danger at the First Tbilisi Dialogue in 2004.[13])

It is the foremost responsibility of today’s international civil society not to allow the civilizational paradigm to be used for the legitimization of the reshaping of entire civilizations by means of subjugation, including the use of armed force. The actual confrontations, that regrettably dominate events in geo-strategically vital regions of the globe such as the Middle East, in Central Asia and in Africa, must never become “civilizational wars” in the literal sense. In the metaphorical sense, however, history has witnessed numerous antagonisms (confrontations) along civilizational lines that often led to mutually beneficial, though unintended, interaction, or “cross-fertilization,” of cultures.

In particular: if the alienation between the “West” and the Muslim world is further allowed to increase – with all that this entails in terms of military threats and long-term destabilization of the global order –, Samuel Huntington’s paradigm will indeed have become a self-fulfilling prophecy.[14] I sincerely hope that it is not yet too late to reverse this course of events and that the “global war on terror” will not acquire a civilizational dimension.[15] As has been convincingly demonstrated elsewhere, such a war, apart from being an almost “metaphysical” undertaking that demonizes the “other” as the “absolute evil,” can never be won.[16]

The – regrettably escalating – conflict situation in the wider region of the Middle East – with the unresolved question of Palestine and Jerusalem at its core[17] – is an ominous sign which should alert all those who are earnestly committed to dialogue. Whether the dominant powers in our globalized world acknowledge it or not: There will never be peace on the basis of the imposition of one civilization’s world view and value system upon all the others. The final consequence of such a strategy might well be a state of global anarchy. It is to be hoped that even in the absence of a balance of power in military terms, the dominant global player(s) will realize that the virtues of co-existence far outweigh the potential benefits of civilizational coercion.

Although the unipolarity we referred to here repeatedly characterizes only a transitory phase of world history – and has definitely not brought about the (prematurely declared) “end of history”[18] –, the immediate threats to peaceful co-existence must not be taken lightly – particularly in view of the vast destructive potential mankind has amassed in terms of conventional as well as non-conventional arms. Co-existence among civilizations – as idealistic as this may sound under the present (often violent) circumstances – is the only realistic, though constantly challenged, antidote to permanent confrontation, indeed to a “war of the worlds” that would have the potential of undoing not only the achievements of particular nations with their distinct civilizational traditions and identities, but of ending the very “civilization” for which, or in the name of which, wars are being fought right before our eyes.

In view of this potential ultimate consequence, there exists simply no alternative to a policy of co-existence and multilateral action within the framework of the United Nations Organization. This assembly of states, having been established – after the conflagration of a world war – in the name of “We, the Peoples,” so far has proven to be the only universal intergovernmental structure that can provide the framework for co-operation on the basis of equality among all, states and peoples alike.