Source: UN Chronicle

Mohammad Khatami, former President of Iran and distinguished member of the Alliance of Civilizations, was interviewed on 11 September 2006 by Kaveh L. Afrasiabi, founder and Director of Global Interfaith Peace.

Kaveh Afrasiabi: After five years, how would you evaluate the follow-up to the United Nations 2001 Year of Dialogue Among Civilizations, which was initiated following your proposal?

Mohammad Khatami (left) and Kaveh L. Afrasiabi

Mohammad Khatami: Dialogue Among Civilizations was not conceived as a political project seeking immediate results. Rather, the purpose behind it has been to cause a paradigm shift away from violence, conflict, intolerance and cross-cultural misunderstandings. After its adoption, the United Nations renewed the Dialogue's agenda for another five years, and it will likely remain a UN agenda for the foreseeable future. Unfortunately, the 2001 Year of Dialogue coincided with the most horrific tragedy of September 11, which in turn securitized the global environment and triggered the war on terror, as well as the military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan-in a word, the exact opposite of what the Dialogue Among Civilizations stood for. And yet, those events at the same time reinforced the need and importance of dialogue among civilizations as an antidote. As a result, this programme received a great deal of attention, particularly by the world's intelligentsia, artists and politicians, as reflected in the appearance of dozens of (research) centres, numerous books and academic chairs on dialogue among civilizations.

I am personally convinced that the human species seeks peace and harmony, and that there is an inner drive away from tension and violence that fuels the dialogue among civilizations, as an effort to introduce people to other cultures and discover their common elements as an important prerequisite for world peace. I am hopeful that with the establishment of an international centre on dialogue among civilizations in Geneva, we can pursue this noble objective even better with the participation of world's thinkers.

KA: What is the purpose and objective of the "Alliance of Civilizations"?

MK: The idea was first proposed by the Prime Ministers of Spain and Turkey and was endorsed by Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who has selected an 18-member "group of notables" to design a plan for action. So far, we have had four meetings-in Spain, Qatar, Senegal and most recently in New York-and a final report is due at the next meeting in Turkey in November 2006. A decision will then be made as to how to continue the effort from within the UN system. Discussions have been very fruitful, covering a wide variety of subjects, including how to promote the culture of peace among the world's civilizations, how to fight terrorism to end injustice and discrimination in the world, and how to have an action plan that would address these issues through proper education. We need spirited dialogue on all these issues, such as how poverty and inequality breeds violence. I have proposed the creation of a fund to pursue the objectives of the Alliance Among Civilizations, not as an intergovernmental agenda but rather as a government-assisted, yet independent, programme focusing on world peace.

KA: As a Muslim thinker, what do you think are the biggest challenges confronting the relations between the Muslim world and the West?

MK: The most important obstacle is a historical mutual suspicion and misunderstanding, which can be traced to the crusades and the legacy of Western colonialism. Yet, both of these were rooted in socio-economic and political factors and should not be conflated as manifestations of Islam versus Christianity. Fortunately, there is a growing recognition on the part of elites in the Muslim East and the West that we must clear the misunderstandings, by altering and reconstructing the perceptions of the West in the Islamic world and by similarly changing the Western subjectivities toward Islam. In light of the Western world's technological progress and Islam's wealth of spirituality, the two sides can complement each other and strive towards a common future based on harmony.

KA: You have spoken on the need for an "ethics of tolerance in the age of violence". Please elaborate.

MK: One of my goals is to impute new cognitive meaning to the notion of intolerance, to dissect and understand it better, as a prerequisite for our ethics of tolerance. If we are witnessing a breakdown between and among civilizations, if science and technology have not delivered us to paradise and we are experiencing a nightmare of reason, if we live in a world of semi-anarchy, if the promises of a new world order have sunk in the tragedy of modern world politics, these are partly because we have not sufficiently understood the chains of intolerance that breed disharmony, exclusivity instead of inclusivity, ignorance instead of true enlightenment, homogeneity instead of diversity.

Absolutist ideas and ideologies, which bifurcate the world into "we" versus "them" and profess absolute truth, also breed intolerance and violence. The argument that you are either with us or against us is an example of this. Another example is the struggle for power that is often pursued as a zero-sum game, causing those without power to seek it through terrorism and violence against those who have it. I have always said that insecurity leads to violence and, if we seek a peaceful world, we must understand each other and each side's sources of insecurity better. We are all humans facing various limitations. We must be cognizant of our limitations and no one should claim to possess the absolute, final truth. But once one realizes the need for the other to complement oneself and the commonalities that bind us together, then we can pursue an evolutionary path based on mutual respect, peace and non-violence. Simultaneously, an acceptable ethics of tolerance must be liberated from the totalitarian mentality or the mentality of those who misuse religion, and the message of love and peace asserted by religions and cultures of the world, in order to pursue their acts of violence. This is a horrifying logic that flouts the logic of all the prophets of God, whose ultimate messages have been the spiritual tools for sustaining humility, understanding and peace.

KA: Global violence appears to be on the rise in today's world, particularly since September 11. Are you still optimistic about the future of dialogue among civilizations?

MK: Humanity has no choice but to work collectively to address our common problems today, otherwise we risk the destruction of our species and our planet. If I am optimistic about the future of humanity and think that instead of clashing civilizations we are moving more and more toward its opposite, of dialogue among civilizations, it is because I am a firm believer in the basic goodness of human nature, which has manifested itself in the rich heritage of thousands of years of civilization. I have no doubt about the evolution of our species and the depth of our intellectual progress, which points in the direction of peace and harmony.