Home • Publications • Projects • La Trobe IR • Journal • Conferences • Lectures & Papers • Profile • Resources • Search • Contact

Peace and Dialogue in the Plural Society: Common Values and Responsibilities

Address by Joseph Camilleri delivered at the Conference organised by the Australian Intercultural Society, St Columban's Mission Centre and Journalist and Writers Association in March 2002

It is indeed a privilege to participate in this important Conference, which is dialogue at work. Despite substantial progress over recent decades in shaping a multicultural Australia, inter-religious, inter-cultural dialogue in this country remains poorly developed.

Our relations with our Muslim neighbours could be better than they are, so could our relations with Muslim communities within the country. I need hardly mention the word 'refugee' or 'asylum seeker'. It is worth reflecting in this context on how differently we treated some years ago the much larger intake of Vietnamese boat people compared to the much smaller number of predominantly Muslim asylum seekers of recent times. This surely tells us something of the current state of dialogue, at least in this corner of the world.

Dialogue has become a fashionable word. There is hardly anyone in public life who would in principle be opposed to inter-cultural or inter-religious dialogue, or to what is  now sometimes referred to as the 'dialogue of civilisations'. Last year the United Nations formally recognised the importance of such dialogue and devoted the year to its active pursuit.  As previous speakers at this Conference have suggested, there are many elements to dialogue that need careful consideration.  Often people emphasise the need to seek common ground and propose dialogue as a way of doing this. There is much to be said for this approach. Dialogue can also be a way of reconciling differences, or reaching compromises.

Let me put things a little differently. Let me suggest that dialogue is not first and foremost about common ground or commonality, but about difference. Dialogue is an affirmation of difference. If difference did not exist we would need to invent it. The world as we have it can survive only in the face of difference. It is difficult to imagine a world which is philosophically, religiously, politically or culturally uniform. This would indeed be a dreary, perhaps dangerous world. Such a radical perspective should, I submit, inspire the approach to dialogue.

Dialogue is, of course, a means to an end, but also an end in itself. Dialogue is instrumental but also purposeful. It reflects the very meaning of life. It is not simply a question of sitting around a table, taking part in a conference and having a pleasant conversation. Not that conversations cannot be pleasant and constructive, but there is more to dialogue than exchange of words, important as words may be.

Let me in the few minutes at my disposal suggest two critical functions or purposes of dialogue. First, we need to anchor dialogue in the conditions of human existence. If dialogue is to be dynamic it cannot afford to preoccupy itself entirely with abstractions. It must deal with the concrete, with the material conditions of everyday life, as we know them and experience them in the contemporary world. Dialogue has to analyse and come to terms with, why things are as they are.

We have, first and foremost, to inquire into the contemporary structures of violence. If we survey the world today, we see weapons of mass destruction that are as lethal as they have ever been. The end of the Cold War has not meant an end to reliance of great powers on weapons of mass destruction. On the contrary, we seem poised on the brink of a new and more frightening arms race.

The end of the Cold War has not meant a reduction in major military spending in the places where it counts. Indeed so far as the world's only superpower is concerned we have seen in recent years the largest increase in military spending since the Second World War. This should not surprise us. Many of those who are making the key decisions are themselves steeped in the logic of the Cold War - in the polarization of the world between 'us' and 'them'. It used to be communists and anti-communists, it is now terrorists and anti-terrorists.

If after the end of the Cold War, the pre-eminent military powers remain as committed as ever to weapons of mass destruction, it surely cannot be because they are stupid. It must be, must it not, because there is real value in such weapons. It should then come as no surprise to us that ten years ago we were talking of five nuclear powers whilst now we are on the verge of ten nuclear powers with more to follow.

Dialogue, if it is to be a serious life-affirming conversation, must deal with the most difficult questions that go to the heart of human dignity, human survival, indeed the sacredness of all life. Why must we do this, you may ask. We must no doubt take issue with those who argue for the impending clashes of civilisations. However, when we think of the western world which, let's be honest, is more secular than Christian, we cannot escape the serious tensions that have arisen with the Islamic world. There is no use saying that they do not exist. We all have much work to do in our respective communities. In a sense, Christians and Muslims speaking with each other is the easy part; there is much else that requires attention.

Let me draw attention to one particular aspect. The political world in which we live is no longer just the world of States. Many actors other than States are assuming increasing importance, while States are possibly on the decline. Even the most powerful states often act on behalf of interests other than those of states. How, then, are the diverse actors that comprise the contemporary world, including corporations, global agencies and institutions and nongovernmental organisations of various kinds, going to be integrated into a process of dialogue?

I now turn to a second, equally important function of dialogue. If the dialogue is to bring together the world's religious or spiritual traditions, we have to ask what kind of spirituality is possible or appropriate. What we are striving for, is, I believe, a global spirituality, that is equal to today's human predicament - a spirituality that appeals to our collective conscience, one which begins to address the challenges to human security posed by globalisation, the challenges which the people of the United States discovered to their cost on September 11.  I am thinking of a global spirituality that can help us reinterpret the meaning and content of citizenship. Such a global spirituality cannot be imposed from on high. It must be negotiated through a process of continuing dialogue. In such a negotiation we need to rethink our political, economic and social institutions. In particular we need to reimagine the way in which human affairs are organised - our national, regional institutions and global institutions. A global spirituality is needed o begin to address citizenship and governance in the context of dialogue. Understood in this sense, the dialogue religions, cultures and civilisations is integral to human destiny, to any hope of dealing with the most pressing challenges of a rapidly globalising world. The challenges ahead are immense, but so are the possibilities.