TRIGLAV GATHERING, CAMBRIDGE, MA, 27-28 March 2010

ETHICS AND DIALOGUE IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

                                      AGENDA AND PROGRAMME OF WORK

Given the circumstances of its creation, the Triglav Circle is keenly aware of the political philosophy and international law provisions embodied in the Charter of the United Nations, a treaty that its ratifying members have the obligation to respect. Central to the political doctrine expressed in the Charter is the cooperation of its members, treated as formally equal, to achieve three related objectives: the maintenance of peace and security, the promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the fostering of economic and social progress. Such cooperation of sovereign states is framed by legal provisions, primus inter pares being the prohibition “from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state” (Article 2 (4) of the Charter). Force may however be used for self-defense and when the Security Council – a body where states are not equal- decides that a particular  situation is a threat to international peace and security. 

Thus, cooperation, negotiation, diplomacy and therefore conversation and dialogue are modes of operation essential to the United Nations and to the many intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations that are related to it. The Triglav Circle, for its part, operating on the judgment that this international discourse was often excessively dominated by the school of thought known as Realism, has sought to enrich it with philosophical and spiritual perspectives.  This effort has taken a variety of forms, including restoring the “true” meaning of “realism” as comprising recognition of the capacity of human beings for empathy and generosity, or insisting on the limitations of instrumental rationality and on the need for recourse to the different sources of knowledge and comprehension of human affairs.           

The need for a dialogue is felt when the risk of a conflict – an armed conflict- looms on the horizon, or is actually there. Dialogue implies that two or more separate entities, normally states, have a serious different. The dialogue of civilizations, and subsequent initiatives, was initiated to try to avoid a deepening of the problems separating the Western world from the Islamic world. It was, and still is, a response to the “clash of civilizations” predicted by Huntington.  A discussion on the desired “dialogical civilization” ought to start with some clarification on the nature of these problems between the Western World and Islam. Problems for whom? Of what nature? What are the perceived threats? Why is Iran in particular a “problem”? Also, what were the objectives of President Kattami when he launched the dialogue of civilizations.