Distinguished participants,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Dear friends,

It is an honor to speak at this first panel discussion organized by the Alliance of Civilizations Foundation. Being the latest Macedonian initiative, this Foundation demonstrates the dedication of Macedonia to the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations and is our input to the important activities of this global organization.

We have with us today Dr. Ismail Serageldin, Director of the modern Alexandria Library - a continuation of the ancient Alexandria Library. We have had many interesting and inspirational talks with my friend.

Since the very beginning, Alexandria, and the Alexandria Library were a product of the philosophy of respect and acceptance of the knowledge coming from different cultures and civilizations. Alexandra used to be the "silicon valley" of the ancient world, a field for cultural competition among peoples in the true sense of the word – a competition among different opinions, theories and worldviews, in which the only way to win was the force of arguments.

Unfortunately, it often happens that the ones who are not capable of winning by force of arguments, to reach out for the argument of force. It is no wonder that, as a space of freedom, libraries were often attacked, and books were banned, censored and destroyed by the very enemies of freedom and diversity – the freedom of having a different opinion and to be different.

This phenomenon was given a name seventy years ago, in a text written by Albert Camus. However, the phenomenon was developed to the level of theory in a book written exactly twenty years ago – namely, the "Clash of Civilizations" by Samuel Huntington.

Today we witness that part of what Huntington predicted regarding the clash of civilizations is unfortunately being realized.

In the Middle East and Northern Africa we see ravaged societies and failed states, without any preconditions for rule of law and respect for basic human rights and the right to human dignity. Entire communities have been persecuted and expelled, and their homes and temples destroyed. Fleeing from the conflicts and the chaos part of them seek peace and security in Europe.

At the same time, we see that united Europe has more walls than divided Europe had during the Cold War. Europe is closing inside itself, and this closure breeds insecurity and xenophobia. In such circumstances, it is not even a question of whether Huntington's predictions are been realized or not. The real question is whether Huntington made a prediction or a plan.

Distinguished participants,

I believe that the reason for a clash between different civilizations should not be sought within the religions and civilizations themselves, but in the absence of dialogue between them.

"Ignorance leads to fear, fear leads to hatred, and hatred leads to violence", said the Medieval Arabic philosopher Ibn Rushd, known as Averoes. In his time, the Arabic world was a synonym for openness and dialogue. I myself often say that those who communicate become integrated, and those who fail to communicate, become ghettoized and have a tendency to invent enemies. Therefore, the only sustainable model for building peace and integration is through dialogue.

However, there are three serious challenges to the dialogue among civilizations.

The first challenge lies in the fact that there are many monologues bearing the mask of dialogue.

If, in the process of dialogue, instead of listening to our interlocutor, we try to impose our own position by raising our voice and with an aggressive approach, then we are not leading a dialogue, but a monologue.

Let me share an anecdote with you, one about Mstislav Rostropovich, one of the greatest violoncellists of the 20th century. At the beginning of his career, during a concert, he was playing in front of an exceptionally difficult audience. The louder he played, the louder the people in the audience spoke. His efforts to play louder than the noisy crowd were all in vain. Understanding that he was losing the "fight", Rostropovich changed his tactics during the concert. Instead of playing loudly, suddenly, he started playing very quietly. The result was instantaneous. In just a moment, the hall was in complete silence. The lesson he learned that day was that playing quietly can have a loud effect.

Same goes for dialogue. If you keep shouting, people will start to ignore you. If, on the other hand, you wish to be heard, then be quiet. Therefore, if our approach to dialogue is sincere, we need to listen to each other instead of trying to talk over each other.

The second challenge is the leading of dialogue for the sake of dialogue, which is in itself a means without an end.

In today's world, there are dozens of frozen conflicts that have been here for decades. In spite of numerous conferences, seminars and workshops, in spite of endless talks between opposing parties, today's generations are still unable to reach a solution and end the conflicts that their fathers and grandfathers had started. Why? Because they entered into the vicious circle of dialogue that later became counterproductive. Sometimes, such cycles of hopeless dialogues are deliberately kept alive in order not to find a solution and maintain the conflict.

Dialogue is not an aim in itself. It is quite the contrary. Dialogue is a means to unveil the truth that will liberate us from prejudice. In this way, dialogue enables us to find peace, and our task is to maintain it.

This is why, instead of having dialogue for the sake of dialogue, we need dialogue for the sake of solutions. The problem with this approach is that it demands serious dedication, great knowledge of the subject matter, and openness. This is not the easiest of roads to take. Due to this, many decide to take the easier, but wrong way.

Here we arrive to the third challenge, which is a dialogue for overcoming differences.

Chesterton said that there are two types of peacemakers in the turbulent modern world. While the first peacekeeper claims that he agrees with everyone, the second claims that everyone agrees with him. These two peacekeepers together will open many more conflicts than they are able to resolve. Why? Because they both want peace for the price of diversity and neither one of them respects the different positions of the parties in a conflict.

In today's world, there is a rather popular idea according to which, if you mix different religions and civilizations well, you will be able to name that mix "unity" and that this unity can be identified as "peace". This would be the same as trying to establish a lasting friendship between the tenants of a building by taking down the internal walls dividing the rooms and apartments.

This model of deleting differences will not only deliver the expected results, but will most probably deliver the exact opposite – create bigger animosity.

This is why, in the Balkan tradition, instead of completely bringing down walls between neighbors, we make small doors in those walls that are always open in case of need. Those are the doors for dialogue and mutual assistance in times of trouble. That is the tradition of the so-called "komshi – kapicik".

Ladies and Gentlemen,

How should the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations avoid these three traps to dialogue?

Firstly, the Alliance must learn from the positive experiences of dialogue that was not imposed from above, but stems from society itself. That kind of dialogue is a result of patiently built trust through respect and acceptance of diversity. Individual policy makers and decision makers cannot be wiser than the collective wise man named "society", that finds its own modalities and ways of functioning.

Secondly, the Alliance must work on the creation of the necessary conditions whereby all participants in the dialogue will feel equal and non-discriminated. This can be achieved in a space for freedom of expression of diversity – a space in which the right of one shall be the right of the other, but shall in turn create a responsibility for both.

Thirdly, people often tend to invent new ideas and ideals because they are afraid of the old ones. They look forward with enthusiasm because they are afraid of looking back. Instead of casting the past aside, we should learn from the positive experiences from the past in order not to repeat the same mistakes again.

We live in a world in which conflict is a rule, and peace an exception. Paradoxically, the longest periods of peace happened in a region that is associated with antagonisms. In the last 3100 years of documented history, only about 200 were years of peace. The greatest paradox is in the fact that the longest periods of peace happened right here in the Balkans. History recognizes them as Pax Romana and Pax Ottomana.

Empires fell and disappeared. However, the centuries old tradition of coexistence and respect remained. The Republic of Macedonia integrated and upgraded this experience in its democratic model of integration without assimilation into the Macedonian model of coexistence.

Unlike the West, which developed the concept of tolerance, in Macedonia and in the Balkans we apply something higher than tolerance, and that is respect of diversity.

In order to be successful, the European model should use successful societal models based on tradition and the longing of people to live a dignified life, instead of imposing new and unverified models.

Dear friends,

I believe that these three lessons will help the Alliance of Civilizations, but also similar forums and organizations such as the Nizami Ganjavi International Center, to realize the aim of their existence. The aim is to help the world get back on the tracks it fell off of. Let us substitute exclusion withacceptance, xenophobia with respect of diversity. Let us substitute monologue with dialogue among civilizations.

Our hope is in the Alliance of Civilizations because it is composed of people who, I truly believe, are dedicated to building peace through dialogue among the different; people who are convinced that it is not enough for the 21st century to be merely a century of taking notes, but to make it a century of finding solutions to all inherited and current challenges.

Thank you.