Following is the text of Secretary-General Kofi Annan’s address to Seton Hall University’s School of Diplomacy and International Relations in South Orange, New Jersey, on 5 February:

It is a special pleasure for me to join you today, and to receive an honorary degree from this distinguished institution of higher learning. The unique bonds between the United Nations and Seton Hall's School of Diplomacy and International Relations date back to the founding of the School and the partnership role that UNA-USA played in that process. As you heard earlier, we are lucky to have Bill Lewis here with us, a great leader of UNA-USA. They are being renewed today by the School's visionary decision to accept the role of coordinating secretariat for the Year of Dialogue among Civilizations.

I am grateful that the School of Diplomacy has agreed to support the work of my Personal Representative for the Dialogue among Civilizations, Giandomenico Picco. He has informed me of the important contribution that the School, under the leadership of Ambassador Constantinou, has made.

Today, I wish to share some thoughts with you on the Dialogue among Civilizations, and how I believe the idea of such a dialogue is rooted in the fundamental values that the United Nations has sought to advance for over half a century. I wish also to take this opportunity to correct some myths and misunderstandings surrounding this idea. Before doing so, however, let me explain briefly why the United Nations embraced this idea, and why I warmly welcomed the proclamation of the year 2001 as the "United Nations Year of Dialogue among Civilizations".

The United Nations itself was created in the belief that dialogue can triumph over discord, that diversity is a universal virtue, and that the peoples of the world are far more united by their common fate than they are divided by their separate identities.

The United Nations -- at its best -- can be the true home of the dialogue among civilizations; the forum where such dialogue can flourish and bear fruit in every field of human endeavour. Without this dialogue taking place every day among all nations -- within and between civilizations, cultures and groups -- no peace can be lasting and no prosperity can be secure. That is the lesson of the United Nations' first half-century. It is a lesson that we ignore at our peril.

What this history should teach us also is that, alongside an infinite diversity of cultures, there does exist one, global civilization based on shared values of tolerance and freedom. It is a civilization defined by its tolerance of dissent, its celebration of cultural diversity, its insistence on fundamental, universal human rights, and its belief in the right of people everywhere to have a say in how they are governed. It is a civilization based on the belief that the diversity of human cultures is something to be celebrated, not feared. Indeed, many wars stem from people's fear of those who are different from themselves. And only through dialogue can such fears be overcome.

So diversity is both the basis for the dialogue among civilizations, and also the reality that makes dialogue necessary. It is this global civilization that we are called on to defend and promote as we embark on a new century.

To do so successfully, we must be able to take care to promote dialogue without creating new boundaries, and advance cooperation without stifling integration. Why do I say this? Because there is a danger that even the discussion of dialogue among civilizations can be conducted in such a way that it actually reinforces barriers to dialogue, instead of bringing them down. Specifically, I would caution all of us to remember that these terms -- civilizations, cultures -- are not constant or immutable facts of history, but rather organisms in constant flux -- always changing, growing, developing and adapting themselves to new times and new realities through interaction with each other. Nor do they necessarily coincide with a particular religious belief. It is a gross oversimplification to speak of a Christian or Muslim or Buddhist civilization, and doing so only creates boundaries where none need exist.

Such broad generalizations -- if they ever were valid -- surely cannot stand the test of modern times, when integration, migration and globalization are bringing different races, cultures and ethnicities into ever closer contact with each other. We can see this in many parts of the world -- including at this University. Indeed, in this very hall, few of us would claim to belong exclusively to one civilization. Rather, we understand as never before that we are the products of many cultures and impulses, that our strengths lie in combining the familiar with the foreign; and that the search for an exclusive, inward-looking civilization is doomed to fail.

That is not to say that we cannot rightly take pride in our particular faith or heritage. We can and we should. But the notion that what is ours is necessarily in conflict with what is theirs is both false and dangerous. In contrast to what some would suggest, we can love what we are without hating what we are not.

In what sense, then, is the Dialogue among Civilizations a useful concept? First, it is an appropriate and necessary answer to the notion of an inevitable clash of civilizations. As such, it provides a useful context for advancing cooperation over conflict. Second, it helps us draw on the deeper, ancient roots of cultures and civilizations to find what unites us across all boundaries, and shows us that the past can provide signposts to unity just as easily as to enmity. Third, and perhaps most important, the Dialogue can help us to discern the role of culture and civilization in contemporary conflicts, and so to distinguish propaganda and false history from the real causes of war. That, in turn, should ease the path to peace.
Too often in recent times, war lords and leaders bent on aggression and violence have encouraged their followers to identify with the victims of past atrocities, and to take revenge, or to protect themselves, against other groups identified with the supposed aggressors in those earlier conflicts. They often do this by claiming that the groups in question belong to different and irreconcilable civilizations.

This has had the effect not only of distorting history, and using it for the basest of purposes, but also of obscuring the real grievances that lie at the roots of conflicts and which must be addressed if they are to be resolved.

The Balkans over the past decade have provided us with grim and tragic examples of the uses and misuses of history to further division and conflict. There, what could be termed a dialogue among civilizations which had taken place for centuries was violently destroyed. Suddenly, the Muslims of Bosnia were referred to as "Turks" and their persecution justified by what their alleged ancestors had allegedly done 500 years ago. In this case, a clearer understanding of history, of culture, and of religion could have helped the transition from communism to democracy, and genuine issues of rights and responsibilities could have been addressed in a pluralist environment based on mutual respect.

In the Middle East today, the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians has come closer than ever to being resolved, even while it is being fought out with violence and bloodshed. In this conflict, already difficult issues of territory, nationhood, and ownership have been rendered even more complex and intractable by religious differences, centred on a land holy to three faiths. What had been essentially a conflict between nations is in danger of becoming a religious conflict, as well. In this case, an honest and constructive dialogue could help disentangle the so-called civilizational and religious questions from the political and territorial, and provide a path to resolution that would ultimately honour all faiths by choosing a just peace over an interminable war.

In both these cases -- the Balkans and the Middle East -- a genuine dialogue, between cultures and faiths, between views of right and wrong, justice and necessity could still help the protagonists to find their way to peace. I do not mean to suggest that there are not profound and very real issues of self-determination, of security and of dignity at stake.

Words alone will not resolve them. But a dialogue of words and deeds -- that is, of reciprocal actions based on respect and a genuine appreciation for the other sides' grievances -- can make a difference. Of that, I am sure.

We should not wait until we are in the thick of conflict to begin this kind of dialogue. We should start it whenever and wherever we have the chance -- and often it will be easier to do so well away from the battlefield. I present these thoughts to you as ideas and suggestions for your own further study and discussion. The dialogue among civilizations should be held at Seton Hall, and it should be held at the United Nations, and wherever people of good will seek to bridge differences and advance peace, drawing on the best of humanity's rich and diverse past to improve our common future. In that spirit, let me thank you again for honouring me this evening.