As the philosopher Wittgenstein presciently reminded us in Tractatus, the ways in which we look at the world to alter the world. The United Nations 2001 theme of "Dialogue among Civilizations" is a lofty initiative that has already moved into the global mainstream thought as a viable alternative to the siren voices of "coming clash of civilizations", according to whom the whole edifice of belief in dialogue, e.g. between West and East, rests on the edge of abyss.

A cursory tour d'horizon of "Dialogue among Civilizations" depicts, first and foremost, a trope for cross-cultural reconciliation promoting particular values-the discovery of shared beliefs and concerns, regulation of disputes through communication, and the pursuit of normative consensus on global civility, such as with respect to minority rights. It invokes a new imaginary of world community, one that is inclusive rather than exclusive, which celebrates diversity instead of succumbing to the forces of global barbarism, above all, racism and ethnic cleansing. Thus, it spurs the imagination of the earth's inhabitants toward cross-cultural learning, providing them with a perceptual predis-position to perceive harmony and cordial relations among nations and ethnic groups, following the premise that through dialogue we can cultivate deeper and more direct experience of cultural traditions other than our own.

This is indeed a conditio sine qua non for a global "ethics of care for the other", spearheaded by towering thinkers from Tagore to Buber to Schweitzer, to mention a few salient ones. "Dialogue among Civilizations" follows the UN Charter's mandate "to develop friendly relations among nations" and is in tune with the UN leadership's recent efforts to turn the United Nations system into a more proactive "epistemic community" sui generis, enabling it to map out creative adjustments to a rapidly changing and increasingly complex international milieu. Thus, to properly gauge the significance and (potential) implications of the UN theme, we must take into consideration the Organization's evolving standards, casting a wider net of its identity than ever before.

While the United Nations was incepted as an intergovernmental global forum operating within the paradigm of "nation-state sovereignty", this never precluded it from simultaneously couching itself in a larger, albeit more latent, frame of reference, namely, the United Nations as the site in potentia for world governance and "sovereignty of humankind". Recently, Secretary-General Kofi Annan has drawn attention to the fact that "state sovereignty, in its most basic sense, is being redefined by the forces of globalization and international cooperation".

According to Mr. Annan, this has implicated the United Nations with a basic shift in the core institutional framework within which it operates: "Here, however, is the crux of our problem today: while the post-war multilateral system made it possible for the new globalization to emerge and flourish, globalization, in turn, has progressively rendered its design antiquated. Simply put, our post-war institutions were built for an international world, but we now live in a global world."

Consequently, a new UN cartography has been brewing or packed up with the help of intervening notions, such as supranationality, global civil society, global citizens, global compact and global public sphere, denoting a semantic and cognitive overhaul aimed at re-representing the United Nations as the site par excellence for a cosmopolitan identity, i.e. a UN cosmopolis, shouldering a primary responsibility for the creation of what has been aptly described as "values for the global neighbourhood". By all indications, this is a nascent "work-in-progress", resolved to delineate as much as possible the fundamental contours of a new UN identitarian narrative, fashioning a homology between local and global identities and simultaneously redrawing the boundaries of the imagined global community, following a rhetoric of (UN-focused) affiliation and loyalty that transgresses sub-global identities by the creation of a semiotic imbrication between world citizens and world community. In this narrative, the United Nations emerges as a space for (cultural) meaning production intimately linked to the idea of "global civilization"; the latter, in turn, has generated subtle allusions to a "UN civilization", to echo Giandomenico Picco, the Secretary-General's Personal Representative on "Dialogue among Civilizations", aspiring to collect the world's civilizations under one umbrella as part of its own incandescent "civilizing mission" on behalf of its constituency—"We, the peoples".

The trick, however, is how to click on the customers to become more globally civil-minded, their consciousness grafted onto the UN norms of alterity and supranational identity, without turning into cultural nationalists or, for the lack of better words, civilizational patriots.

In some ways, the UN "diplomatic forum" is ill-suited for a genuine civilizational dialogue because it compels the participants to adopt strategic positions corresponding to the interests of their nation-states, compared with, say, free-floating dialogue of artists and intellectuals. The key to such a successful dialogue is not a restatement of similarities and differences. It is changing the global climate to encourage listening, inclusiveness, tolerance and reciprocity as applicable standards in what Levi-Strauss once described as "the rainbow of human cultures". Rather than feigning the dialogue-enhancing role and importance of the Organization, UN planners must concentrate on delineating the substantive meaning(s) of "dialogue among civilizations" and set an example of where such a dialogue may be operationalized and, indeed, make a tangible difference.

Dialogue is, after all, a double-edged communication that can unify, much as it can recycle or even accentuate divisions and discords, particularly if the UN taboo of "domestic jurisdiction" sheltering local practices is ever crossed by focusing on the "dark sides" of local cultures, e.g. those pertaining to gender, age groups, and religious and ethnic minorities. Hence, the chance that the UN "Dialogue among Civilizations" can directly foster the much-needed dialogue on the pitfalls or shortcomings of this or that culture or civilization is practically nil. The UN initiative is likely to turn out more significant in terms of a new optimistic mood — in communicativeness and tolerance —instilled in its flock than anything else. One challenge relates to the rather vague and indeterminate notion "civilizations" and the difficulty for any one at the United Nations — official or diplomat — to persuasively pinpoint and certify the number and nature of the world's civilizations, given how the latter coexist spatially and overlap considerably today. In addition to the need for extending the provenance of this dialogue from "top-down" (conference-based) dialogues to include grass-roots events and programmes, what is clear about this UN initiative is its utility as a timely conduit for a sustained, multiple dialogue.

This would comprehend "cultural dialogue, interfaith dialogue, diplomatic dialogue" and, perhaps, even a new round of (presently dormant) "North-South" dialogue, given the alarming signs of their growing divergence, rather than convergence, vis-a-vis wealth and digital divide. Indeed, approaching the "game" of dialogue gives us a glimpse of the complexity of the world we live in.

Much as some of us, particularly in the West, may prefer an economically neutral "dialogue among civilizations" tailored to cross-cultural exchange on a world scale, for this dialogue to have an impact, its terrain must extend to political economy, taking into consideration the lessons of the North-South dialogue, such as that globalization has marred the lines of demarcation between the poles even though the present world hierarchization and inequities warrant churning the engines of this dialogue — on perennial issues of just trade, foreign aid, reform of global finance, AIDS and so on — notwithstanding Nelson Mandela's call for "globalization without marginalization".

What is at stake in "Dialogue among Civilizations" is neither a one-shot deal in 2001 nor a chimerical final reconciliation, but the upgrading of our moral and communicative ability to deal with a world of simmering, ethically unsettling tensions and conflicts. Ideally, the participants should openly and reflectively discuss a wide range of socio-cultural issues and, while respectful of different views, seek the general principles that can be used to question archaic or repressive cultural attitudes or practices. Within the compass of this "ideal dialogue" scenario, the participants enter into dialogue with an open mind, cognizant of the possibility that after a rational discourse and (face to face or intertextual) argumentations they may need to rethink some of their values, beliefs and behaviour. The United Nations must beat the drum of such dialogue no matter how difficult or unrealistic in view of Member States' vested interests. In light of the United Nations own "civilizational" agenda discussed above, this may seem like a paradoxical agenda, encouraging us, like Hermia in Shakespeare's A Mid-summer Night's Dream, to see things with parted eyes, but at least it is a step forward from the blind spot of nation-states and their narcissism of parochial differences.