Outline of the Speech on the Declaration on Intercultural Dialogue by Dr Antun VUJIĆ, Croatian Minister of Culture

At the Conference on culture and conflict, held in Dubrovnik in 2001, we attempted in a series of discussions to identify the line that distinguishes the conflicts, which are culturally productive from those that lead to violence. In the process, we arrived at a possible solution, according to which we could draw a line differentiating culture as ideology, that is, when it represents specific values in the name of a policy from the culture that represents authentic cultural values. This would be a simple solution if ideology itself, or more specifically ideologies as such, were not also the products of culture.

In other words, culture's position is twofold, given that on the one hand it represents universal values - through which we are able to perceive different cultures, while on the other it represents the specific forms we use when organising our lives, values and meanings. Therefore, it is essential to make a distinction between universal and particular cultures.

The intention of the Declaration is to preserve these particular cultures and diversity of their manifestations on behalf of universal values, that is to say, on behalf of universal culture, which enables the perception of diversity, and which, as far as value judgements are concerned, accepts the equal value of different cultures. This value, which recognizes the existence of various cultures, which enables their communication, which accepts their diverse forms and manifestations, is a civilisational achievement we must continue to develop. Recalling the times of not so long ago, we can remember the contempt of our European culture toward such rich cultures and civilisations as those of India, America or Africa. For that very reason it is so important for us in the Council of Europe to pass this Declaration which aims at preventing all forms of intolerance, violence or injustice among cultures.

Culture seems to be quite paradoxical sometimes. It is, from a power standpoint, totally unimportant and extremely important. It can be represented by something we insert into a video player or by a cause of long-lasting wars. Culture is present in our lives in the most amazing variations - from arts as the most refined expression of our spirit, to such trivialities as the use of soap. It is clear that a notion so complex and with so many definitions cannot be encompassed by a single Declaration.

However, the Declaration on intercultural dialogue and conflict prevention refers to all the meanings of the notion of culture, because, they as whole, make the Declaration meaningful. In other words, culture as a way of symbolic organization life, in one of its meanings allows for infinite diversities, and those very diversities are expressed in all human practice - from art and production, to exchanges and communication. As we are dealing with human practices that inevitably differ amongst themselves, conflict is always possible. Opposing standpoints, wish to overcome the opinions of others and desire to create new values are immanent to culture, so that one can hardly perceive culture as something non-conflicting. Regardless of that fact, a line has to be drawn, as was done in the Declaration before us, at the precise point where conflict transcends the clash of opinions, ideas, methods and concepts and grows into violence, intolerance and injustice. It seems that this creative conflict can be distinguished from violent conflict through the very concept of immanence and authenticity, so that culture as sign, image, meaning, value, identity, solidarity can become mere bargaining chip in the political struggle, something that is not immanent to culture, becoming in that case applicable in the negative sense.

We can consider it so as to believe that culture’s loss in sublimity is equal to its gain in applicability. This very profanation of culture, its applicability in political and economic systems, which are in themselves, let us be clear on that, part of culture, make possible for cultural diversity to become the source of a different type of conflict. In the first place because conflicts inherent to culture do not end up in violence but in artistic or rhetoric provocation. The moment these provocations are placed in the service of mobilising masses or groups with the aim of eradicating diversity, we can no longer speak of the language of culture, as we shall not find notional devices in it to react to violence and injustice.

Due to these reasons the Declaration geared at promoting dialogue between cultures is required, not only as a political act but as a cultural one too. We need it as a political act because only by way of political action can we prevent political manipulation with cultural diversity. Policies based on this type of manipulation have been proscribed in the political life of Europe for quite some time now, although the forms in which these manipulations may appear can be very imaginative, demanding not only general but specific caution against them too. In addition, the Declaration is needed as a cultural act because incorporation of the idea on diversity gives incentive to authentic cultural values and puts obstacle to extra cultural, political and ideological manipulating with culture.

I would like to conclude, as I started, by recalling that at the Conference on culture and conflict we came to the conclusion that cultures are in many ways a unique base for and factor of development at large. This coincides fully with the conclusion embodied in the Declaration.