Chapter X
Mohammad Khatami was the fifth President of Iran and served from 1997 to 2005.

In the Name of God , the Compassionate , the Merciful

My talk today in your gathering has a quality in common with my previous addresses on similar occasions during the period of my incumbency. That quality or trait is both important and bears some reflection. Politicians when speaking in scientific circles, quite apart from the nature of their speech, take a relation between politics and science, and also between politicians and scientists for granted, which happens to be different at various occasions. Those wielding political power are likely to assume that they would provide "guidelines" for science and ideas as they do in the domain of political, economic and social areas, and wish to make use of the universities as instruments of policy. In this case, the politician is in reality someone who has the clear purpose, although clothed in ambiguous words, of getting the academics to follow his policies and help realize what he wills in political, social and economic fields. Obviously, when the politician addresses an academic gathering in a foreign country, that wish is out of place. However, he can still try to explain to his hosts the relation that exists between science and politics in his own country. Personally, I have always attempted, without wanting to deny the importance of the views of politicians on such occasions, to bring up a subject that seems to be both of theoretical and social significance, I therefore invite my hosts to participate in such discussions and air their views.

Our gathering today will not, therefore, be confined to hearing what the speaker has to say, but as I ask my audience to reflect on the topic of my address, should be taken into consideration as the first step toward a dialogue between the politician and the scientist. Dialogue always depends on the active participation of those taking part in them. It is a great source of pleasure to me when I observe that what I have brought up in my talks at home and abroad forms the subject of a dialogue among thoughtful people, and it gives me the feeling that I have achieved my aim. But first let us ask the prerequisites of a genuine dialogue. Is every sort of speaking, hearing, questioning and answering an instance of dialogue? If not, then we should ask what its inherent and specific quality is, because once this is known, we can hopefully come nearer the true meaning of dialogue. Let me state at the outset that when speaking of a dialogue, I have in mind a meaning wider than which is meant by a mere exchange of words. Although this wider meaning could be expressed by the word "communication", we know very well that communication has such extensive scope that it includes all sorts of relations between man and man, man and his natural environment, and man and historical backdrop. Dialogue from this perspective would, therefore, lose all its obvious sense. However, logicians point to the necessity of defining it in practical universal terms. But logicians also add that the concept of universality must be complemented by a "differentia", i.e. a concept that limits the scope of the universality, thus providing an appropriate application to the concept in question. In the case of "communication" we should then ask for the differentia, which will distinguish the concepts we have in mind from its numerous other instances. It seems that the differentia sets a real dialogue apart not only from other sorts of dialogues but also from different kinds of communication, which is no other than understanding. We could then say that real dialogue aims at understanding. We could probably misconstrue a concept, and as a consequence misconceive that sort of understanding. Understanding is not a common phenomenon, to be facilely grasped and readily be at one's reach. This becomes clear as soon as we realize the difficulties in the way of attaining it. The most important tools susceptible to understanding in such areas as language, religion and history turn often into their opposites and become instrumental in understanding. Language, for example, simultaneously does two things: it reveals and closes gaps, and hides and takes people further apart from each other. We use speech as a means of expression, but since from birth our development has been dependent on language, we cannot be in absolute control of it. Although in one sense it would be true to say that we have power over language, in another sense and from a wider and more exact perspective we could say that the relation is reciprocal and man is also dominated by language. This truth does not, however, contradict human freedom but gives it a sharper edge, preventing man from empty fantasizing, imagining himself omnipotent. It defines the limits of man's existence, and reveals to us that our freedom has definite existential boundaries, one of which is language. What I said about the two-fold -language functions was an attempt at describing its nature. We all know, that men cleverly play with words in trying to reach their goals, and nowhere is this more common than in politics.

Quite naturally, this clever play of words empties them of meaning and replaces dialogue and understanding with noise. The danger of creating misunderstanding instead of understanding is, therefore, both of an essential-unintended and accidental-intended nature as far as the greatest means of achieving understanding, i.e. language, is concerned. Language in a dialogue is particularly difficult in politics, for in addition to natural difficulties, the contrived language of diplomacy is another obstacle in reaching understanding. Should we then ever become despair of ever having a true dialogue while considering such phenomenon impossibility? On the contrary, being alive on the existence of obstacles is the necessary step toward overcoming them. If we foolishly take the dialogue to be a simple, basic matter, it would become merely a figment of our imagination. We fancy that we have had a real, clear dialogue instead of an imaginary one, and happily enter upon a course of action deceiving ourselves into believing that has been the subject of our dialogue. And this would be the first step toward misunderstanding and disagreement. What should, therefore, be done to overcome the obstacles? The harder the road, a stronger and more unbending will is required on the part of the traveler. Seeking peace and peaceful means and expecting human dignity are not virtues easily to come by. Every state and all international organizations have a duty to devise and execute measures in order to turn the "culture of peace" into a gratifying, dominant and reliable culture throughout the world. Without a firm, serious determination on the part of individual states and great international organizations such as the UN and UNESCO to create a strong enduring peace - a peace based on justice, freedom, and the dignity of man - any talk of the dialogue among cultures and civilizations will be no more than a form of dilettantism or, at best, a philosophical pastime. Educating the children and the young is one of the most indispensable means of fostering a generation that will use the human voice instead of the barrages of bullets to express its demands.

The barrages of bullets in effect conveys the absolute unconditional demand of the man wielding force and is, therefore, an instrument for imposing his will and silencing the rest. The barrages of bullets and the voice of man cannot coexist. All clamor supporting the roar of the gun say nothing and are nothing but a noise of the same ilk as the sound of violence and force, that is, the roar of the gun. It is impossible to reason, to love, to speak or to understand with a gun. As the roar of the gun, so the sound of a dialogue between the power-thirsty deaf and mute who seek human dignity not in peace and friendship and mutual understanding but in force, injustice and domination. Mr. President, Ladies and gentlemen, The current situation in the world is more regrettable than can be described in a short time. Despite all the propaganda about human rights, the gap between the rich and the poor is incessantly on the increase to such an extent that the poor nations are fast becoming a superfluous part on the world map. The rich occasionally are of a rather thin sense of charity and moved by humanitarian instincts and if deemed expedient help to save a number of the people belonging to that part from death and disease. Those in positions of power now openly proclaim their wish to impose different political arrangements and change the geography of the world. The basic point here is that this kind of over-ambition and warlike attitude will not stop at destroying the land and ecological, human and economic resources of the invaded country; but once the political and economic logic turns openly to irrationality, force, violence and transgression, the logic of unreasoning will know no end or exception, and the gigantic machine of terror and violence will suck every thing and every one, including its own masters, into the vortex, and eventually barbarism, injustice and aggression will triumph. Because of this, it should be considered a moral and human duty of all states to personate the idea and culture of dialogue, reflecting on the obstacles to its achievement and raising the future generation on concepts such as peace, tolerance and human rights.

The world must be saved from this horrendous danger. To do so, we are in need of understanding as a first step, and the first step on the way to that goal is acknowledging the possibility that the other party may be right. Instead of trying on all occasions to prove ourselves right, we should first try to understand fully and carefully what he says, the way he means it, not should always remind ourselves that although he is the "other" and different from "us", his "otherness" does not necessarily mean that he is wrong, lying or trying to force some thing upon us. Giving the other the benefit of the doubt and respecting his otherness (not imposing our own will and concept on him) is the assumption that enables us to take part in a true dialogue. Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen, All the people in the world need to engage in dialogues, politicians stand above all. Throughout history dialogue, though scarce, has had the power of preventing force. Today it is more indispensable than ever. It is our moral duty, and our duty as human beings, not to remain silent in the face of crime and calamity, but to raise our voices in defense of peace, justice and the triumph of life over death. Our human outcry even at times when the terrible roar of bombers and artillery is likely to drown every other sound, even in the poisonous atmosphere of biological and chemical wars, is the only torch that can show the way to lead us away from destructive storms. Let us join hands to protect this indispensable torch of life.

Thank you.