Raja Dato Nushirwan Zainal Abidin

We live in an Age of Fractures. Humanity is divided along ideological， economic， wealth， cultural， social as well as geographical lines. These fractures occur not only between， but also within States. We are also simultaneously living with threats which threaten us all. Climate change is the most obvious， but lest we forget， there still exists enough nuclear weapons to obliterate the world many times over. It is therefore clear humanity has no choice but to come together， cooperate more closely and more meaningfully， as well as promote peace and harmony.

However， there can be no harmony among civilizations without mutual learning among civilizations and there can be no mutual learning among civilizations without equality among civilizations. Thus， acceptance of equality is the basis of harmony. It is important to distinguish between harmony on the one hand， and peace and stability on the other. Peace and stability merely mean the absence of conflict. It can be imposed， it can arise out of fear， it can mean stagnation. In contrast， harmony is joy arising from being in resonance with something higher than ones own self. In this sense， what is true for relations between individuals is also true for relations among countries.

In his speech delivered at UNESCO on 23 March 2014， President Xi Jinping emphasized three important points. Firstly， civilizations come in different colors， and such diversity has made exchanges and mutual learning among civilizations relevant and valuable. Secondly， all civilizations are equal， and such equality has made exchanges and mutual learning among civilizations possible. Thirdly， civilizations are inclusive， and such inclusiveness has given exchanges and mutual learning among civilizations possible. Since time immemorial， Malaysia and polities which existed before in that geographical space have been at the crossroads of almost all the major civilizations – Indian， Chinese， Persian， Muslim and through colonialism， the West， be they Portuguese， the Dutch or British， and have absorbed these influences.

This characteristic was not only unique to Malaysia， but was general for South East Asia as a whole. Local cultures took what they thought to be the best and most germane from the outside influences mentioned above and incorporated them into their own， resulting in something unique and through a process of assimilation and mutation， ensured their survival. That all these happened continuously throughout millennia is an expression not only of the confidence of South East Asian cultures， but also a willingness to admit the equality of all cultures that they came into contact with. Therefore， to me， President Xis points of the equality of civilizations is the bedrock and principle for promoting harmony.

I believe that the answer lies in the fact that the concept and origin of the word “civilization” itself in exclusivist – it can， and indeed tends， to promote the sense of “Us” and “Them” with all of its malevolent consequences. Etymologists tell us that “civilization” is derived from the Latin “civilis” （“civil”）， related to “civis” （“citizen”） and “civitas” （“city”）. It is also metaphorically related to “civilitas”， which is defined as “the character of people who are citizens， who live in cities， in organized states and societies， as opposed to primitive， barbarous peoples who do not.” The civilized man is the man who lives in a society with its richer， fuller life and has the gifts that enable him to live in this life， which demands certain qualities of mind and character， and gives opportunities for development that the isolated life of the savage， living in a family or in a wandering tribe， cannot give.

But the exclusivist nature of the “civilization” as used by the West， is further amplified and is given deeper meaning by how it was used in the context of the Wests colonial project. To quote the words of Professor Gerrit W. Gong in his book The Standard of “Civilization” in International Society： It was fundamentally a confrontation of civilizations and their respective cultural systems. At the heart of this clash were the standards of civilization by which these different civilizations identified themselves and regulated themselves. Thus， the notion of “civilization” propelled， supported and ultimately perpetuated the colonial project. It did so in the following ways：

Firstly， Western civilization was deemed superior. Indeed， only countries of the West were deemed as “civilized”. Others were either “barbarous” or even worse， “savage”. This was not necessarily the case in the beginning. Early British traders in India for example， were mesmerized by Indian culture. That changed， however， when the British began to win military battles against the Mughals. It was then that a distinction was increasingly made between a “modern”， superior， Western civilization and a “backward”， inferior， Eastern civilization. This merely amplified the exclusivist nature of the word itself， as mentioned before;

Secondly， standards of civilization were set by the “superior” civilization. The main standard applied was material progress and the ability to compete economically and militarily， rather than the promotion of virtue and harmony as well as the achievement of salvation;

Thirdly， civilizations were classified and in so doing， assumed that they were hermetically sealed， each free from being influenced by the other. This also accelerated the process of “Othering” in which a group of people are viewed or treated as intrinsically different from and alien to oneself， thus giving rise to exclusivist， rather than inclusivist views of the world.

These modes of thought persist up until today， either in abridged， diluted or more insidious ways. However， there are prominent thinkers in the West who still believe that Western culture and therefore civilization is superior to others. They often point to the works of Shakespeare， Milton， Beethoven， Mozart， Rembrandt， Cervantes and Moliere to name a few， as the only， unmatched pinnacle of human civilization. I wish to point out two points in this regard： First， there is no objective global and common criteria of what constitutes great art and high culture， free from a societys historical and cultural context; Second， even within a culture， standards may vary across time; Third， in many cultures， the creation of art is a collective endeavor. Thus， ascribing works of art to specific individuals is an alien notion. Equally alien is the idea that art is an expression of individuality.

Given that acceptance of equality among civilizations is the sine qua non for harmony among civilizations， what can we do to promote it？ The first task is to engender humility. As matters stand， this attribute is short supply， particularly in policy-makers in the West. This is the most difficult task as it involves a changing of a collective psyche. This is not meant as personal and ad hominem criticism against any Western leader. They were merely reflective of their societies at large. On the subject of humility， the Malaysian Prime Minister， Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim is fond of quoting the words of the Anglo-American poet， T.S Eliot in his Four Quartets： “The only wisdom we can hope to acquire/ Is the wisdom of humility： humility is endless”. Inculcating humility is not an exercise in philosophy floating in the clouds， it is practical one， rooted in the earth. It has to be accepted that for more than two decades now， Asia is marching towards the drumbeat of its own values， incorporating in that march a clear sense of its own interests. As one which has followed and occasionally participated in that march， it comes as no surprise that China and India have taken the positions that they have vis-à-vis the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. They are an expression of the values of friendship and relationship， as well as the strategic interests of both countries.

Asias march will continue， not only because it can， given its increasing economic heft， but because it has to. The central theme of Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahims book The Asian Renaissance written in 1996 is a simple but powerful one： Asia has learnt and benefited from its interactions with the West， but blind imitation of the West will spell its doom. As he writes “Asia needs to undergo a paradigm shift， as it seeks to respond to the utilitarian demands of the future， without forsaking its identity， a challenge which requires a revitalization of Asias traditions.”

The second task is to promote knowledge about one another. Obviously， given the Wests domination of world affairs for so long， the rest knows much more about them than vice-versa. But what should be the aim of gathering and accumulating knowledge about one another？ For me， it is to enable us to act virtuously to those less-known to us. This is related to the aim of knowledge generally， which is to attain virtue. “Knowledge is virtue” is a far， far cry from Francis Bacons aphorism that “knowledge is power.” On the nexus between knowledge and power， it is difficult to steer away from Edward Saids seminal 1978 work Orientalism which he considers as an expression of “European-Atlantic power over the Orient than it is as a veridic discourse about the Orient.” He further writes “knowledge gives power， more power requires knowledge， and so on in an increasingly profitable dialectic of information and control.” What divides “knowledge is virtue” from “knowledge is power”？ I believe that the main dividing lines are sincerity and objectivity towards the subject studied. Those who are sincere and objective aim to achieve understanding， while those less so aim to achieve domination. I have read books by purported Western “experts” on emerging or in some cases， re-emerging nations （I unhesitatingly place China in this category）. Certainly， they know much about their area of study; they speak the language， they have lived there and may even have deep and profound ties. But they tend to view their areas of study from their own perspective， that is to say， those who have been in power for a long time and who wish to remain in power; they have little understanding of how their subjects view them， or themselves.

The third task is to have more leaders， particularly from the developing world， to speak on the subject of the equality of civilizations. In President Xis 2014 speech to UNESCO cited earlier， he said that “Civilizations are equal， and such equality has made exchanges and mutual learning among civilizations possible. All human civilizations are equal in terms of value. There is no perfect civilization in the world. Nor is there any civilization that is devoid of any merit. No civilization can be judged superior to another.” President Xi delivered this instructive statement in 2014. Since then， he has spoken of this and related topics often， including at the Conference on Asian Civilizations on May 2019. To me， this indicates the seriousness with which he views the subject.

For some time now Malaysian Prime Minister Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim has spoken against cultural chauvinism， the spring from which the sense of civilizational superiority flows. In his address on assuming the Presidency of UNESCOs General Conference in 1989， he said “The legacy of history means that some peoples and nations have enjoyed particular benefits. We must all be aware of failing to make the distinction between cultural pride and cultural chauvinism. Equally， we must all be able to distinguish between the right to continue to be ourselves， wherever we are an in whatever we do， and the ease with which this becomes cultural imperialism that denies the same freedom to others.” I have every confidence that on this issue the voice of Africa， the cradle of humanity， will be even stronger in the future. This is inevitable， given that Africa is poised for growth and development. While challenges remain， the continent has put behind it the seemingly intractable security， human rights and economic hardships that bedeviled it twenty to thirty years ago; with 60 percent of the worlds arable land， it can be the breadbasket of the world – as it is by 2030， agribusiness in Africa will be worth 1 trillion US dollars; its population is projected to reach 1.1 billion people by 2040， making it the largest workforce globally. This gathering momentum will hopefully result in a cascading effect. As it does， the voices speaking for civilizational superiority， overt or covert， conscious or otherwise， will be swept away like dust in torrential rain.

To summarize and conclude： what we must work towards is a global humanity composed of different but equal civilizations， existing in harmony with one another， proving the words of Aime Cesaire that： “There is a place for all/ At the rendezvous of history”.

Raja Dato Nushirwan Zainal Abidin is Malaysian Ambassador to China