Promoting Exchanges and Mutual Learning Among Civilizations and Jointly Building a Community with a Shared Future for Mankind

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 one’s 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 Xi’s 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 West’s 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;