His Excellency Khatami

IN THE NAME OF GOD, THE COMPASSIONATE, THE MERCIFUL
Distinguished thinkers,
Respectable professors,
Dear journalists,
Good morning, Ladies and Gentlemen!

Hafiz, the most celebrated Iranian poet, through his beautiful poetry hints at the art of expressive speech in the following lines:

"In the affairs of love it is impossible
To talk of listening and speaking
As the occasion calls for just gazes and whispers.
It -would be unwise to utter words before the thinkers;
The choice would be either to remain hushed or whisper prudently."

Through such an implication, I opt to remain silent and be a mere listener in the forum of communication experts. However, my visit to the friendly country of Kazakhstan, coinciding with this important conference, has impelled me to express my views. In fact, some of the great Muslim Gnostics have also expressed similar views on such very trying situations:

When you utter words, your destination becomes unattainable for it is pushed beyond
reach. We are not yet in the circle of peers. We wish we had the ears; for the souls, the
tongues and the ears are all sealed.

Under such circumstances, I am compelled to address this gathering of thinkers, writers, experts, and authorities in communication field. We are living in a rapidly expansive age where transformations are pivoting on the axes of both newly acquired knowledge and information. In such an era, the mode of management and application of information give momentum to the accelerated processes that embrace individuals and societies. The borders and past limiting factors have been surpassed by modern elements and variables. We have entered the age of increasingly condensedtime and place. The concepts are constantly subject to new changes and interpretations. Ironically, the age of communication, supposed to bring us yet closer together, has turned out to be the age of apartness. A great many have been empowered and a large number have been weakened. The degree of information dissemination and information access leads to the status of either poverty or wealth, suffering or well-being, and penuriousness or prosperity of the nations.

In the age of communication and massive information, it is possible to wreak havoc by restricting or distorting information. Many things can be said but not heard. Many items can be portrayed but not shown. Many can act as media but without any content.

The age of communications has been given numerous interpretations: it is not only meant to bring about a closely-knit society but it is also meant to challenge all norms of tradition and the current state of affairs. Should wise harnessing of the age of information be tapped, new opportunities would be opened up for the world community. However, should the tools of power be abused, darkness and evilness will prevail in the world. The age of information is nothing but the age of media. Life in the age of media is both closely interwoven and extremely fragile. Should the transformation in the age of information be accompanied with a realistic and pluralistic approach through dialogue, it could lead to a Utopian civic society. But should the age of information be monopolized and uni-polarly exploited, and should it be a marred and distorted or an exaggerated and xenophobic image of "the others", nothing but the world of tension and chaos would emerge.

The most distinctive characteristic of the age of media, according to contemporary thinkers, is the emergence of a situation called "virtual reality". This can be termed as its divorce of reality from its tangible experience and concrete context. By exploiting this concept of "virtual reality", the global power has created a moral cleavage between his domineering volition and man's conscience. During the past two decades unprecedented catastrophes have occurred on the international scene and fallen into oblivion. The most striking example is the tragedy befalling Palestinian nation today. If such a tragedy with much lesser intensity were to take shape in some other corners of the world, a wave of protest would have swept the world. But the "virtual reality" of the current tragedy in Palestine is occasionally painted in worldwide media in such a way that this situation - reportedly being comparable to those of the two World Wars - stirs little or no public opinion at all. Now the question is that "Are the media in the modern world willing to or capable of overcoming the man's conscience?" "Have the media not created new opportunities for the expansion of the world powers?" It is in this light that the world media are, as in the post-industrial revolution period, expected to review their role in the modern world. The media are neither the cause nor the cure of the pain. However, through self-criticism they are capable of helping eliminate the pangs of the virtual realities and enhance humanistic relations.

The global system is in dire need of opening up new dialogues concerning moral issues in the international relations. With the exit of the Cold War, marking the end of ideological confrontations on the international arena, we are entering a transforming world whose prominent feature is the prevalence of the new logic of power. As mentioned before, "virtual reality" has contributed to the prevalence of such a phenomenon in the world today.It is a must that we inter into dialogues on moral issues of the world media and enlighten the public opinion on such issues. Such dialogues should pave the way for the surrender of global power within the logical framework of humanistic measures and accepted norms.

In this age of media the moral responsibility neither falls on the shoulder of the individual reporter nor is restricted to the professional ethics. This moral responsibility submits to the logic if reality than to the logic of power, relies on friendship rather than hatred, opts for philanthropy rather than misanthropy, calls for a dialogue rather than a contention, avoids exaggeration in favor of realism, and finally, seeks peace and serenity instead of war and conflict. Today this moral responsibility should be based on institutional, national, and international criteria and agreements that would recognize as an irrefutable reality the issues of plurality, diversity,and today's world complexity. It is true that local, national, and international media rely on different techniques and strategies to administrate their affairs; however, the issue of media ethics cannot be overlooked and considered a far-fetched aspiration. If the world is in need of durable peace and democratic institutions-of which it isin dire need - and if the world stands on the precipice of one of the most perilous periods of its transformation in its history-on which it is surely standing-then the goals in the principles of media ethics certainly need to be revivedin the context of institutional, national, and international laws. The tranquil world should at least function on"democracy" at national level and "peace" at regional and global levels. As you are aware "democracy" and "peace" are not only the cornerstones and the outcome of dialogue among civilizations but also the fountainhead of media ethics. In this sense "The right of communication", "the democratic value of the free flow of information", "the social responsibility of the media" are of great significance. The world media ethics is directly related to democratic rule and somewhat associated with the responsibility of the media. Should power or wealth substitute media freedom and responsibility, then it would be automatically politicized and commercialized and then "reification" and "extreme individualism" would be the basis for the transmission and dissemination of information. It is in this case that the portrayal of "the others" is aggrandized or trivialized against "us"; a portrayal that heightens the mood of tension andaggressiveness. The language of the media devoid of ethics and based on power abuse is the language of schism, exaggeration, and the projection of "the others" as evil is, in actuality, against itself. Conversely, the language of the media based on code of ethics and dialogue is the language of tolerance in place of hatred; it is the language of mutual understanding instead of mistrust; it is the language of diversity instead of xenophobia; it is the language of peace rather than war; and most importantly it is the language of justice instead of oppression and inequality. The world of diversity is in need of pluralistic media. The structure of the media based on artificial deviating thoughts and approaches should try to base its framework on the observance of plurality and diversity in its compositionand content, and thereby give it legitimacy at individual, institutional, national, and international levels. The elements that can drastically obstruct the channels of free dissemination of information and the function of effective responsibility and the implementation of administrative policy through the creation and imposition of an environment of hostility and war on the world and legitimization of the various forms of intimidation and coercion. Hostility and war more than any other factor takes shape in the minds of the people and therefore, we should instill theidea of peace preservation, and international mutual understanding preventing any form of aggression conflict at the national, regional and international levels.

Most of the misunderstandings in the world in the twentieth century which have led to bloody conflicts and great catastrophes stem from lack of knowledge and understanding of the other nations and peoples. It is for this reason that basic human rights should be I on the focus and respected arid the recognition of cultural diversity regarded as the axis of UNESCO declaration. (approved by the thirty-first general assembly of this organization in fall 2001) can be the basis for all decision-making bodies of the media.

The fact is that the world is at the historical crossroads of fear and hope. It fears the dominance of the language of force, coercion, and violence on the international relations and the retrogression to the pre-Cold War era and the use of intimidation and terror in order to enforce a uni-polar domination. There is a need to string our hope in the growth of knowledge and rationalism, to turn the public attention from all forms of aggression to the benevolence of the dialogue across cultures and civilizations, and help concentrate the global will on peace and coexistence. We should fully endeavor to alleviate fear and foster hope.

Dialogue has its own sincere advocates and serious antagonists. The opponents of dialogue consider themselves to be the true axis of the exchange and so they are unwilling to tolerate anybody but the circle of their own; they see the othersas their foes and therefore try to cause estrangement among others. Consequently, in their heartand mind they seeno choice but to recourse to intimidation and belligerence.
But the advocates of dialogue are not a few. They are the, thinkers of the world who regard diversity and divergence as the key to the survival and development of the world. They consider dialogue not only as an ultimate process benefiting mankind impartially but also as an ideal cause and a feasible attainable reality that is a consequence of ideal communication.

Reflection leads to the materialization of hope. The thinkers of the world as well as public opinion fully recognizes that under no pretext can one force the others into a war nor impose his will on the others. Those who are even exploiting the ominous phenomenon of terrorism as an excuse for creating war and domination are the enemies of freedom and the dialogue across cultures and civilizations. They are like those who exploit religion, nationalism, and race as a weapon to exercise their power and foment violence. Now the environment of free press and media, objective presentation of the news, independence and impartiality in the journalistic profession, equanimity and tolerance of different viewpoints, in the press have all been endangered. There is an urgent need for a practical way out of this entanglement.
Today dialogue among civilizations is essential for understanding, formulation and adoption of a mechanism for the resolution of common problems facing mankind across the world. Mass media are the forum for such a dialogue through which the thoughts of the people across the world and the orientation of the public opinion can be reflected.

The voice against war, condemnation of violence and coercion is being echoed throughout the world from Asia to America, and from Africa to Europe. We should try to listen and respond to this voice. The estuary of Asian and European cultures and civilizations in this region should actively and concurrently participate in this dialogue, which should consist in the concepts of peaceful co-existence on the basis of spirituality, freedom, and justice. Media shouldnurture dialogue in place of monologue, substitute ethics for coercion, encourage diversity instead of uni-polarism, foster hope and security rather than foment fear and terror. The voice of public opinion is the voice of the men tired of war; it is the voice of thought, is the reflection of the minds of thinkers; we should hear this voice through our media.

I have not heard a more melodious song
Than that of the love echoing under the azure - world

Thank you.