Quick Links to Speakers
Sen. Richard
G. Lugar
Dr. Chung Hwan Kwak
Amb.
Bill Richardson
Arnaud
de Borchgrave
Matthew A.
Levitt
Dr. Shibley
Telhami
Dr. Graham
Allison
Lawrence
S. Eagleburger
Bill Gertz
Amb. Philip
S. Kaplan
Dr. Timothy
Charles Brown
Dr. Daniel
Pipes
Dr. Muazzam
Gill
Faiz Rehman
Robert Baer
John O'
Sullivan
Hafez
Al-Mirazi
Georgie Anne
Geyer
Dimitri K.
Simes
Dr. Frank
Kaufmann
Amb.
Phillip V. Sanchez
Martin
Walker
Douglas D.M.
Joo
DR. CHUNG HWAN KWAK
President and Chairman of the Board, UPI
OPENING PLENARY SESSION
“How to View 9/ll One Year After”
Mr. Chairman. Distinguished members of the panel. Senator Lugar. Ambassador Richardson. Mr. De Borchgrave. Ladies and Gentlemen. It is an honor and a pleasure to address you today on the occasion of this 19th World Media Conference on “The Media’s Role in Peace and Conflict: Covering the Consequences of 9/11.” Certainly the consequences of the events of 9/11 have been profound. And the aftereffects are still unfolding as we gather here today.
While our conference theme calls us to reflect on the consequences of 9/11, I believe we must also continue to reflect on both the root causes that gave rise to 9/11 and the steps that might be taken to avert future disasters of a similar nature. In our mission to seek the truth, and to communicate that truth to the world, the media has a significant responsibility. If truth is the close companion of goodness and peace, then by presenting events truthfully we serve the cause of peace.
The World Media Conference series began in 1978, during the Cold War era. The founder, Rev. Sun Myung Moon, was concerned about the fairness, objectivity, and accuracy of the mainstream media in its coverage of communism. I believe the World Media Conference series, in the first half of its history, was important and effective in providing a clear picture of the reality and quality of life in communist societies.
The end of the Cold War, of course, did not solve the problem of violence and conflict. For, clearly, the post–Cold War era has seen the emergence of new forms of the historical problem of hostility, tension, and conflict between peoples. Those who have spoken of a shift from the era of the superpower struggle between communism and democracy to a struggle among various groups seeking to establish or increase their sovereignty, centering on their unique identity and history, are largely correct I believe.
The “fall of communism” left the post-communist states in an ideological vacuum that has needed to be filled. Communism had been the most aggressively “evangelical” movement of the 20th century. As its quest for hegemony failed, however, other worldviews and centers of identity and affiliation have emerged. This is the case in part because democracy itself is less a comprehensive worldview than a system of procedures for governance. As much as people need clear procedures of free, democratic governance, we do not form our fundamental identities around laws and procedures alone.
The events of 9/11, although perpetrated by alienated radicals, were nevertheless an extreme manifestation of the tension and rift that exists between much of the Islamic world and the U.S. For example, some reports indicate that a fairly significant number of Muslims believe that the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington were masterminded by Israeli intelligence or the CIA in order to stimulate outrage and vengeance against Muslims. This fact evidences the magnitude of the rift and the radically divergent ways in which the same events are viewed.
In this kind of situation, how do we understand peace? First of all, I think we must go beyond a vision of peace as the absence or suppression of conflict. It is true that violence can be suppressed by the threat of superior violence being inflicted. However, when the symptoms of violence are treated while the root causes are not, we remain in an insecure situation. We need to develop a proactive, affirmative vision of peace that calls us to a world where people of all races, religions, nationalities, and cultures live together respectfully, harmoniously, and cooperatively. There are two principles that I believe should guide us in our effort to establish world peace. The first is the principle of living for the sake of others. That is, on every level of human life—the individual, the family, the society, the nation, and the world—we should shift from self-centeredness to other-centeredness. The family is of paramount importance in this respect, for the family is the school where fundamental attitudes are shaped.
The second principle follows from the first and calls us to go beyond the barriers that have historically divided humanity. These are the barriers of race, religion, nationality, and culture. The area of religion is especially important in this respect, and I believe the events of 9/11 have made many people more appreciative of the role of religion in the world.
Throughout much of the 19th and a good part of the 20th centuries, it was argued by many intellectuals that religion would wither away over time. This has not been the case. While many intellectuals have withered away over time, religion has not. On the contrary, the resurgence of religion is a glaring and monumental fact of the late 20th century. Religious identity, for literally billions of people around the world, is the basis of identity, not merely some private, personal preference.
Alongside the resurgence of religion is the growing awareness and acceptance that religion is not an otherworldly, private affair. Religion is public in nature, and religion has enormous social consequences. Religion shapes consciousness and provides the basis for life not only in the temple, church, or mosque but in the world, the workplace, the marketplace, and the public square.
Like most matters involving human beings, religion can be used either as a force for good or a force for evil. Few would doubt religion’s power to inspire believers to behave morally, and even sacrificially. Many of the world’s most uplifting stories of moral uprightness and love for others are linked to great spiritual and religious individuals, such as the Buddha, Confucius, Esther, Jesus, Mohammed, St. Francis, Martin Luther King Jr., Mother Teresa, etc.
At the same time, we know that fervent religious conviction can also give rise to irrational fanaticism and actions that are harmful. Religious wars have been too frequent in human history.
For this reason, to understand much of the conflict in the world today, we must come to understand religion. Moreover, to contribute to peace, we must be better informed about religion. It has been said that a stained glass window can only be fully appreciated when looked at from inside the place of worship. I believe this is true. Similarly, we cannot fully grasp religion if we are uncomfortable in our experience of religion. To know the heart of people, we must also come to know their religion, and not merely from a distance.
Last weekend, in New York, on the day that the United Nations celebrates as the International Day of Peace, I presented a paper at the Convocation of the Interreligious and International Federation for World Peace. The theme of that conference was “Governance and the Role of Religion in Peace and Security.” A group of 250 political, religious, and academic leaders, delegates from 80 different nations, deliberated for three days on this topic and considered a proposal to develop an interreligious council at the United Nations so that, along with the General Assembly, the Security Council, and other divisions of the UN, there would be a body that can provide perspective on the role of religion in terms of its potential both to contribute to violence and to prevent violence and conflict. At this meeting, the delegates unanimously affirmed the ongoing effort to explore and develop this proposal. This evidences the growing awareness of the importance of religion.
It is sometimes argued that the mainstream media tends to be critical of religion. Some have argued that many media professionals tend to be very secular. However, whether or not we are involved in religion as individuals, we have a professional responsibility to be fully and appreciatively informed about religion.
There are two reasons that religion needs to be taken more seriously. First, from a sociological perspective, we can see that religion is fundamental to human identities and many human practices among peoples around the world. Far more than one billion people are Muslim. Far more than one billion people are Christian. Hindus and Buddhists make up more than one billion people. These facts cannot be ignored.
Second, religions are the stewards of precious wisdom and insights concerning the nature of reality, the proper way to live, and the way to ultimate fulfillment. While it is true that the history of the religions has been marked frequently by the failure of many believers who may submit to division, conflict, bigotry, and arrogance, these failings should not tempt us to reject the wisdom that is there.
The media can play a role, also, in civilizing religious believers. By being a source of fair and respectful information about all religions, it helps eliminate the ignorance and religious illiteracy of many people. In this way, interreligious strife can be reduced simply by providing fair, balanced, and accurate information. The media in this way can help religious leaders and believers from all traditions go beyond narrow sectarianism or religious tribalism.
At the same time, I believe the media must be respectful of religion, not simply see itself as a tutor or teacher for ignorant believers. Just as we value the environment, human life, the arts, and scientific knowledge, we should also have a respectful view of religion’s place in our world. Religion plays a major role in the lives of the vast majority of human beings, and in the media we should not fail to consider that fact.
All of us abhor what transpired on 9/11 last year. How do we address the root causes? How do we prevent the continuation and escalation of violence?
First, there is great need for more dialogue, respect, and friendship among believers of diverse faiths. In this regard, we must encourage and promote understanding and cooperation among people of diverse faiths. The media does not need to advocate any one religion, but it can educate, inform, and shape attitudes respectful of the diverse family of religions.
Second, there is need for courageous leadership if our world is to be transformed and if we are to solve its critical problems. The media can bring the public to greater awareness of courageous leaders who are challenging conventional patterns of separation according to race, religion, or nationality and who are living sacrificial, ennobling lives of service for others. The media can report on such practices as interfaith marriages, interreligious dialogues, or service projects in which members of one community serve members of another community.
Third, in order for the world to change, human attitudes much change. In other words, to establish peace, we must create a culture of peace. And, in order to create a culture of peace, we must find a way to heal the wounds of the past. How do we heal the wounds of the past? By living for the sake of others. True love for others calls us to serve others, even to love our enemy.
The media provides information and education, as we present both reports and commentary. The material we select for coverage, as well as the way in which we present the material, has an impact on our readers and viewers. We are committed to the values of truthfulness and fairness. We must be careful that in our selection and presentation of stories we do not appeal to the baser instincts of human nature but affirm the value of human life and the value of each human being fulfilling his or her hopes for peace.
Throughout this conference I hope we can reflect on these core principles that guide us as professionals, but also as human beings. For, at one and the same time, we inhabit the world of our professional community and the world of humanity. These two worlds are not opposed to one another. They are complementary.
Thank you for allowing me to offer these reflections. I hope that this conference provides the stimulation, enrichment, and inspiration that will serve you well both as a media professional and as a human being.
Thank you and God bless you.
