A document for reflection on the subtheme of 'Culture' from the Millennium Forum of the United Nations

Introduction
At the outset of the XXI century, globalisation and cultural diversity are two of the ideas that are central to our social and intellectual experience. The opinions, discourses and judgements expressed on both these questions, particularly on the relationship between them, are diverse and contradictory: it is as commonly stated that globalisation is a phenomenon that will benefit cultural diversity as that it represents a danger to this diversity; it is just as commonly stated that cultural diversity is a positive reality at the service of globalisation as that it represents a barrier to it.

The wide range of opinions on the subject is remarkable and any attempt to clarify the terms of reference is no easy task. In this working text we attempt to present a series of elements that may help to move some way towards the clarification of the relationship and conflicts between cultural diversity and globalisation, while at the same time making no pretence at exhausting the subject or leaving it closed off to further discussion. Bearing in mind that this text is conceived as a working document for discussion within the 'Culture' commission, we do however lay greater emphasis on the notions of culture and interculturality with respect to globalisation.
What is globalisation?
The notion of globalisation, despite the fact that it is a widely employed one, is also one of those least clearly defined. It is employed to explain, justify and understand new social, economic and cultural situations and realities in our modern world and, on the other hand, it is never defined, explained or justified as it should be.

Without attempting in this paper either a definition or an in-depth analysis, we would nevertheless wish to point to two main areas of definition into which this idea would appear to fit:

· globalisation is a novel situation characterised by an enormous capacity for communication and exchange on a world-wide scale that makes possible the construction of a 'world system'.
· globalisation is the exporting and imposition of the contemporary western socio-economic and cultural model (which in some instances has integrated certain elements from other cultures) around the world.

We believe that globalisation should be viewed from this double perspective, with all the contradictions and ambivalence that this involves.

First and foremost, we should take into account that what is termed globalisation has a certain impact on the diverse identities of culture and civilisation, and that it affects them all, whether economically, politically, socially, educationally, etc. There are sufficient elements to come to the conclusion that globalisation does not always involve a greater degree of communication or exchange among the different cultures and civilisations on our planet on an equal footing, but that it often displays a tendency to impose one of these cultures on the others, which may end up by creating a homogeneous model that affects them all. This may then lead to a certain process of cultural homogenisation, with different degrees of intensity according to the economic circumstances pertaining in each particular case. In this way the capitalist market economy may become the uniquely exclusive one; on the political level we may end up by considering the values of representative, liberal democracy and the exclusivist individualisation of human rights to be the sole criteria for the organisation of life in common (reducing all other possibilities to the level of folklore or totalitarianism), education may end up as a mere instrument at the service of economics; modern experimental science may become the sole way of coming to understand experience; modern positive law might end up by eliminating other possible mechanisms for solving conflicts; secularisation might become a process that eliminates the religious and transcendent dimension into an individual, private space; social organisation might become a system based almost exclusively on the individual. Lifestyles and the relationship with time and space might become uniform, in spite of certain partial adaptations which, because of their weakness, do not essentially question the prevailing homogenising model - indeed, the opposite is almost the case.

Lastly, above and beyond this more global analysis, we cannot forget either the processes of social and economic exclusion that globalisation is giving rise to around the world, including at the very heart of contemporary western societies. As Manuel Castells rightly states,

"However, technology and economics (…) are so powerful and dynamic that they turn an unjust social structure into an even more unjust one; they make an oppressive or violent State into an even more violent one and cause an excluding culture to generate with even greater intensity the exclusion of the excluded by the excluder, in other words, violence".

However, it is no less true that the greater degree of exchange and communication that globalisation leads to between persons and groups from different cultures (whether by the mobility deriving from the mass media, new information technologies, migrations…) may be an advantage for all of them, as it leads to a mutual enriching that opens up for them new perspectives that were hitherto unimaginable. We may even talk of processes of "regionalised globalisation" or of "regional globality", in the sense that above and beyond the prevailing socio-political model on a world-wide scale that was hitherto unthinkable regional dynamics are taking shape that are adapting globalisation to particular geocultural situations.

In short, we should take into account that the globalisation process may lead to both the best and the worst, according to which direction it takes, and above all according to who does the directing. If it is a process in which different cultures and societies around the world can take part with some degree of equality, it can be beneficial for everyone. If it is a process directed and decided exclusively by present-day economic power centres, it will be an ever-increasing process of cultural homogenisation and social exclusion.
What is culture?
The idea of culture is one of those ideas that has been defined in the most diverse of ways. Without pretending to exhaust the subject, we offer in what follows some elements that we believe should be taken into account when attempting to deal in an adequate way with the subject of cultural diversity and its relationship with globalisation.

To be more specific, we deal with the need for a non-reductionist idea of culture, in addition to the assumption of different levels of articulation, both on structural and on ontological and value-based levels.
Reductionist conceptions
Culture is one of those terms and ideas involving greatest polysemy and one that provokes most polemics in the field, not only in anthropology but also in social and human sciences taken as a whole. It is a difficult idea to define because of its complexity and its scope for ever-widening applications. In our view, however, the different notions employed always fall into the reductionist trap, as they are definitions that only include one part of what the notion of culture represents and expresses.

While making no pretension to being exhaustive in our analysis of the different definitions of the term "culture" nor making this into a statement on the underlying epistemologies, we believe that they can be grouped under three main headings:

· definitions that make reference to artistic production,
· definitions that make reference to intellectual production,
· definitions that make reference to systems of values and beliefs.

In all three cases what they define is culture, but not everything that can be considered culture
The United Nations and the concept of culture
The United Nations, by contrast, particularly UNESCO, which understands culture as one of its basic elements for study and reflection, has developed definitions of the concept of culture from a more global standpoint.

Thus, one very much employed definition is the one adopted in the Mexico Declaration on Cultural Policies , which states:

"that in its widest sense, it may be said that culture is now the whole complex of characteristic spiritual, material, intellectual and emotional features that characterise a society or a social grouping. It not only includes art and letters, but also systems of life, the fundamental rights of the human being, the value systems, the traditions and the beliefs"

In addition, the Declaration on Cultural Rights Project understands that:

"the term 'culture' takes in the values, beliefs, languages, knowledge and arts, traditions, institutions and forms of life by which persons and groups express the meanings they attach to their existence and development";

that:

"the expression 'cultural identity' is understood as the sum total of the cultural references through which persons and groups are defined, manifested and wish to be recognised; cultural identity implies the liberties inherent to the dignity of the person and integrates in a permanent process cultural diversity, the personal and universal background, memory and the project";

and that:

"by 'cultural community' we understand a group of persons who share cultural referents that constitute a common cultural identity, the preservation and development of which they consider essential to their dignity as human beings, in the framework of respect for human rights".
Towards an integrated concept of culture. A proposal
On the basis of the principles emanating from the definitions set forth above, it becomes necessary to reach a definition of culture that explicitly includes areas of human experience such as economics and politics, which form part of any cultural framework.

When we talk of cultural diversity we must work with a broad, global notion of culture that takes in and articulates the different ambits of human experience. In this section we offer, on the one hand, a proposal for its definition and, on the other, we present what we consider to be the elements that characterise culture.

a) Culture as a style of life

One proposal for defining the term culture could be the following:

Culture is the sum total of beliefs, myths, knowledge, institutions and practices whereby a society or group affirms its presence in the world and assures its reproduction and persistence through time. In other words, a style of life that takes in the whole existential reality of the persons and communities in a society, and not only arts, folklore and beliefs.

If we adopt this definition as a starting point, we abandon a notion of culture that is separate from politics, economics, education, religion, social organisation, science, justice, relationship with the environment, territorial occupation, or one that is reduced to artistic and folklore statements or to the area of values and beliefs.

Thus, as a logical result of this perspective, we may no longer talk of politics and culture, economics and culture, religion and culture, education and culture, etc., but of political culture, economic culture, educational culture, religious culture, social culture, etc., in order to refer to the sum total of particular values, knowledge, institutions and practices that one specific culture develops in each one of the areas of experience at any particular moment or particular point in time and space.

This inevitably involves speaking of cultural diversity as taking in each and every one of these basic ambits of any human community, to the exclusion of none.

b) The three structural levels of any culture

All cultural identity is shaped by the articulation of values, institutions and practices in all the areas of experience. It is important that when we talk of culture and cultural identity we know how to situate in their proper place the elements that we identify and analyse. By way of an analytical proposal, we believe that we can talk of the existence of three levels in all culture, based on which cultural identities take shape.

Following the analogy of a tree, we may talk of a first level in which are situated the values, beliefs and deepest myths . These are the roots of all culture, which provide us with both stability and solidity, in addition to sustenance. This is a highly stable level which does not change either easily or rapidly, but at a very slow rate of change. Its visibility is greatly reduced, particularly for those who form part of it.

A second level would be the institutions, formal or informal, by which these values and beliefs take shape in diverse areas of experience, structuring the behaviour and ways of acting of the members of the society in question, by the fact of offering a framework in which the values take shape in different areas of experience. By analogy, we may say that this is the trunk of the tree. Its visibility is greater than that for values and beliefs.

A third and last level would be formed by particular practices included in their corresponding institutional framework and which are the most visible and evident dimension from the outside of the culture in question. By analogy, these would be the branches and foliage of the tree, which can experience very important changes and modifications, much more than at the level of the trunk and, above all, at the level of the roots. This is the level that we perceive first of all when we enter into contact with another culture.

Following the analogy, we may also say that, just as happens with trees, which have a denser and more visible foliage in proportion to the number of roots, all cultures, when they have stronger roots (myths, beliefs, values), can develop their whole branch structure and foliage (practices) to the full.

This analogy of the tree, with all its limitations, serves to make us realise that when talking of cultural diversity and globalisation we must locate on which level the latter is operating: are values globalised? institutions? practices? all three together? Answering these questions is essential for any understanding of the homogenising scope of globalisation and thus enables us to define better the strategies to redirect it in the direction of a genuinely pluralist orientation.

It should also be borne in mind that this analogy serves to make us aware of the different degrees of "visibility" and "invisibility" of the different elements that shape all culture. Practices, together with institutions, to a lesser degree, are more visible and evident than the values and beliefs which, while they provide them with sustenance, remain less evident and visible.

In order to bring the analogy to a close, the strength and vitality of the culture depend to a large degree on the concern shown by the people who experience it.
Identity and cultural diversity
All of us are born into, and shaped by, a particular cultural matrix: no one can exist outside a particular culture, to the extent that stating, as some people do, that "Man has freed himself from the imposition of his culture" is already a form of cultural definition. Cultural identities are not strictly individual, despite the fact that each person articulates one in a particular manner, but collective, which means that we can talk of the cultural diversity of the world in terms of collective, and not individual, identities.
Cultural identity: we are all part of a particular culture
We all possess a cultural identity that shapes us and gives a meaning to our lives. In fact, we may state that we do not have a culture, but that we are a culture. We can only think, feel, believe, do... from a particular cultural standpoint.

It is true that cultural identity is not something static, or fixed for ever and ever, but a dynamic reality that is constructed, at the same time that it constructs us. Of course, if cultures are not static, nor are they simple instrumental conventions that can be denied and/or modified from one day to the next: cultures are not shirts that we can take off and put on easily. The desire not to fall into cultural essentialism (the belief in the immutability of a culture) need not presuppose the negation of certain more constant and less changing aspects or values that constitute the deepest nucleus of all culture.

We are conscious that in the framework of contemporary western culture there has been, and there still is, a certain tendency that despises the reality of cultural identity, considers it a limiting element on individual freedom and, therefore, something that has to be overcome and from which one must liberate oneself. However, from this perception of affairs, we do not realise that the very affirmation of individual liberty as a supreme value is a characteristic proper to contemporary western cultural identity, a fact that takes away no value from it, but that relativises its scope and the pretension to being a value that is non-determined, culturally speaking. This constitutes a clear example of how difficult it proves to jump over the shadow of one's own cultural identity.

Becoming aware of the omnipresence of culture and cultural identity is essential to understanding the behaviour of others, not from one's own cultural matrix, but, to the degree that this is possible, from that of others.

It should be taken into account that all cultural identity is not something static, either on the individual or on the collective level, that it changes and adapts to new situations. In this sense, we should ask ourselves how different cultures adapt themselves to the new situations raised by globalisation.
Is it important to preserve cultural diversity?
Sometimes it is no bad thing to explain what appears obvious, in order not to end up advocating things that make no sense. As regards cultural diversity, we should ask ourselves -and try to respond- why it is important to preserve it and strengthen it in the face of the homogenisation that may result from the present globalisation process.

We believe that the importance of cultural diversity lies not in the phenomenon itself, that it does not justify itself as an end in itself, but as a means and instrument for something that is to be found outside itself. Cultural diversity as such is not, nor ceases to be, important if it is not related to the persons and communities which are the expression and incarnation of it. To talk of cultural diversity therefore involves talking of human beings and communities which, for the most diverse reasons and motives, have developed specific ways of life that are creators of meaning, not only anthropological, but also cosmic and divine; not only material, but also spiritual; not only individual, but also collective.

In other words, cultural diversity is the expression and genuine representation of the deepest human creativity that attempts to construct itself and place itself at a specific point in time and place, without which the fact of being a person makes no sense whatsoever: cultural diversity is the expression of the will to be, the representation of the realization of a full life in communion with the whole of experience. These principles are in full concordance with the Conclusions of the Round Table of Ministers of Culture of UNESCO which was held in Paris on 2nd November, 1999 , on 'Cultural diversity in a globalised world'.

In this sense, the defence of cultural diversity is not merely the defence of certain rights, but the defence of a reality which is in itself human creativity in search of fullness, which in the last analysis is not only anthropological, but also cosmic and divine.

It should be borne in mind, moreover, that cultural diversity finds its place, not so much in the individual and collective ambit as in the personal and community one, in spite of all the individualising socio-political culture that has prevailed in the contemporary West, especially from the French Revolution onwards.

The importance of the defence of cultural diversity lies, therefore, in the fact that it expresses a profound respect for what persons and communities really are, and not so much an unhealthy obsession for what people think they should be. A respect for human complexity that does not accept unilateral visions or reductionist impositions in which life will never allow itself to be "corseted". To accept cultural diversity is not an act of tolerance towards "the other", but a recognition of this "other" (personal and communitary) as a full reality, contradictory (like ourselves), the bearer of wisdom, knowledge and practices through which it is, and tries to be so, in all its fullness.

However, we should not forget (coherent with what we have outlined regarding the integrating notion of culture) that to talk of cultural diversity means not only diversity of customs, folklore, language or cultural expressions, but diversity of economic cultures, political cultures, social cultures, scientific cultures, educational cultures, territorial cultures, juridical cultures, ecological cultures, etc.
Three possible conceptions of cultural diversity in the world context
Faced with the culturally pluralist reality of humanity, we can point in one word to the existence of three differentiated points of view, which are not always presented in a clear and unequivocal manner, but which often appear mixed together and overlapping.

A first point of view, which we shall term the hard uniformising model, would state that contemporary western culture is the vertex of human evolution towards which all remaining cultures should orientate themselves. Sooner or later we should aim for a state of uniform world culture. This view, currently at a low ebb (at least in its political manifestation), is the one that has dominated Euro-american thought since the beginning of the period of colonial expansion and up until the end of the Cold War, with the American Way of Life as the latest "uniformising" proposal. Despite the fact that it continues to be present in the thought of many western politicians and intellectuals, it is no longer publicly defended, due to the fact that it is considered to be anachronistic and politically incorrect. We might say that it is the vision of a monochrome world.

In this perspective, globalisation would be limited to a simple process of cultural homogenisation from the civilisational matrix generated by contemporary western culture. There would be no exchange and only one culture would have both "voice and vote".

A second point of view, which we might term the plural universal model, affirms the securing of a single world model with an original Euro-american matrix, but with room for the cultural adaptations that may be required. This is a pragmatic derivation of the first point of view, once we have accepted the impossibility of total and absolute homogenisation. In this case, homogenisation would be fundamentally economic (universal free market), political (democratic nation-state) and with fundamental values (Universal Human Rights).

From this position it is stated that the recognition of cultural identities and the respect for cultural diversity must necessarily be inserted into the framework of universal values, by adapting to them and assuming them as integral parts: free market economies, individual human rights, representative democracy, individual liberties, etc., and enabling us to understand that all culture that does not adjust to these parameters is intrinsically perverse and totalitarian, a fact that would justify, were these parameters not to be adopted, their dissolution and disappearance. It is taken for granted that these parameters are culturally universal and neither conditioned nor inserted into any particular cultural matrix. Intercultural dialogue is stated a posteriori on the basis of pre-existing universal values. We might say that from this point of view a single multi-coloured world comes into focus.

In this perspective, globalisation would be a process of cultural exchange, but one based on the parameters determined by contemporary western culture. It would be an asymmetrical exchange in which all cultures have a "voice" but not all have a "vote".

A third point of view, which we might term a pluralist one, states the existence of radically different cultures, with their own values, institutions and practices which are not reducible from one to another. A debate and an intercultural dialogue without predetermined universal values are affirmed. Notwithstanding this, values of these characteristics may emerge from the fruit of this dialogue. From this point of view we might say that a world containing many different worlds comes into focus.

In this perspective, globalisation would be oriented towards establishing a genuine symmetrical exchange and communication among the different cultures and civilisations, in the service of a genuine interculturality in which all cultures have "a voice and a vote".
Proposals
In this sense, on behalf of a process and globalising reality that respects and enhances cultural diversity and intercultural dialogue we formulate the following considerations and proposals which contain specific principles and commitments for the attention of the Millennium Forum and the whole United Nations system.
Peace, security and disarmament
We understand the culture of peace to be a very positive and valid proposal, to the degree that it is articulated along the principles of cultural diversity, since not only "cultures of war and violence" exist in different cultures, but also different "cultures of peace".

In this way, taking into account the experiences of different cultures throughout the world, we can see that what is termed the culture of peace goes beyond the mere absence of war and conflict, since it also includes values such as equity, justice and the removal of poverty.

Based on this general consideration, we propose that the following be adopted in building the culture of peace:

1. That the different cultural conceptions and practices involving conflict and peace be taken into account, in order to achieve a completely integrating culture of peace.
2. That the experiences of different specific groups (refugees, displaced persons, female victims of violence) be integrated into the construction of networks for peace.
3. That the different meanings of Human Security in accordance with different cultural perspectives be taken into consideration.
4. That we should learn from the different traditions of peaceful resistance (civil disobedience, etc.) developed in different cultures throughout the world and history.

In a parallel manner we consider it necessary:

1. To use the arguments and experiences of demilitarisation, as social instruments of denunciation, and the transformation of the aspects of the globalisation process that strengthen even more violent and militarised cultures.
2. To address the relationship between male cultures and violence; the relationship between the socialisation of children in the home and at school and the culture of violence; and, in those cases that prove necessary, the role of certain women in the perpetuation of the values and situations of violence.
The eradication of poverty
Globally speaking, the development policies of the last 50 years have not only not eliminated poverty, but in many cases have increased it and led to new forms of misery. It would appear manifestly clear that this trend is increasing under the impact of economic globalisation. Moreover, the cultures of consumerism and individualism stand in direct relation with the creation of poverty.

Faced with this reality, what is required is a change of orientation and policies that considers the poverty issue from an intercultural perspective. In this sense we propose that:

1. The fact that poverty and wealth are defined, experienced and articulated in very different ways in different cultures around the world and throughout time should be taken into account. Neither poverty nor wealth can be reduced to their strictly economic or material aspects.
2. In selected cases the economies of different local cultures (rural, urban, native, ecological…) should be strengthened as a strategy for eradicating poverty and misery.
3. The different traditions of poverty and simplicity should be evaluated in order to learn from them as strategies for resisting increasing poverty.

In addition we consider it proper:

a) To study in depth the role of modernisation and development in the creation of poverty, misery and impoverishment in broad sectors of the world's population.

b) To ensure the participation of the poor in any strategy for combating impoverishment, taking into consideration cultural knowledge and perspectives; promoting exchange of experiences among groups of poor people around the world.
Human Rights
Human Rights are a very valuable instrument for ensuring the dignity of human beings around the world. In this sense it is neither right nor proper to use cultural diversity in order to justify the oppression of, or attack on, this dignity. By the same token, nor is it right for Human Rights to be used to encourage and justify the complete homogenisation of the values of different cultures. In order to make Human Rights universal as well as articulated alongside cultural diversity, we propose that:

1. Not only the individual dimension of Human Rights but also its collective dimension should be taken into account, exactly as happens already in certain declarations and instruments currently in force (e.g.: African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights of 1981).
2. A genuinely pluricultural perspective of Human Rights, both historically and culturally speaking, should be taken into account. This means leaving the door open to the possibility of constructing new universal values and doing so on the basis of genuine intercultural dialogue.
3. The idea of Human Rights should be extended to new fields of application, such as cultural rights, collective intellectual rights (knowledge of nature), the right to peace, the right to a healthy environment… This presupposes taking on board the idea that Human Rights are not static, but dynamic and pluralist.
4. The constructive use that different social groups, such as women or ethnic minorities, are making of Human Rights should be explored and reinforced.

We also consider it necessary:

1. To set up and reinforce the necessary political and legal instruments (to a large degree already existing) in order to ensure an effective application of, and respect for, Human Rights; by introducing into them and their work a pluricultural perspective.

2. To ensure that these institutional spaces (especially the United Nations) can guarantee that Human Rights are not used as a weapon of pressure for economic and political ends.
Sustainable development
Cultural diversity can and must be clearly identifiable as a fundamental part of human capital which, like ecological capital, from the point of view of the strongest conceptions of sustainability we ought to be capable, as humanity, of "using sustainably"; in other words - making use of the economic analogy -: "by employing its benefits without reducing, but by increasing existing capital, if possible, as the sole means in order that the future may continue to enjoy benefits like those that we enjoy today and which are precisely those that most contribute to the self-identification of humanity and human beings as such". On the basis of this we propose that:

1. Cultural diversity be genuinely considered, contemplated and heeded as an non-substitutable capital for the future of humanity, analogously to what biodiversity treatises, or proposals like the Earth Charter, signify.
2. In the same way that cultural diversity is not, nor should be, antagonistic to the most universalist dimension of humanity, we bear in mind the vital importance of the concept of sustainability -with its variables and proper diversity- and ensure that it makes an ever-increasing impact as an essential value of the most diverse expressions of cultures.
3. The positive and negative features of globalisation with respect to cultural diversity and the environment be oriented in the same direction: minimising the homogenising and hegemonising effects, maximising the role of all cultures, all their dimensions and expressions, in all the scenarios of human life (unconditionally using for this purpose the new communication and information technologies).
Facing the challenge of globalisation
Globalisation is a process in which a double reality manifests itself: on the one hand, a greater capacity for communication and exchange on the international scale takes place, whereas on the other, there exists a very real danger of cultural homogenisation as a result of the imposition of the contemporary western cultural model. In order to re-direct the asymmetrical, unequal and contradictory character of globalisation as regards cultural diversity, we propose that:

1. An open concept, process and strategy of globalisation be defined from a polycentric and pluricultural perspective, assuming and respecting cultural differences without the domination or superiority of any one of the latter.
2. Different cultures re-examine their own realities in the context of globalisation in order to re-locate themselves in this new reality. Specifically, that they assume the challenge of the emergence of a global consciousness and multiple identities.
3. The invisible but real impact of globalisation on the life systems of rural populations and indigenous peoples should be taken into account.
4. The relationship between religions and globalisation should be critically clarified, both as regards their own globalisation and as regards their response to westernising globalisation.
5. Marginalised communities should be actively integrated into discussions on the relationships between globalisation, social justice and cultural diversity.

We also consider it necessary:

1. To take into account that there exist different "modernities" with their own histories that need not respond to the criteria and principles of western modernity.
2. To take into account the invisibility of women in many globalisation processes and the fact that they are often the direct victims of negative aspects of the latter.
3. To take on board that new communication technologies can be of great use for different social movements in the sense of facilitating their work.
4. To reinforce the policies and resources that encourage respect for, and strengthening of, cultural diversity in all the aspects already referred to.
Reinforcement and democratisation of the United Nations and international organisations
A global world requires global responses and a system of world government. In this sense, international institutions, especially the United Nations system -due to its experience and global vision- are the only ones capable of responding to the new -and old- challenges and needs raised by our world. In this sense, and assuming that any system of representative world government needs to be based on a plural vision of the world, we propose that:

1. The United Nations system opens up to the direct and committed participation of other agents that are not states, in order to ensure the genuine representativeness of all cultures; by creating permanent structures that go beyond simple consultative status and which guarantee not only representativeness but also the application of, and respect for, their decisions. Structures that should include not only NGOs, but especially those kinds of communities not represented by states (indigenous communities, religions, stateless nations…) and which require a democratic structure to ensure their representativeness.
2. Equal representation of all parties and cultures affected, on whatever subject and in whatever international forum for discussion, should be guaranteed; but particularly in those that most affect their cultural identity (patents, business, environmental requirements…)
3. The capacity of the regions (Africa, Asia…) to respond collectively to the challenges of globalisation should continue to be reinforced
4. Already existing mechanisms (World Bank directives, ILO…) that entail respect for the principles of cultural diversity and respect for indigenous peoples should be reinforced and amplified; by making them extensive to all agencies, levels and programmes of the United Nations system.
5. Programmes should be set up to reinforce the social responsibility of business organisations in addition to the need for intercultural transfer and dialogue at this level.
6. The United Nations should support the Universal Forum of Cultures - Barcelona 2004 as a forum for reflection on the themes and proposals presented.

We also consider it necessary:

1. To assume the fact that when we talk of global responses we refer to their conception, in other words to the assumption of the fact that it is a question of promoting responses to problems that are common: but that the solutions cannot be monochrome ones, and should respond to the principles of cultural diversity.
2. To set out the mechanisms for ensuring a genuine intercultural dialogue at all levels of international organisations; counting on already existing official (UNESCO) and non-official experience (alternative or parallel NGO forums…).