Akbar Ahmed and Bill Forst of American University have edited a volume of original essays by an impressive array of international scholars and religious and political leaders on the prospects for dialogue and understanding following the events of September 11, 2001.

Ahmed and Forst’s project suffers from the predictable weaknesses of a lack integration and balance and is uneven in quality and is largely predictable in conclusion. The intended audience is decidedly popular and there understandably is little attention to theory and historical context. The authors nevertheless raise issues well-worth contemplating on the roots of terror and on the possibility of communication across traditions.

Ahmed and Forst, in contrast, to Samuel Huntington’s dark and brooding vision of clashing civilizations, are decidedly optimistic towards the possibility of nurturing global mutual understanding and tolerance. The first set of essays discuss the nature and sources of what is termed the “problem” (13). The predominant theme is articulated by Archbishop Desmond Tutu who dismisses the focus on jihadists as diverting attention from the true sources of terror: poverty, disease and a lack of opportunity and democracy. Archbishop Tutu urges religious leaders to initiate a global effort to eradicate these underlying causes of violence. Tutu’s multilateral approach is echoed in the more pragmatic essay by former White House adviser, Zbigniew Brezinski, who argues that combating insurgent violence requires a cooperative effort by the international community.

The second portion of the volume is devoted to pathways to dialogue and understanding. The late Sergio Vieira de Mello, the former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, and United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan both argue that international human rights provides a vocabulary that transcends cultures and is therefore able to provide a unifying vision. Rabbi Jonathan Sacks suggests that the major religious traditions may be invoked to inspire dialogue while Queen Noor of Jordan advocates educational exchanges and concrete policy initiatives. Amitai Etzioni counters those who doubt the possibility of global communion by pointing out that in the past that modern societies have experienced sudden and unexpected transformations. Judea Pearl, the father of slain journalist Daniel Pearl, recounts his journey of reaching out to others in what Dame Marilyn Strathern of Cambridge University characterizes as “standing in the shoes of others” with whom “one has practically nothing in common but almost everything in parallel”(89).

Ahmed and Forst conclude with a discussion of the transition from “concern to action” (155). Joseph Nye of Harvard advocates reliance on the “soft power” of values and democracy and a sensitivity to the perception of American policies abroad. William Urey of the Harvard negotiation project points to the effectiveness of what he terms a ”Third Side” in bringing peace to South Africa, Guatemala, Northern Ireland and Sri Lanka (182). Martin Marty urges us to risk “hospitality” with the forces that we find so threatening (190).

Ahmed and Forst are to be credited for including contributions from a cross-section of global leaders, including former President Seyed Mohammed Khatami of Iran and Prince El Hassan bin Talal of Saudi Arabia. The authors’ effort marks an understanding that global stability requires a measure of understanding and tolerance towards other traditions. Dialogue, however, will not curtail a violence that is fueled by grievances stemming from colonialism, oil politics, dictatorial regimes, military occupation, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and racism and the problematic European effort to integrate Muslim communities. The demographic realities of the Middle East may overwhelm the effort to stem the global tide of terrorism. The underlying issue is whether dialogue is at all possible and, in the view of some observers, even desirable.

Ahmed and Forst fail to clarify the nature of the global divide that is at the center of the text. The advocacy of understanding and tolerance between traditions seemingly disregards the intricacy and complexity of the Muslim world. The discussion does serve to remind us that virtually all major religious traditions have been bloodied by crusader violence and that it is disingenuous to single out Islam for condemnation. It is a measure of the intensity of events since September 11, 2001 that the authors’ message, however imperative, appears to be the expression of a more innocent era. The question remains whether Ahmed and Forst are advocating a course of action that is too little, too late.