UNESCO’s Philosophy of “intellectual and moral solidarity” in attaining peace


By Dr. M. C. Patricia Morales (patricia.morales@soc.kuleuven.be)
University of Leuven, Belgium


… A peace based exclusively upon the political and economic arrangements of governments would not be a peace which could secure the unanimous, lasting and sincere support of the peoples of the world, and … the peace must therefore be founded, if it is not to fail, upon the intellectual and moral solidarity of mankind. Constitution of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization adopted in London on 16 November 1945


The construction of the defenses of peace in the minds of men

In the Preamble to UNESCO’s Constitution of a revolutionary appeal is addressed to everyone in the human family for securing a sustainable peace: to assume an ethical commitment of solidarity.

The aim of this paper is to show the remarkable role played by UNESCO in making the idea of “solidarity” a reality, from its beginning to today, among the peoples of the world; and also to consider that this principle of solidarity is the moral key of this Constitution. Over the past 60 years we can observe that the emerging paradigm of an “intellectual and moral solidarity” has impregnated the educational, scientific and cultural fields of UNESCO, and its vision has become an indubitable reference point for rethinking the human condition on Earth.

In fact, UNESCO has played an inspirational role in fulfilling the ideals of solidarity proclaimed in its Constitution.

Based upon solidarity, UNESCO has been a symbol of freedom and international protection for many scientists, educators and thinkers, promoting freedom for human development, when faced with situations of oppression or tyranny. At the same time, UNESCO has preserved a space for ‘freedom of expression’ and ‘freedom from fear. UNESCO’s commitment for securing peace has created an evolving dialogue and understanding among cultures and traditions of the world.

In the spirit of its Constitution, this paper will discuss the major references to “intellectual and moral solidarity” within UNESCO’s documents and programs, from its formulation to today; and its utilization as an ethical reference, especially at the scientific, educational and cultural level.

The intellectual and moral solidarity of mankind

The idea of solidarity has antecedents in all cultures with traditions of universality, interpersonal obligation and concern for the vulnerable people. Convergent visions from religion, ethical theories and politics provide a cross-cultural foundation of “solidarity”. The first antecedent of the term “solidarity” is “obligatio in solidum”, i.e. the liability of each individual member of a community to pay common debts. Since the end of the 18th century, the principle of mutual responsibility between the individual and society was extended to morality and politics. “Solidarity” assumed a political place alongside “fraternity” after the French Revolution. In article XXI of the revised Declaration of Human Rights of 1793, the notion of solidarity appeared as a “public assistance” that is a “sacred obligation” of society that would pay a subsistence to unfortunate citizens.

The concept of solidarity as noted by Kurt Bayertz, has the historical problem of “not being defined in a binding manner, and consequently of being used in very different and sometimes very contradictory ways.” This appears very clearly, when “solidarity” is compared with other terms that have been generated by development of a theory, such as “justice”, “liberty” or “equality”. Due to this theoretical deficit, “solidarity” implies a moral obligation to act, that is commendable but not binding; and the theoretical problem exists in particular when justifying the passage from the factual level of common ground between the individuals, to the normative level of mutual obligations to aid each other. (See: Bayertz p.3 ff.)

UNESCO’s revolutionary notion of “intellectual and moral solidarity” emerges in a fragmented theoretical and ideological scenario, where science and ethics were totally dissociated from each other. After the end of the Second World War, the need for securing a worldwide, lasting peace becomes a common goal on Earth. The philosopher Karl-Otto Apel provides us with an exemplary description of how the old Kantian demand for a cosmopolitan order of law and peace became more urgent than ever after the Holocaust. In particular, due to the invention and use of the atomic bomb and other technological developments, human beings have generated a new challenge to the human condition and the need for a globally oriented ethics of responsibility. However, this challenge remains theoretically unanswered by the “ideological complementarity system of the liberal West” represented by scientific rationalism –including juridical positivism, libertarian market economy,- and existentialism. On the other hand the reaction by the East, suggesting an ideological integration system denoted by scientific rationality and public and private morality, was not very convincing either. (See: Apel 2002 Page 28ff)

One of the most significant UNESCO contributions to the intellectually and politically fragmented community during that period of time, was to successfully join efforts for providing a trustworthy guide for human actions, consciously incorporating the theoretical differences of the (East and West) traditions. “Intellectual and moral solidarity” can be achieved de facto. As proposed by Jacques Maritain, UNESCO’s mission could not be based on a shared conception of the world, but rather on common, practical ideas that could serve to develop a forum for peace. During the Second Session of UNESCO’s General Conference (Mexico, 1947) the philosopher Maritain proposed: “The goal of UNESCO is a practical goal. Agreement between minds can be reached spontaneously, not on the basis of common speculative ideas, but on common practical ideas, not on the affirmation of one and the same conception of the world, of man and of knowledge, but upon the affirmation of a single body of beliefs for guidance in action.” (See: Droit 2005, page 153).


Education of humanity for justice and liberty and peace

Since the beginning, UNESCO’s field of education and the principle of solidarity have been interrelated. The program of universal education is nurtured by the idea of solidarity and at the same time contributes strongly to enrich the content of the curricula towards the promotion of the principle of solidarity facilitated by a multidisciplinary and intercultural perspective “in a spirit of mutual assistance and concern”.

In the Preamble UNESCO´s Constitution it is stated that “ignorance of each other’s ways and lives” has often been a cause of suspicion and mistrust between the peoples of the world. Taking into account that education is the best remedy against ignorance, universal education became a priority for UNESCO. As Jacques Delors describes systematically, education rests on the pillars of learning to know, to do, to be and to live together, reestablishing equality of opportunities for all (see: Jacques Delors, in Binde 2004). “Living together” implies solidarity as the common language of social behavior. In 1948 taking a decisive initiative, UNESCO recommended that Member States make free primary education compulsory and universal, which progressively developed into the “Education for All” campaign. EFA became a national priority for member countries to combat illiteracy, effectively.

The principle of “intellectual and moral solidarity” is a constitutive element of the successive UNESCO educational documents stating that “the education of humanity for justice and liberty and peace are indispensable to the dignity of man and constitute a sacred duty”. One interesting example is given by the UNESCO Recommendation concerning Education for International Understanding, Co-operation and Peace and Education relating to Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1974 that draws our attention to the fact that education with solidarity is essential for the exercise of rights and freedoms of the individual. Point 5 accentuates that “combining learning, training, information and action, international education should further the appropriate intellectual and emotional development of the individual. It should develop a sense of social responsibility and of solidarity with less privileged groups and should lead to observance of the principles of equality in everyday conduct.”

Full and equal opportunities for Education for All

“Education for All” was the effective educational translation of the principle of solidarity, and solidarity has been reinforced by the active involvement of every member of society, in particular of women and children. UNESCO’s “Education for All” program has become a wonderful tool for achieving women’s rights to education, and their full participation in society. Moreover it is generally accepted that women usually play a positive role for a culture of peace, and against violence. During the International Conference on Public Education in 1952 a delegate once remarked in a recreated version of the Preamble to UNESCO’s Constitution: ‘Wars begin in the minds of men; it is in the minds of women that the defenses of peace must be constructed.’ No doubt we cannot afford to neglect either. We are therefore making it our business to obtain for women as well as for men universal recognition and effective enjoyment of this right to education.” (See: the Opening speech to the Fifteenth session of the International Conference on Public Education, IBE, Geneva, 7-12 July 1952 in www.unesco.org)

Towards fulfilling “Education for All,” UNESCO also strongly promotes education for adults. A notable example of the role that education has to play for consolidating universal solidarity is given by the Recommendation on the Development of Adult Education 1976. This recommendation includes the aims of adult education, the promotion of awareness of “solidarity at the family, local, national, regional and international levels”, and also draws attention to “solidarity across frontiers”.

The term “solidarity” is also present in other UNESCO educational documents as the International Charter of Physical Education and Sport 1978, where it is associated with fraternity. It is stated that “stressing accordingly that physical education and sport should seek to promote closer communion between peoples and between individuals, together with disinterested emulation, solidarity and fraternity, mutual respect and understanding, and full respect for the integrity and dignity of human beings…”

The unrestricted pursuit of objective truth and the free exchange of ideas and knowledge

Progressively, the principle of solidarity becomes a guide for science, the second field of the UNESCO. The needed cooperation between the fields of UNESCO, in particular in the sciences, has been emphasized from the beginning by, among others, Rene Maheu, Director General of the UNESCO (1961-1974). He suggested that a “humanist synthesis”will have to be achieved with freedom and intellectual rigor: “a balance between science and culture, between science and technology and even, within science, between the natural sciences and the human sciences”. (Quoted in Droit 2005, page 158)

The aim of “unrestricted pursuit of objective truth and the free exchange of ideas and knowledge” is promoted by UNESCO, in the awareness that the scientific and technological activities need ethical parameters, more than ever. UNESCO is functioning in fact, as the world’s forum for ethics, in particular for the current developments of science and technology. Koïchiro Matsuura, UNESCO’s Director General, preoccupied with the situation of sharing scientific benefits with the world’s poorest countries, states that UNESCO “is deeply committed to defend and promote universal human dignity within a dramatically changing world, while helping to raise the great moral questions and to define the ethical guidelines so keenly required, and so urgently needed to be recognized, by all peoples and lands.” (See: Matsuura 2005)

A very internationally recognized code of ethics for life sciences is the Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights. As stated by Koichiro Matsuura, this document establishes a balance between guaranteeing respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the need to ensure freedom of research. In this declaration the absolute moral imperative of preserving universal human dignity in all research and applied technology regarding the human genome has as guiding principle solidarity associated to international cooperation. But solidarity is expected primarily from the States as a major duty to vulnerable people. In article 17 it is states: “States should respect and promote the practice of solidarity towards individuals, families and population groups who are particularly vulnerable to or affected by disease or disability of a genetic character.” Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights 1997 endorsed by the UN General Assembly in 1998

Together with the principle of justice and equality, solidarity is a component of the ethical code proposed for the protection of human genetic data applicable in general. Article 1 of the International Declaration on Human Genetic Data 2003 enunciates the aims of this declaration: “to ensure the respect of human dignity and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the collection, processing, use and storage of human genetic data, human proteomic data and of the biological samples from which they are derived, referred to hereinafter as “biological samples”, in keeping with the requirements of equality, justice and solidarity, while giving due consideration to freedom of thought and expression, including freedom of research…”

Finally, the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights 2005 takes into account in particular the special needs of developing countries, indigenous communities and vulnerable populations in the field of bioethics, reiterating the triad of equality, justice and solidarity. Article 10 proposes: “The fundamental equality of all human beings in dignity and rights is to be respected so that they are treated justly and equitably”… Article 13 incorporates solidarity: “solidarity among human beings and international cooperation towards that end are to be encouraged”.

It is interesting to consider that the complementarity between solidarity and justice of these documents on bioethics is also proposed by the philosopher Jürgen Habermas who affirms that solidarity is the “reverse side” of justice. Solidarity complements justice by expressing human concern. Morally valid norms would be those “which could find acceptance by all those concerned as participants in a practical discourse.” (See: Habermas 1990, page 32ff)

A truer and more perfect knowledge of each other's lives

The principle of solidarity for peace also plays an essential role in the third field of culture, where UNESCO aspires to promote the principles of solidarity, tolerance, cooperation, dialogue and reconciliation between the traditions and religions of the world, to strengthen respect for cultural diversity and to consolidate a culture of peace.

Based on an interdisciplinary approach of social and human sciences, the Declaration of Principles on Tolerance 1995 is proclaimed fifty years after the United Nations Charter and two hundred years after Voltaire led his original philosophical battle against intolerance of religion. The aim of this declaration is to "practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors". The Declaration qualifies tolerance not only as a moral duty, but also as a political and legal requirement for individuals, groups and States, taking into account the dangers of violence and exclusion associated with the different forms of intolerance. In Point 4.2 “education for tolerance” is considered an urgent imperative for combating violence and exclusion; and solidarity is a component of this education: “Education policies and programs should contribute to development of understanding, solidarity and tolerance among individuals as well as among ethnic, social, cultural, religious and linguistic groups and nations.”

We can consider that the principle of tolerance is interrelated to the principle of solidarity. Tolerance would be a precondition of solidarity. In the light of the philosopher Richard Rorty who considers that moral progress is given when more human solidarity emerges after recognizing that differences associated with ethnicity, religion and ways of life are unimportant, we can seethe role of tolerance in developing a sense of solidarity, as defined by UNESCO. What would count is the pain and humiliation of the “others”. Solidarity would be founded on feelings of compassion with people who are “like us” and not on a universal theory on a common human worth and dignity.” (See: Rorty 1989, Introduction)

However solidarity cannot be explained disregarding the value of cultural diversity. Solidarity presupposes tolerance, but goes beyond the mere acceptance of the other’s differences. UNESCO draws our attention to the value of cultural diversity and consequently promotes a series of initiatives for protecting this common heritage. Alternative to Richard Rorty’s position, we can turn to the sociologist Emile Durkheim who has explained the social evolution through the passage of mechanic to organic solidarity, emphasizing that not similarity but diversity is the constitutive element of solidarity. That means that it is not the primacy of “us” in front of “them” that nurtures the principle of solidarity, but the conscience of the need of mutual reciprocity in a very complex scenario. Following Emile Durkheim in a broader sense, in today’s context of global interdependence, we can rediscover the urgent need of a “globally organic solidarity” for consolidating a “global society”. It is not about “global community”, but just about a mature “global society”, where “organic solidarity” has to be consolidated based on diversity and vulnerability of the human family. (See Durkheim 1997, Book I: The Function of the Division of Labour)

The principle of solidarity is closely related to the principle of international cooperation in UNESCO’s documents on cultural diversity. The principle of cooperation is insufficient in meeting the challenges of a world of inequalities, whereas the principle of solidarity is urgently required. Based upon the recognition of cultural diversity and the unity of humankind, UNESCO’s Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity 2001 associates solidarity with cooperation at the international level. Article 10 states, “In the face of current imbalances in flows and exchanges of cultural goods at the global level, it is necessary to reinforce international cooperation and solidarity aimed at enabling all countries, especially developing countries and countries in transition, to establish cultural industries that are viable and competitive at national and international level.

The Charter on the Preservation of Digital Heritage 2003 reiterates this complementarity of solidarity and cooperation. For meeting the challenges of an unequal world its article 11 says: “In the face of the current digital divide, it is necessary to reinforce international cooperation and solidarity to enable all countries to ensure creation, dissemination, preservation and continued accessibility of their digital heritage.”
Finally, the Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions 2005 considers cultural diversity as a common heritage of humanity to be preserved for the benefit of all, and in item 2.4 enunciates a principle of international solidarity and cooperation: “International cooperation and solidarity should be aimed at enabling countries, especially developing countries, to create and strengthen their means of cultural expression, including their cultural industries, whether nascent or established, at the local, national and international levels.”

The objective of international peace

UNESCO´s Constitution declares that international peace is a major objective together with the common welfare of mankind. Progressively, it is considered that peace is not merely absence of war, and that a positive and dynamic concept of peace becomes needed. A new concept, a” Culture of Peace,” is proposed in the Declaration of Yamoussoukro in 1989 and later developed by UNESCO in response to the United Nations’” An Agenda for Peace" in 1992, under the former Director General, Federico Mayor. The United Nations defines a “Culture of Peace” as “a set of values, attitudes, modes of behavior and ways of life that reject violence and prevent conflicts by tackling their root causes to solve problems through dialogue and negotiation among individuals, groups and nations” (UN Resolutions A/RES/52/13 1998).The International Year of Peace and the Decade for the Culture of Peace have been established for the achievement of these goals.

Organizations throughout the world are promoting the “Culture of Peace” through the Manifesto 2000. The aim of the Manifesto 2000 for a Culture of Peace and Non-violence is to provide a new beginning for the new millennium in order to transform “the culture of war and violence into a culture of peace and non-violence”. The principle of solidarity integrates the program of a “Culture of Peace” together with the principles of non-violence, tolerance, dialogue and participation. The Manifesto 2000 invites innovation to “contribute to the development of my community, with the full participation of women and respect for democratic principles, in order to create together new forms of solidarity”. (See: Federico Mayor 2005).

The objective of the common welfare of mankind

The second objective of the common welfare of mankind as outlined in UNESCO’s Constitution, invites us to rethink the real implementation of the principle of solidarity. During a speech commemorating the thirtieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1978, the jurist Karel Vasak, then director of UNESCO's Division of Human Rights and Peace, reflected on the relation between solidarity and fraternity. He offered a new approach to the realization of human rights through the postulation of “solidarity rights”, adding the space for enumerating a right to development, a right to peace, a right to environment, a right to the ownership of the common heritage of humankind, and a right to communication. The “solidarity rights” has been inspired by “fraternity”, the third normative theme of the French Revolution. In fact, the term “fraternity” means the assumption of a “common ground” of the members of a community. This kind of familiarity can be interpreted in relation to every member of the “human family” and also be transformed in a “feeling” of obligation. Karel Vasak suggests a new classification of human rights: the first generation of civil and political rights corresponding to freedom (liberté); the second generation of economic, social, and cultural rights to equality (égalité); and a third generation, the “solidarity rights”, concerning to the principle of brotherhood (fraternité). These solidarity rights are collective rights. These rights have created a series of debates on individual and collective rights, and about the possibility of the full implementation of human rights that remains open until today. (Karel Vasak1982, chapter I). Taking into account the situation of the needed people, the follower director of UNESCO's Division of Human Rights, Janusz Symonides, considers that solidarity has to become a legal principle of the new international order. He proposes a “solidarity between countries and solidarity within every country in favor of the most disadvantaged.” (Janusz Symonides 1998, chapter I)

The postulation of “solidarity rights” constitutes a major effort for solving the gap between ideal and reality at the intragenerational level. The welfare system has to be shared, and no one from the present generation can be excluded. The UNESCO Declaration on the Responsibilities of the Present Generations towards Future Generations 1997, is based on several international antecedents on the responsibilities of the present generations towards future generations, and invites us to radically assume the principle of solidarity in the light of the fraternity of the human family within a temporal dimension. It asserts “the necessity for establishing new, equitable and global links of partnership and intragenerational solidarity”, and promotes “inter-generational solidarity for the perpetuation of humankind”. We can also consider that the Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights 1997 reinforces the scientific foundation of solidarity drawing our attention to the human genome. Its first article states that “the human genome underlies the fundamental unity of all members of the human family, as well as the recognition of their inherent dignity and diversity. In a symbolic sense, it is the heritage of humanity.”

Solidarity as the foundation of peace

UNESCO’s philosophy of promoting “intellectual and moral solidarity of mankind” is reiterated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), Article 28, which states that “everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized;” and has provided the background for the Millennium Development Goals (MDG,2000), that promotes “solidarity” as essential to international relations in the twenty-first century. The MDG proposes a concrete way for realizing solidarity, proclaiming that “global challenges, must be managed in a way that the costs and burdens are fairly distributes in accordance with the basic principles of equity and social justice. Those who suffer or who benefit least deserve help from those who benefit most.” This statement is reinforced in Paragraph 26: “We will spare no effort to ensure that children and all civilian populations that suffer disproportionately the consequences of natural disasters, genocide, armed conflicts and other humanitarian emergencies are given every assistance and protection so that they can resume normal life as soon as possible.”

If in the seventies the “right to solidarity” was being talked about, today a “duty of solidarity” is proposed, based on the recognition of the other’s condition. Coacher Matsuura formulates a “duty of solidarity” in order to aid the most vulnerable people. In his Message for the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty 2004 he declares that “this is a duty of solidarity as well as an act of reason and peace, to prevent the emergence of new sources of instability in the world.” The jurist Richard Goldstone has shown how strongly related rights and duties are. Under his chairmanship the Declaration of Human Duties and Responsibilities enumerates the duties and responsibilities derived from the human rights of the world community. Only the adequate assumption of human responsibilities secures that the universal rights become a reality. Following this relationship, we can return to the postulation of solidarity rights and also the rights of future generations, in light of the contemporary formulation of a duty of solidarity. (See: Goldstone 1998, Introduction)

“We ought to aid, when we can” could be the formulation of the duty of solidarity, when a moral obligation is derived from our possibilities for realizing the rights of others. In an interdependent world, UNESCO’s philosophy towards an “intellectual and moral solidarity of mankind” appears today, even more than ever before, to be the only guarantee of securing a sustainable and lasting peace for our global society. UNESCO’s 60^th anniversary o is a wonderful opportunity to pay tribute to all of the people who have contributed to the development of the principle of solidarity in education, science and culture, and to be aware of the need to continue with this shared responsibility. “Intellectual and moral solidarity” is a consequence of honestly understanding our human condition, and acting consistently, in fraternity, with those of the present and future generations.

Note:

I would like to express my gratitude to Ann Ferrara for her great assistance in the editing process.

References:

Karl-Otto Apel 2002, The Response of Discourse Ethics to the Moral Challenge of the Human Situation as Such and Especially Today, Leuven: Peeters Publishers

Jérome Bindé (ed) 2004, The Future of Values: 21^St Century Talks, Paris: UNESCO

Kurt Bayertz (ed.) 1999, Solidarity, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers

Roger-Pol Droit 2005, Humanity in the Making. Overview of the Intellectual History of UNESCO 1945-2005, Paris: UNESCO

Emile Durkheim 1997, The Division of Labour in Society, New York: Free Press.

Richard A Falk 2000, Human Rights Horizons. The Pursuit of Justice in a Globalizing World, London: Routledge

Richard Goldstone (chairman) 1998, Declaration of Human Duties and Responsibilities, Valencia: Fundación Valencia III Milenio

Jürgen Habermas 1990, ‘Justice and Solidarity', in M. Kelly (ed.), Hermeneutics and
Critical Theory in Ethics and Politics, Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 32-52

Koïchiro Matsuura 2005, “Ethics and Science” in Institutional Issues Involving Ethics and Justice, from Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS), developed under the auspices of the UNESCO, Oxford: Eolss Publishers, [http://www.eolss.net]

Federico Mayor 2005, “Culture of Peace” in Institutional Issues Involving Ethics and Justice, from Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS), developed under the auspices of the UNESCO, Oxford: Eolss Publishers, Oxford [http://www.eolss.net] [Retrieved October 11, 2005]

Federico Mayor 1999 (ed.), Letters to Future Generations, Paris: UNESCO Publishing

Javier Pérez de Cuellar et al. 1995, Our Creative Diversity: Report of the World Commission on Culture and Development, Paris: Unesco Publishing

Richard Rorty 1989, Contingency, Irony and Solidarity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Steinar Stjerno 2005, Solidarity in Europe: the History of an Idea (2005). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Janusz Symonides (ed.) 1998, Human Rights: New Dimensions and Challenges. UNESCO Manual on Human Rights, Paris: UNESCO

Karel Vasak 1977, “Human Rights: A Thirty-Year Struggle: the Sustained Efforts to give Force of law to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights”, in UNESCO Courier 30, Paris: UNESCO

Karel Vasak and P. Alston (eds.) 1982, The International Dimensions of Human Rights, Paris: Greenwood Press For UNESCO

Polly Vizard 2000, Antecedents of the Idea of Human Rights: A Survey of Perspectives, Human Development Report 2000 Background Paper: hdr.undp.org/docs

UNESCO website: www.unesco.org ; United Nations: www.un.org
UNESCO Chair: www.onlineunesco.org
Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems, www.eolss.net


Summary
The idea of universal solidarity has accompanied the development of UNESCO’s history Major UNESCO proposals have enriched the meaning of the principle of solidarity and established connections with associated concepts, such as: fraternity, justice, equality and cooperation.
Some of UNESCO’s contributions have been remarkable for approaching the “intellectual and moral solidarity” as the assumption of an intragenerational and intergenerational solidarity that extends beyond the borders of the limited concept of solidarity, and the postulation of the solidarity rights, and more recently, the duty of solidarity. The enunciation of the right to peace and the right to development are also important achievements for rethinking solidarity at global level
In the field of education, intellectual and moral solidarity guides UNESCO’s educational programs, strengthening equality of opportunity for all members of the human family, and solidarity becomes a key value of the educational curricula. In the scientific field, solidarity is recognized as a major principle of moral codes on the social responsibility of science and technology for the benefit of all. In the field of culture, the principle of solidarity accompanies UNESCO’s rich contribution to the postulation of the principles of tolerance, the value of cultural diversity and a culture of peace.

UNESCO’s 60th anniversary is a wonderful opportunity to pay tribute to all of the people what have contributed to the development of the principle of solidarity in education, science and culture, but also to be aware of the need for strengthening this shared responsibility. As a consequence of comprehending our human condition on Earth, UNESCO’s philosophy offers “intellectual and moral solidarity” as the creative inspiration to act consistently, in fraternity, with the present and future generations.