That force is the mass media.

Only when fate sent me into the realm of high politics did I become fully aware of the media's doubleedged power. Their dual impact is not a specialty of the media. It is merely a part, or an expression of the dual nature of today's civilization of which I have already spoken.

Thanks to television the whole world discovered, in the course of an evening, that there is a country called Rwanda where people are suffering beyond belief. Thanks to television the whole world, in the course of a few seconds, was shocked and horrified about what happened in Oklahoma City and at the same time, understood it as a great warning for all. Thanks to television the whole world knows that there exists an internationally recognized country called Bosnia and Herzegovina and that from the moment it recognized this country, the international community has tried unsuccessfully to divide it into grotesque mini-states according to the wishes of warlords who have never been recognized by anyone as anyone's legitimate representatives.

That is the wonderful side of today's mass media, or rather, of those who gather the news. Humanity's thanks belong to all those courageous reporters who voluntarily risk their lives wherever something evil is happening, in order to arouse the conscience of the world.

There is, however, another, less wonderful, aspect of television, one that merely revels in the horrors of the world or, unforgivably, makes them commonplace or compels politicians to become first of all television stars. I never fail to be astonished at how much I am at the mercy of television directors and editors, at how my public image depends far more on them than it does on myself, at how important it is to smile appropriately on television or choose the right tie, at how television forces me to express my thoughts as sparely as possible, in witticisms, slogans or sound bites, at how easily my television image can be made to seem different from the real me. I am astonished by this and at the same time, I fear it serves no good purpose. I know politicians who have learned to see themselves only as the television camera does. Television has thus expropriated their personalities and made them into something like television shadows of their former selves. I sometimes wonder whether they even sleep in a way that will look good on television.

I am not outraged with television or the press for distorting what I say, or ignoring it, or editing me to appear like some strange monster. I am not angry with the media when I see that a politician's rise or fall often depends more on them than on the politician concerned. What interests me is something else: the responsibility of those who have the mass media in their hands. They too bear responsibility for the world, and for the future of humanity.

Just as the splitting of the atom can immensely enrich humanity in a thousand and one ways and at the same time, can also threaten it with destruction, so television can have both good and evil consequences. Quickly, suggestively and to an unprecedented degree, it can disseminate the spirit of understanding, humanity, human solidarity and spirituality, or it can stupefy whole nations and continents. And just as our use of atomic energy depends solely on our sense of responsibility, so the proper use of television's power to enter practically every household and every human mind depends on our sense of responsibility as well.

Whether our world is to be saved from everything that threatens it today depends above all on whether human beings come to their senses, whether they understand the degree of their responsibility and discover a new relationship to the very miracle of Being. The world is in the hands of us all.

And yet some have a greater influence on its fate than others. The more influence a person has--be they politician or television announcer--the greater demands placed on their sense of responsibility and the less they should think merely about personal interests.

It is often said that in our time, everyvalley cries out for its own independence or willeven fight for it. Many nations, or parts of themat least, are struggling against moderncivilization or its main proponents for the rightto worship their ancient gods and obey the ancientdivine injunctions. They carry on their struggleusing weapons provided by the very civilizationsthey oppose. They employ radar, computers, lasers,never gases and perhaps, in the future, evennuclear weapons--all products of the world theychallenge--to help defend their ancient heritageagainst the erosions of modern civilization. Incontrast with these technological inventions,other products of their civilization--likedemocracy or the idea of human rights--are notaccepted in many places in the world because theyare deemed to be hostile to local traditions.

In other words: the Euro-American world hasequipped other parts of the globe with instrumentsthat not only could effectively destroy theenlightened values which, among other things, madepossible the invention of precisely theseinstruments, but which could well cripple thecapacity of people to live together on this earth.

What follows from all this?

It is my belief that this state of affairscontains a clear challenge not only to theEuro-American world but to our present-daycivilization as a whole. It is a challenge to thiscivilization to start understanding itself as amulti-cultural and a multi-polar civilizationwhose meaning lies not in undermining theindividuality of different spheres of culture andcivilization but in allowing them to be morecompletely themselves...

But is humanity capable of such an undertaking?Is it not a hopelessly utopian idea? Haven't we solost control of our destiny that we are condemnedto gradual extinction in ever harsher high-techclashes between cultures, because of our fatalinability to to co-operate in the face ofimpending catastrophes, be they ecological, socialor demographic, or of dangers generated by thestate of our civilization as such?

I don't know.