Civilization and dialogue

Tzvetan Todorov:

What does it mean to be "civilized"? Obviously, being highly educated, wearing a tie, eating with a fork, or cutting one's nails weekly is not enough. We all know that being "civilized" in this formal way doesn't prevent people from behaving like barbarians. Everywhere and at all times, being civilized means being able to recognize and accept the humanity of others, despite their different modes of living.

I have no quarrel with that. But Todorov then goes on to commend the 'idea of dialogue between civilizations', and in doing so he simply dodges any difficulties there might be in this area. Talking across cultural and civilizational boundaries is - of course - a good idea. Suppose, however, that across such a boundary the others whom you are talking to exclude some of their own number from the conversation, rule them out as unfit to be participants. There's a Habermasian point there. Who gets to speak? Also, being open to dialogue doesn't mean that one regards all one's moral commitments as negotiable. Todorov's own principle that being civilized means recognizing and accepting the humanity of others is a case in point. One should be willing, sometimes, to talk even to people who reject this principle. Maybe you can persuade them. But the dialogue shouldn't be one that concedes anything to their (Todorov-defined) uncivilized point of view.