Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
24823405
label
Havel
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
24823405
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Havel
citationUrl
collections
Records of the First Lady's Office (Clinton Administration)
Noa Meyer's Files
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
24823405
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-18558020-20120869S-005-012-2015
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
3a76ad073ea24e5d
ocrText
2000
A statement delivered by
H.E. VÁCLAV HAVEL
THE PRESIDENT OF THE CZECH REPUBLIC
1993-1997 Addresses
Onion
Conference FORUM 2000
September 4, 1997
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Distinguished Participants,
Allow me to welcome you all very cordially to the Czech Republic, to Prague and
Prague Castle. Thank you for accepting the invitation to the FORUM 2000 conference
- which is being held here and has been made possible especially thanks to the
foundations sponsoring and organizing it.
First, if you allow me, I would like to say a few words about our country, about this city
and this Castle. The Czech Lands, probably due mostly to their location in the centre
of Central Eurape, have, since time immemorial, been a crossroads of diverse power
interests and currents of thought; it is certainly not a chance circumstance that in ancient
ages, as well as in more recent times, a number of great wars have erupted in this
particular location - - and not infrequently also ended here, as for example in the Thirty
Years' War and lately at the time of the Munich dictate, then during the Communist
putsch of 1948 and at the attack by armies of the Warsaw Pact against our country in
1968. Events in our country were a test for all Europe, a warning to the continent, and
a challenge to redefine its basic values and demonstrate coherently the amount of
courage it was willing to exert to defend those values. Probably even more important
than this political fate was what I would choose to call the spiritual record of our
country. The East and the West, Catholicism and Protestantism, democracy and
totalitarianism, republicanism and monarchist absolutism, mysticism and enlightenment,
national subjugation and national blossoming, tolerance and chauvinism, awareness of
global context side-by-side with provincialism and isotationism, Central Europeanism and
a traditional deep interest in matters non-European, selfish and ignorant short-sightedness
and astonishing historical vision all have combined and clashed over the long decades
and centuries in a very extraordinary manner.
An amazing specimen of what I have just said about our country bears the name Prague.
This city has been, every so often in its history, a true crossroads of European spiritual
trends - as in the period of Rudolf II, currently the theme of a large exhibition being
held in Prague; this city has often been called magical, mysterious, enchanting,
spellbinding, particularly because of its eventful and multi-layered history growing from
the perpetual entwinement of the Czech, Jewish, German and Italian elements with
various other European influences that has made an indelible mark on its appearance and
1993-1997 Addresses
permeated the atmosphere of the city.
The Castle, on whose premises we find ourselves today, is central and dominant to
Prague, a city which - in my opinion - is more Central European and European than
just Czech. With almost encyclopaedic consistency it has been a great witness to the
history of the city and country, offering a lens-like, converging reflection of the past ages.
It is, or rather for long centuries has been, also the centre of our life - both spiritual and
cultural.
For all the reasons indicated above I feel that the Czech Republic, Prague and Prague
Castle are a most fitting location for the meeting which opens here today. Where elg
should wise people from all over the world meet to reflect together for a few days on
fate and future of our common civilization than in a place with such eventful history.
place which had always felt with such sensitivity the threats looming over humankin
and its culture, as well as the hopes that man may and must nourish?
Our conference follows a series of similar events organized over the years by
foundation established by Marion and Elie Wiesel, some of which I had the honour
attending; it also, however, has unique and individual features distinguishing it somewh
from the mentioned series. 1 am hinting not only at the items on its agenda, not only
the external framework of the conference and accompanying events, not only at
ambition to establish a certain tradition, but mainly at the circle of its guests. Invitation
to this conference have been sent out to about one hundred prominent personalities
public life, philosophers, political scientists, politicians, scientists, religious authoriti
and intellectuals from all cultural regions or areas of civilization of the contemporan
world. Of course, not all the invited have been able to attend. Nevertheless, I think the
you, who did find time to travel to Prague, are a truly brilliant sample of the people who,
on this planet, are engaged in the most fundamental questions of its destiny.
Before I assume the part of a keen listener to your debate, I shall try to outline in a brief,
and indeed rather simplified, manner my personal expectations of this conference.
Humankind today is well aware of the varied spectrum of threats looming over its head.
We do know that the number of people living on our planet is growing at a soaring rate
and that within a relatively short time we can expect it to number tens of billions. We
do know that it shall be almost impossible to feed so many people. We do know how
the already-deep abyss separating the planet's poor and rich could deepen further, and
dangerously, because of this rapid population growth. We do know how difficult it will
be for people of various nationalities and cultures to coexist crowded so dramatically
together; and we know how many different kinds of conflicts such a situation could lead
to. It is also a commonly known fact that modern humankind has been destroying the
environment on which its existence depends; that it is ever faster exhausting non-
renewable sources of energy and other riches of this planet; that its activities are
contributing to global warming, to the build-up of the greenhouse effect; to the
enlargement of the holes in the ozone layer; that it is disturbing the balance of all
ecosystems. We all know, too, about the danger into which humankind is hurling itself
by developing, producing and proliferating nuclear weapons and weapons of mass
destruction in general. And finally we all know about the current and the expected future
rise of social problems, crime, drug abuse and various forms of human alienation and
frustration in the event of further concentration of people in large agglomerations
destroying natural human communities and bonds. Any one of us could certainly go on
listing similar threats for a long time, describing them in more detail and in rich colours,
explaining how deeply they are entwined; hundreds of books have been written about
these threats, some have even become topics of expensive global summits.
see a large, yet typical, paradox for our era in the fact that though contemporary
humanity has been aware of these dangers, it does almost nothing to confront or avert
them. It is fascinating how preoccupied people are today with all kinds of catastrophic
prognoses — is it not common for titles containing impressive evidence of the disasters
into which we are tumbling headlong become bestsellers? - and how very little people
take these into account in their everyday activities. For how many years now have these
warning data been taught in schools and yet how small is the effect of this knowledge
on human behaviour! Does not every schoolchild know today that the resources of this
planet are limited and that if exhausted faster than recovered would mean we could not
but be doomed? And still we continue in our ways and, moreover, do not even seem
perturbed. Quite the contrary — rising production, and therefore also consumption, is
felt as the main sign of success of a state, and that not only of poor states where such
feelings could be justified, but also of the wealthy ones, cutting the branch on which
they are sitting by their ideology of stupidly indefinite and senseless growth.
It seems to me that it is not, now, critical to point out again and again such horrors
which may be lying in wait, unless our whole global civilization changes its essential
direction. Today, the most important thing, in my view, is to study the reasons why
humankind does nothing to avert the threats about which it knows so much and why it
allows itself to be carried onward by some kind of perpetual motion - basically
unaffected by self-awareness or a sense of future options and, as it seems, virtually
incapable of being affected.
I believe and hope that our conference will touch this topic. Indeed, the prerequisite of
any change for the better is first naming correctly the situation which needs to be
changed and then analyzing its causes.
It would be unfair, of course, to deny the existence of numerous projects for the aversion
of this danger or for its limitation as well as the fact that a lot has been done for the
implementation of such projects. However, all attempts of this kind have one thing in
common - they do not at all touch basic trends of development from which the threats
I am speaking of sprout, but merely regulate their impact using technical or
administrative instruments. A typical example of such instruments are legal acts,
ordinances or international treaties stipulating how much toxic matter this or that product
may contain or how much toxic waste this or that plant may discharge into the
environment. I am not criticizing this type of standards or safeguards against any type
of threat, quite the opposite: I am glad that something like this is being done at all. I only
claim that these are technical tricks reducing the unfavourable impact of other techniques
Addresses 1993-1997
slate 01 me omon
- without, however, such regulatory activity having any effect on the substance of the
matter.
What then is the substance of the matter? What indeed could change the tendencies of
today's civilization? What could really stop the perpetual motion which we have not
been able to control so far?
It is my deep conviction that the only option is for something to change in the sphere
of the spirit, in the sphere of human conscience, in the actual attitude of man towards
the world and his understanding of himself and his place in the overall order of
existence. It cannot suffice to invent new machines, new regulations, new institutions.
It
is
necessary
purpose
existence on this Earth and of our deeds. Only such new understanding will allow Of
development of new models of behaviour, new scales of values and life objectives.
through this means finally attach a new spirit and new meaning also to the spect
regulations, treaties and institutions.
tail. In short: it appears to me that it would be better to start from the head rather than
I would welcome it, of course, to hear whether you share this conviction of mine
further and more specific points you would like to add to this topic.
perhaps, relying on your life experience, your knowledge and your beliefs or faith, why
One of the reasons I believe that a true and essential turn for the better can derive only
from changes in the sphere of the spirit is because of an observation of mine. Whenever
I encounter any kind of deeper civilization problem anywhere in the world - be ,
logging of rain forests, ethnic or religious intolerance or the brutal destruction of the
cultural landscape which had taken centuries to develop - then somewhere at the end
of the long chain of causes that gave rise to the problem at issue always find one and
the same reason: a lack of accountability to the world and responsibility for it.
There are countless types of responsibility, perceived as either more or less pressing
many of which vary naturally among individuals. We feel responsible to ourselves or
for ourselves, for our health, our performance, our welfare; we feel responsible for our
families, our companies, our communities, our professions, political parties, churches
regions, nations or countries; and somewhere in the background of all these feelings of
responsibility there is, in every one of us, a small feeling of responsibility for the world
as a whole and for its future; do we not all feel that the world does not end at the
moment of our death and that it is wrong to act as if we do not care if the floods come
after we are gone. Nevertheless, it seems to me that this last and deepest responsibility.
that is responsibility for the world, is very low for a number of reasons and is actually
dangerously low against the background of the fact that the world today is a more
interlinked place than ever before in history and that we are de facto living one global
destiny and that almost anything that happens anywhere in the world may in one was
or another affect the lives of us all.
And yet we live in a world which seems to legitimize very strongly all kinds of possible
and impossible particular interests, which however seems unable to legitimize property
the universal interests, those which reach beyond the framework of the family, company
party, state or current generation. That is namely those interests which could be expected
to dominate in today's globally networked world and one threatened by multiple of
civilizations. Those who pursue such interests - not superficially and only verbally, be:
truly sincerely - are today being pushed more obviously to the margins of society as
idealists standing apart from the real state of affairs.
The current world is dominated by several great religious systems whose differences
seem to be coming to the fore with increasing perspicuity and actually forming the
background to many real or potential political and armed conflicts in the present and
future. In my opinion this fact which is attracting, understandably, the concerned
attention of all observers conceals somewhat a considerably more substantial
circumstance — the contemporary global civilization inside which the tension within the
areas of the individual religion is taking place is indeed in essence a deeply atheistic
one. Indeed, it is to date the first atheistic civilization in the history of humankind.
Simultaneously, it is the first civilization which embraces the whole planet.
The reason why I am stressing this fact namely at this moment is, I hope, obvious: the
atheistic nature of this civilization coincides deeply, I believe, with the hypertrophic
pursuit of individual interests and individual responsibilities together with the crisis of
global responsibilities.
Could the fact that humanity thinks only within the limits of what lies in its field of
vision and is incapable of remembering also what lies beyond, whether in the temporal
or spatial sense, not be the result of loss of metaphysical certitude, vanishing points and
horizons? Could not the whole nature of the current civilization - with its
shortsightedness, with its proud emphasis on the human individual as the crown of all
creation and its master and with its boundless trust in humanity's ability to embrace the
Universe by rational cognition, could it not all be but the natural manifestation of a
phenomenon which, in simple terms, amounts to the loss of God? Or more specifically:
the loss of respect to the order of existence of which we are not the creators but mere
components, to the mysterious inherent meaning or spirit which does possess this order,
to its memory capable of not only recording that part of our deeds concealed from others
but of recording it for eternity, that is of evaluating our deeds so as to say from the point
of view of eternity? Could it not be that the issue is a crisis of respect for the moral
order extended to us from above, or simply a crisis of respect for any kind of authority
higher than our own earthly being, with its material and thoroughly ephemeral earthly
interests? Succinctly, could not the crisis of responsibility and accountability for the
world as a whole and for its future be but the logical consequence of the modern
conception of the world as a complex of phenomena controlled by certain scientifically
identifiable laws, formulated for God-knows- what purpose - that is, a conception
which does not question the meaning of existence and renounces any kind of
metaphysics or any kind of its own metaphysical roots?
I have been thinking about the basic questions and paradoxes of the contemporary
civilization for many years and in recent times 1 have even had the opportunity of
encountering different aspects of these issues in various countries of all continents. And
without my view being burdened a priori by any kind of paradigm, I become repeatedly
Addresses 1993-1997
and increasingly convinced of the validity of that which I have just outlined. It is for this
reason that I shall be especially interested in the views of this assembly of wise people,
to see how they either refute, or on the other hand supplement my conviction.
To put it simply: amongst other things, I expect this conference to give me and many
others an answer to whether I am right or mistaken when I think what I am thinking -
that the crisis of the so much-needed global responsibility is in principle due to the fact
that we have lost the certainty that the Universe, nature, existence and our lives are the
work of creation guided by a definite intention, that it has a definite meaning and follows
a definite purpose, and together with this certainty of course also all and every humility
by the loss of the feeling that whatever we do must be subjected to the regard for
towards what reaches beyond us and surrounds us. This loss is of course accompan
vision every one of us is permanently present.
higher order of which we are part and to the respect for its authority in whose field
I have mentioned that the image of today's world reflects the predominance of
great religious systems which are playing an increasingly important role - Or ratr
whose mutual "otherness" seems to be becoming increasingly important, and that
people actually perceive a conflict between these different religious worlds as one of
threats mankind will encounter the future.
Yes, after the fall of the colonial system and the end of the bipolar division of the work
and due to the population boom and the growing self-confidence and influence
various countries and continents lying outside the limits of the hitherto dominant Euro
American civilization sphere, humankind is actually entering a world who
characteristic features are multipolarity and multiculturalism.
It would seem so far that the more tied the various civilization, cultural and religio
groups are by the bonds of a single global civilization - exerting unavoidably a unifying
influence - the more they try to confront such grip by emphasizing their sovereign
inalienable identity, specificity, or simply things by which they differ from the circle
the other groups. As if one lived in an epoch of accentuated spiritual, religious and
cultural "otherness". This growing accent is indeed another large threat to this work
But how to restore in the human mind a shared attitude to what is above if people
everywhere have a different image of that which is above and everywhere feel the need
to stress that "otherness"? Is there any sense in trying to turn the human mind to
heavens when such a turn would only aggravate the conflict among our various deities
I am not, of course, an expert on various religions, but from all that I know about the
main ones, learning about them over the time and in direct contact with them, I have
gained the indelible impression that they have much more in common than they admit
or are willing to admit. Starting from the basic point of departure - that is, that the
world and our existence here are not a freak chance having little meaning but are par
of a mysterious, yet integral, act whose sources, direction and purpose are difficult for
us to perceive in their entirety - to the large complex of moral imperatives which the
act applies in addressing us - all this, surprisingly, seems to unite the various religious
systems while the specific aspects of their traditions, accents, liturgies and interpretation
remain, in my view, an immensely important, but not dominant, factor. What, on the
other hand, I think does dominate is the similarity in what the various religions ask
us, as human beings, or how they perceive us.
The last but perhaps most important question I would like to ask is, whether the way
of the current bleak situation could not be found in the actual search for what unites the
various religions and cultures, in the search for common sources, principles, certitud
aspirations and imperatives, a purpose-minded search; and then, applying mean
adequate to the needs of our time, to cultivate all matters of human coexistence an
endeavour as well as the treatment of the planet on which it is our destiny to live, and
to suffuse it all with the spirit of what I wish to call, with your permission, the common
spiritual and moral minimum.
Do you suppose this might be a way to stop that blind perpetual motion dragging us into
hell, or would it seem to you to be unrealistic and naïve? Would you presume that such
general and universal recovery of the human spirit and human responsibility for the
world, such - -as I once called it "existential revolution" could be provoked only by
some unprecedented shock or disaster, or is it within the power of wise people to bring
them about by their own will and by joining their forces without the need for any
appalling impulse from the outside? Would you presume that convincing words of wise
people would simply be enough to achieve what has been described or would we need,
like in the past, charismatic prophets or modern messiahs or even some kind of historical
miracle?
Distinguished Friends,
I would be very surprised if any two of you give an identical answer to the several very
general questions which I have posed here. It is not, however, our purpose to reach an
agreement on something of neutral content, or on a compromise, and then issue that as
a joint manifesto nobody would bother to read because it is too vague. We can bravely
leave that procedure to official conferences and summits. The agenda of this assembly
is different: an opportunity for its participants - and they are truly a varied group to
express, in the most original and interesting way possible, their own views of the issues
which are undoubtedly of concern to us all, and to turn the mutual exchange and
confrontation of these views into a true forum.
A forum as space where people reflect on matters concerning everybody and discuss
them.
Thank you for your attention and I wish us all a successful meeting. 1 also wish you a
pleasant stay in Prague and hope you will absorb some of its special atmosphere - let
it be an enrichment for you, at least to the same degree as your presence here and the
ideas you voice enrich my fellow citizens.
Addresses 1993-1997
State of me Union