Fulbright Association
 





Fulbright Association
666 11th Street, N.W.
Suite 525
Washington, D.C. 20001
Phone: (202) 347-5543
Fax: (202) 347-6540

Václav Havel Speaks to Fulbrighters

Oddly enough I still remember the interest with which, almost 30 years ago, I was reading the book The Arrogance of Power by Senator James William Fulbright. I don’t know how many people in the United States found the book to their liking, and how many didn’t, or how the book was received here. What struck me—a young man living under communist rule but knowing his own mind—was the openness with which the book identified the fundamental dilemma of American foreign policy as it appeared then. According to Senator Fulbright the dilemma consisted of this: should the great American responsibility to the world, commensurate with the size, strength and advanced civilization of the U.S.A., assume the form of an arrogant, insensitive, and sometimes even coercive, export of its values and interests into the whole world, and by doing so, should America play the role of a global policeman; or should this responsibility be of a more modest kind, merely offering an example or sober assistance where it is requested, while maximally respecting the "otherness" of others and living with them on good terms, thus unwittingly, as it were,—if they seem inhuman to America—humanizing them?
American Identity
It seems to me that in this book Senator Fulbright touched upon a theme that reaches far beyond the question of what kind of foreign policy America should pursue. He touched upon the very question of American identity. Or is this not one way of asking the same question that citizens of this country have been asking since the 19th century: what is America? Yes, to ask the questions posed by Senator Fulbright means de facto to ask what America and its spirit are, or rather what this country should or could be and what role it should play in today’s world.
I do hope that from me, a person coming from a small country, it will not be seen as a manifestation of the "arrogance of power" if I use this occasion, so closely connected with Senator Fulbright’s name, to try to answer Senator Fulbright’s American question from a non-American, and thus more distant, perspective.
I wonder how this traditional American dilemma is perceived today by U.S. citizens who are not particularly interested in American history and even less in American foreign policy.
It is highly probable that many of them have been overwhelmed by the feeling that since the main threats looming over America and the whole world, the Soviet Empire and communism, have collapsed, the danger of another world war breaking out can be crossed off the list of potential risks. Consequently, America should pay more attention to itself and to its own problems and should not get too involved in the large and intricate world where every attempt at helping something good is rewarded with ingratitude. The Evil Empire has been defeated, the Good has prevailed: so why take the trouble and invest further and further billions of dollars in the military?
Isolationism
Isolationism has a long tradition in modern American history; it has returned in many waves and in different forms. Its current form, I assume, is the one I have just described, and it is as dangerous for America as any of the previous forms: never in modern times has isolationism protected America from whatever the danger may have been; instead, it has always been responsible for delayed engagement at a time when conflagration was already ablaze and was beginning to pose a vital threat, which eventually meant that Americans had to pay for their initial lack of interest or reluctance a 1000 times more than they would have paid, had they become politically and militarily engaged at the very beginning or, if possible, even before. They had to pay for their short-sightedness not only with much larger expenditures but with innumerable lives unnecessarily wasted.
It has often been said that the West and democracy have won the Cold War and that what is at stake now is for them to win the peace, too. Eight years after the collapse of communism I am deeply convinced that this task is going to be much more difficult to accomplish. The threats looming over the world today are to the threat of communism as metastasis is to an isolated tumor: while previously the enemy faced by the free world was sole and apparent, armed to the teeth with weapons known to us and quite predictable, today—after the disintegration of the bipolar world, and to a large extent as an aftermath of its existence—the world is covered with innumerable dangers that are extremely diverse, decentralized, and yet intertwined, and hard to predict. To respond to these by quickly creating different new defense systems is truly more demanding than to continue the arms race with a more or less sclerotic superpower.
To sum up: isolationism is shortsighted primarily in terms of the very interests of America. It has, simply, never paid off and this is all the more true now, when—as I have tried to indicate—the defense of the values that America stands for is in many respects more difficult than in previous times. But that is not the main reason why I am speaking against isolationism. That reason is different: we are entering a world in which it makes less and less sense to focus on individual interests only, because this is a world of a single global civilization which makes us all participants in one common Destiny. Whatever happens anywhere may, in one way or another, have an immediate impact upon the Fate of the whole world—either positive, as in the case of a discovery of a new drug in a California laboratory, or negative, as in the case of the explosion of a nuclear reactor in a Ukrainian village. We are living at a time when humankind can face all the threats looming over it only if we, by which I mean each of us, manage to revive, with new energy and ethos, a sense of responsibility for the world as a whole. It goes without saying that this must include responsibility for its long-term future, too. Under those circumstances, to think only of oneself is suicidal for all—the powerful and the weak, the large and the small alike.
American Responsibility
I am convinced that for these two reasons, that is the general and the very fundamental on the one hand, and the specifically American on the other, America today—perhaps more than ever before—must assume its share of responsibility for the world. For America to close itself off would be impossible, for merely technological reasons, but even if it tried to do so, this would be the worst course it could take for the planet and for itself. Although it may appear different, what is at stake today is exactly what was at stake at the time of Senator Fulbright, in other words, how America should bear this responsibility.
I believe that for the rest of the world contemporary America is an almost symbolic concentration of all the good and the bad of our civilization—ranging from the fantastic development of science and technology generating more welfare and the profundity of civil liberty and strength of democratic institutions, to the blind cult of perpetual economic growth and never-ending consumption, no matter how detrimental to the environment, the dictates of materialism, consumerism and advertising, the voiding of human uniqueness and its replacement by the uniformity of the round-the-clock noise of TV banality.
For these reasons, the way in which America will assume its responsibility for the world should embody those premises which alone have a chance of saving this civilization as a whole: this way should be imbued with new spirituality, a new ethos and new ethics, hence exactly with the things that should be adopted by all cultures, all spheres of civilization, and all nations of today’s world as a condition of their very survival.
Respect for "Otherness"
What does this mean in concrete terms? A number of things. For example: deep respect for everything that in today’s multipolar and multicultural world constitutes "otherness," a respect resulting from profound understanding of the positive values inherent in the other worlds. At the same time, the courage to step out of the world of pragmatic power considerations and to defend—non-violently—truth and justice wherever they are violated, regardless of whether this could put the most profitable commercial contracts at risk. To be always on the side of the good, without this siding being motivated by one’s own power or economic interests and thus bearing witness to its own hypocrisy. To promote all manifestations of tolerance and understanding among nations and religious worlds, to enhance all kinds of international cooperation and regional integration geared towards general benefit, to create space for a wise attitude towards Nature and Earth, an attitude that sees a human being as their integral part, not as their master, owner, or wanton exploiter.
As for security matters, I believe that in extreme cases that are beyond any doubt, the U.S.A., while enjoying the general support of freedom-loving people and peace-loving democratic states must have the strength to intervene with force—that is by military means, against apparent evil. The U.S.A. cannot and must not give up this obligation, which is a very specific and extreme manifestation of its responsibility for the world. In the course of the Cold War, America came to understand this, though historians may argue about the situations in which it tested its competence, or the means it employed.
However, that is not what matters now. What matters now is something different, more important, almost a matter of principle. It seems to me that after all the good and bad experiences America has had in the 20th century it should eventually understand what its enlightened parts have understood for a long time: that the most effective, most ethical, and in the end, also the least expensive way of dealing with these challenges is by investing all its intellectual potential and a significant share of its material strength into what I call "security prevention." Of course, to predict conflicts and to avert them is usually more difficult than to engage in them and often even more difficult than to win them. However, it is a way 1000 times more meaningful—for the reasons that I have indicated and that, as you may believe, I could develop, specify, and illustrate for hours on end.
Let me quote just one example that is fairly topical, and, as far as I know, is often discussed in American political circles and media.
NATO Enlargement
What I have in mind is the enlargement of the North Atlantic Alliance. I am told that there are a lot of people here in this country who maintain that NATO enlargement has no sense. Why, they say, should we enlarge our defense alliance—on top of that, by taking in countries that were part of the communist empire until recently, and therefore, remain somewhat suspicious—at a time when the West is not facing any serious threats? Furthermore, NATO enlargement might allegedly be resented by a certain large Euro-Asian state, which for some reasons is afraid of the Alliance, and it would cost taxpayers money that could otherwise be saved or better spent.
This way of thinking—after what we have gone through in the 20th century, in the course of which more than 200 million people have died in wars and in concentration camps—is, in my opinion, extremely naive, short-sighted, even dangerous.
Europe is a strange continent. Today’s civilization was born there but so were two World Wars. It is a continent which has always constituted and still constitutes one entity—though culturally, ethnically, and economically immensely diverse. For the first time in its history, this entity has a chance to establish its internal order on the principle of cooperation and equality of the large and the small, the strong and the weak, on shared democratic values. This is also a chance, once and for all, to put an end to the export of wars and coercion, and to become an example of peaceful collaboration. Should Europe miss this chance, we might be heading for a new global catastrophe, much graver than the previous ones. For reasons I have described, this time the forces of freedom would not be facing one totalitarian enemy: this could be a strange war of all against all, a war with no clear-cut fronts, a war that would be difficult to distinguish from terrorism, organized crime, and other kinds of civilization crime, a war into which the whole world would be dragged by a number of indirect and hidden means. I don’t mean to scare you, but anybody with a little bit of imagination and some knowledge of what has—until recently—been going on, for example, in Bosnia-Herzegovina, must understand that this is not empty talk.
If the ongoing process of European integration were unable to enhance its security dimension, if it were to stop at the gates of NATO, the only functional defense alliance in Europe, it would probably come to a halt. And I would like to assure all Americans who still have their doubts that the unfortunate consequences of such coming to a halt, regardless of what form they would assume, and regardless of whether they would befall us in three or in 15 years, could cost us all much more than the two World Wars Europe has "donated" to us in this century. After a long period of hesitation, the West took a major step to avoid such a threat in Madrid not long ago. We will all pay for this step. Any judicious person, however, must admit that such expenditure is worth it. Has it not been established beyond doubt that even the most costly preventive security is cheaper than the cheapest war? Well, such an investment will hardly generate any return in the next elections, but it will be all the more appreciated by generations to come.
Future Generations
This brings me back to the beginning of my argument: who thinks today about future generations? Who is concerned about what people will eat, drink, breathe in 100 years, where they will get energy when there are twice as many people living on this planet as today? Only an idealist, a dreamer, a genuinely spiritual person who, they say, is not modern enough.
These dreamers, who are often at the margin of society, despite the fact that many of their books are world bestsellers, will find their way to the place they belong, among the politicians, only if the very spirit of politics changes in the way I have been talking about, towards deeper responsibility for the world. For the sake of my country, for the sake of the whole world, and for the sake of America itself, that is said to be a country of unlimited opportunities, I wish that it be among the first to set out on this journey. A journey leading to a genuine, profound interest respecting infinity and eternity, an interest in all that transcends the borders of space and time within which we are destined to live.
Dear friends, allow me, in conclusion, to express my admiration for Senator James William Fulbright’s Program, which, I believe, has for 50 years been pursuing the direction that I would like the whole of America to pursue: towards unostentatious and non-violent promotion of the spirit of freedom and responsibility.
Presented October 3 at the 1997 Fulbright Prize ceremony award at the U.S. Department of State.
See also: