When my life flashes in front of me, Vaclav Havel’s image and words will come across that day that he stood in Strasbourg at the opening of the Human Rights Building and on a hot, sweltering extended June afternoon - he rained on the celebration with a shivering reminder of Europe’s then current failures and what that Building” really was to represent. Vaclav Havel has died today (December 18, 2011). We knew it would come sooner rather than later when I wrote the below article in January of 2009 soon after he had been in hospital diagnosed with all sorts of consequences after a lifetime of smoking. Vaclav Havel though was more than just Bosnia in 1995 or even the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia or the "peaceful divorce." He was the “Diplomat-Artist” when I envisioned the brand – with substance and passion and never certain of his place even if confident of his own motivation. Remember, the Czech Republic then was still trying to pry its way into the European Union, and he knew his words would not win favor with hosts who were not certain yet as to whether the new democracies should be seated as equals at the luncheon. (Below is the article I wrote in January 2009 with all of Vaclav Havel’s speech - along with excerpt immediately below – delivered in June 29, 1995 in Strasbourg). "This is a war for our own future a war of those to whom their tribal otherness is the ultimate value against all those who embrace higher values than the blood group which they happen to belong to. This war is waged against us all, against human rights, against coexistence of people of different nationalities or religious beliefs. The war in Bosnia is in fact a war against meaningful human coexistence based on the universality of human rights derived from the universality of the primeval human experience of the universe. It is an attack of the darkest past on a decent future, an attack of evil on the moral order. We have to stop this war. Yet, we shall not stop it by engaging in hopeless attempts work out compromises between a number of othernesses, compromises whose consequences would amount to confirming otherness as the supreme principle. There is only one way in which we can stop the war without being defeated, if this is still in fact possible: by calling evil evil, by pointing out who is to blame, and who is the victim, by saying at last in no uncertain terms what this war is all about." (Pres. Vaclav Havel, June 29, 1995) AUTHOR, DISSIDENT, PRESIDENT As a dissident and author, Vaclav Havel was disdained by the Czechoslovak communist regime as born of the bourgeoisie reactionary class. When I met him he was already President of the Czech Republic. His manner though reflected more of the egalitarian rather than any elitist sensibilities, even such that might have been expected with his office. He seemed to sincerely echo humility with purpose contradictory to that of many politicians and artists who try to raise the specter of privileged talents and personalities. Even the cigarette in his hand, as he chain smoked, brought to mind someone who was looking forward to share a few more smokes and coffee with you. His words, in his speeches as well as books cut to the core even if the motive was not to offend. "VELVET REVOLUTION" Through his writing and activism Havel was the personification of the "Velvet Revolution" in Czechoslovakia, both in terms of its direction toward liberation from authoritarian communism and the relatively peaceful transition. Even in the ensuing divorce between Slovakia and the Czech Republic, Havel, more the humanist than the nationalist, helped bring about a peaceful breakup. When I met Havel the conflict and genocide directed at Bosnia-Herzegovina was in full rage. Havel's antiwar inclinations did not blind him to the responsibility to confront the threat. Neither did he invoke pacifism as an excuse for inaction. RAINING ON THE PARTY The summer of 1995 was protractedly painful for Bosnia-Herzegovina even before it was punctuated by the massacres of Srebrenica and Zepa. At the same time, from the perspective of many established European leaders, Bosnia & Herzegovina was part of an extended drama from which it had to be disconnected. It was something that should be left at the door to the office. The formation of the so called "Contact Group" to address the conflict was translating into a tactic to compartmentalize Bosnia. There was an undercurrent of euphoria that the European project had succeeded. French President Mitterrand had even been pitching the establishment of a European Defense Initiative as an alternative to NATO, (and to the continued prevailing role of the United States in European defense). Bosnia was both a distraction, but also disagreeable reminder of establishment Europe's impotence. That summer of 1995, another building, the "Human Rights Building," was going into service in Strasbourg functionally and as monument. Vaclav Havel's name on the program had insured my presence as Bosnia-Herzegovina's Foreign Minister. The ceremony was held outdoors. The day was uncharacteristically sunny and warm. After President Havel's speech, it felt as if though a shower had drenched some and refreshed others. CONNECTING THE TRIBALISM OF THE CURRENT TO THE AUTHORITARIANISM OF THE PAST, WITH THE FAILURES OF THE EURO-ATLANTIC LEADERSHIP At the end of his speech, President Havel commented: "I have not meant to spoil it by bringing in disturbing tones." Unfortunately many only heard the reprimand in his tone rather than the reason of his words. Two weeks later, Srebrenica and then Zepa were betrayed and then its citizens massacred; four months later in Dayton, genocide was appeased and ethnic cleansing legitimized; four years later Kosovo was assaulted by Milosevic's Serbia; six years later the World Trade Center was attacked; a decade late the remnants of authoritarian communism is reasserting itself behind the old Iron Curtain and beyond; and today we are defining each other primarily through otherness. When Vaclav Havel left the post of President, I remember he planned to get into his personal automobile with his wife and drive the breadth of Europe that had been denied him as a private citizen while he was author, dissident and public official. Today, Vaclav Havel has been admitted to hospital with pulmonary problems. I wish him the best, at least so that I and others can have the benefit of his books and writing. PRESIDENT VACLAV HAVEL'S SPEECH FROM STRASBOURG 1995 Inauguration of the Human Rights Building Strasbourg, France, June 29, 1995 Mr. Secretary-General, Excellencies, Ladies and gentlemen, It is a great honour for me to be invited to speak, on behalf of the country which now holds the chair in the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, on this very special day when the Council of Europe inaugurates the Human Rights Building. I firmly believe that this house will soon become a materialized symbol of the values the sharing of which has been the driving force behind European unification. With your permission, I should like to take this opportunity to present to you one general observation on human rights and one specific observation about those who put them in jeopardy. We who tried in the past to resist the totalitarian system in the countries of the former Communist bloc used to be referred to either as dissidents or as human rights champions. The former of these two names was rather inaccurate, the latter though somewhat pathetic came nearer to reality. The concept of respect for human rights, as they are laid down in various international conventions, was indeed the starting point for our endeavours, and most of the documents which we brought out, incurring persecution for doing so, were principally criticisms of the massive violations of human rights by the Communist regimes. Nevertheless, I will admit that one pretty weird, almost heretical question occurred to me time and again throughout my dissident years. I asked myself why in fact humanity should be supposed to enjoy such and such human rights, where the prime origin of these rights was, who had ever said that these were the rights human beings should have, or why we were taking it for granted that we had the right to any rights at all. The answers that are offered and generally accepted today, such as that this is a product of the development of human civilization, a fruit of human self-reflection as it has been subsequently embodied in social contracts between people who agreed upon what were to be their vested, natural or inalienable rights, failed to satisfy me. The more I have thought about it, the more I have been led to believe that the prime origin of these rights must lay in something deeper than a mere contract. I have been ever less willing to accept the idea that things such as the right to life, freedom of thought, respect for human dignity or equality before the law should be worth making sacrifices for just because someone reached agreement that these were reasonable principles that met human needs, or that were practical for human coexistence on this earth. Don't worry, it is not my intention to take up your time with boring descriptions of my train of thought or comments on my philosophical convictions. I shall limit myself to stating my considered opinion that while the present-day concept of human rights indeed takes a form which derives from the state of civilization today, the set of values and imperatives which it reflects is rooted elsewhere: in a deeper, truly profound inner experience, an archetypal human experience of the world and of humanity itself within this world. Already in long bygone times, long before the term 'human rights' was coined, the human mind realized that the higher order of Being of which it is a part puts it under a certain obligation. Different cultures, both past and present, have perceived this obligation in different ways in terms of form and sometimes in terms of content as well, but all have agreed that this title or obligation comes, so to speak, from without, as its background has the dimensions of the infinite, and of eternity. In other words: the concept of human rights is only one of the ways in which our present civilization gives expression to what might be called the moral order, whose existence is part of the fundamental experience of humanity as conscious creatures experience of something which transcends us, which to put it in plain words exists beyond us. There are simply certain things which people do not just because they have agreed with other people on doing them, or because they have found them practical. Various manifestations of crises in the world today apparently corroborate this opinion. Don't they all emanate from one common cause from a decline of human responsibility for our world, precisely the kind of responsibility that relates to higher authorities rather than to those underlying a simple intention to adhere to certain standards endorsed by a vote ? Don't we find an explanation for many such developments in the decline of humanity's readiness to honour the order of Being that stands above the human person and to conduct ourselves responsibly even when nobody sees us, when there is nobody to tell on us to any mundane authorities that may have been put in charge of overseeing observance of certain agreed rules? And isn't it this decline of the modern spirit that provokes many cultures to revolt against such contemporary standards in which they do not find any deities to worship, and which they therefore deem to be lacking a proper metaphysical anchor? There has been much discussion about whether human rights in the form which is now accepted in the Euro-American cultural sphere are truly universal, that is, whether their observance can be required of everyone, or whether they are only a product of one particular culture that cannot be imposed upon other cultures which are based on different world outlooks and different traditions. If we were to perceive human rights as a mere product of a social contract the answer to this question would be clear: we would have no right whatsoever to demand that they be observed by anyone who has not subscribed to this contract or who has had no part in devising it. No group can justifiably claim that what its members have agreed upon among themselves applies automatically to everyone else as well, nor can it purport that only what this particular group deems right is truly universal, and right for all. If we, however, recognize that respect for human rights as a political requirement or imperative is actually a political expression of moral obligations anchored in the general human experience of the absolute, any reasons for relativist skepticism cease to be valid. While this recognition alone does not win any battles, at least it paves the way: universality of human rights can be successfully defended if we look for its truly universal spiritual roots. That is, if we join forces in a search for what most cultures have in common and if we attempt a new reflection on the most profound points of departure from which our manifold cultures have grown. In reality, these starting points are much closer to one another than they now seem to be. The more we cling to the mere surface of things the more the otherness in diverse cultures conceals the depths of affinity among them. The way to genuine universalism does not lead through compromises among various contemporary forms of otherness but through a joint quest to bring back humanity's common primeval experience of the universe, and of the human being within it. A few hundred kilometres away from here, a dreadful war frenzy is raging, and we are all helplessly watching, waiting to see who will win the Serbs or the others. What we are completely forgetting is the fact that this is not just a war between the Serbs and the others. values which the Council has enshrined in its documents, which it cherishes and This is a war for our own future a war of those to whom their tribal otherness is the ultimate value against all those who embrace higher values than the blood group which they happen to belong to. This war is waged against us all, against human rights, against the coexistence of people of different nationalities or religious beliefs, against the civic principle; it is a war for what divides us, and against what brings us together. The war in Bosnia is in fact a war against meaningful human coexistence based on the universality of human rights derived from the universality of the primeval human experience of the universe. It is an attack of the darkest past on a decent future, an attack of evil on the moral order. We have to stop this war. Yet, we shall not stop it by engaging in hopeless attempts to work out compromises between a number of othernesses compromises whose consequences would amount to confirming otherness as the supreme principle. There is only one way in which we can stop the war without being left defeated, if this is still in fact possible: by calling evil evil, by pointing out who is to blame, and who is the victim, by saying at last in no uncertain terms what this war is all about. The Council of Europe obviously cannot put an end to this war. But the states united in the Council possess the strength to do so. The responsibility of the Council of Europe, a maker and guardian of European and universal values, consists in throwing light on this war, in calling it by its right name, in saying outright that this is a war against all the which it has tried to nurture and cultivate. This is a festive occasion. I have not meant to spoil it by bringing in disturbing tones. My intention has been to stress that what is to be fostered and guarded in this Building is right now the target of a brutal attack not so far away from here, and that the values which all of us have subscribed to have enemies in our immediate vicinity. If we let these enemies prevail over human solidarity and the will to live together, others like them, and new ones, will emerge. Dark forces of tribal hatred lie dormant in many a part. If we let them get the upper hand in one place, they will begin to awake in many other places as well. We must not allow this to happen at the very moment when Europe has, for the first time ever in its history, a chance of building its political order on the principle of peaceful coexistence and cooperation on a footing of equality among all its nations, on the principles of democracy, respect for human rights, the rule of law and civil statehood. Europe like the whole world today currently finds itself at a crucial historical crossroads. It shall either succeed in embracing a new sense of responsibility, one that will grow out of the universal spiritual experience of the human race and heed the moral message which this experience holds for us, or it shall again commit the same fatal error for which it paid such a terrible price twice before in this century the error of closing its eyes to the emerging evil of nationalism which, like any evil, is contagious. Ladies and gentlemen, Let me conclude by voicing my enduring hope that human reason, decency, solidarity and preparedness to seek understanding and to live together in fairness will triumph over everything which threatens them. I have no doubt that the Council of Europe and its various institutions, including those to reside in this Building, will make a major contribution towards achieving this not by using instruments of power, which the Council does not have, but by pursuing further the great endeavour which it undertook several decades ago, that is, by continuing to promote, intensify and spread a good spirit of cooperation among nations. Thank you for your attention." By Ambassador Muhamed Sacirbey Facebook Become a Fan at “Diplomatically Incorrect” Twitter – Follow at DiplomaticallyX “DiplomatArtist” Channel - diplomaticallyincorrect.org/c/diplomat-artist