The FP Interview: Vaclav Havel

The playwright, dissident, and former Czech president speaks about the fall of the Berlin Wall, Barack Obama, and the hidden costs of moral compromise.

Interview by SUSAN GLASSER | DECEMBER 9, 2009

Nearly 20 years to the day after the Velvet Revolution saw him rise from dissident to president in a few weeks' time, the former Czech leader sat down in Prague with FP's executive editor, Susan Glasser. Havel, still wearing the trademark corduroy jacket of his playwright days, chided U.S. President Barack Obama about the perils of compromising human rights, worried that America has missed its moment in Afghanistan, and warned of Russia's "new type of dictatorship." Below, their edited conversation.

Foreign Policy: This year marks the anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. Do you think the spirit of those times is still reflected in Czech and Eastern European society today?

Vaclav Havel: I think that the basic ideals of that time -- free elections, the democratic program, freedom of the press, and so on -- are being fulfilled. We have not abandoned that road, nor did we betray it. Nevertheless, everything has been much more difficult than we might have thought at that time. Everything is taking much more time, and the road is much more thorny than somebody might have thought in those times of passion.

FP: This week President Obama is coming to Europe to accept a Nobel Peace Prize, just days after he announced that he will be sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan. Do you think that the use of military force is sometimes necessary to advance the interests of peace?

Havel: Well, I think if some monstrous injustice is taking place somewhere, then a responsible person cannot be only an onlooker, cannot be indifferent to it. Sometimes, it is necessary to intervene to save thousands of lives. Each time, however, it must be weighed very thoroughly, very seriously, and very responsibly. America can't just say, "Here there is no freedom, so we will barge in." One has to seek wide international consensus, and the case must be unambiguous. And those thousands of people who feed on these decisions in government ministries should anticipate the unintended consequences of taking action. In the case of Iraq, for instance, this did not take place at all.

Of course, if something can be done in a "velvet" fashion, that is better. But there are situations where this is impossible. As far as Afghanistan is concerned, I cannot really judge that. However, from a distance, it seems to me that the right time has been missed and the massive attack against the Taliban should have been made years ago.

Out of a kind of reluctance, the Taliban has been allowed to flourish and take root, and now it will be much more troublesome. To a certain extent, in my opinion, Obama is harvesting the fruits of the works of the previous presidents. Neither clearing out of there nor sending a million soldiers in there is a good solution anymore.

FP: What do you think of Russia's role in Eastern Europe today? How concerned are you about the possibility of Russia causing further problems, and has America forgotten about its friends here in Eastern Europe?

Havel: I think that America has not forgotten us, but it should still take into account that the terrain here in Central Europe is somewhat more explosive than other areas of conflict elsewhere in the world. World wars start here, not in Iran or Korea or anywhere else.

But I have not yet observed that America is losing interest in us as allies. If she has decided that she will replace one anti-ballistic missile system with another, that is her expert decision and should not be seen as American lack of interest in the region -- that would be a somewhat rash and sentimental way of thinking.

But as far as Russia is concerned, many of my talks with Russian personalities plus my visits to Moscow confirm to me that what is being born there is a special new type of manipulative democracy, or some new type of dictatorship that is far more sophisticated than communism.

You can see it in Russia's inconspicuous efforts to re-establish its spheres of influence. Of course, no great Russian armies are being raised for this purpose anymore, but it is being attempted by various pressures, political and economic. Their large companies are slowly buying our firms, and their economic might is growing and related to that, their political influence.

We certainly don't need conflicts with Russia. We must deal with her like with any other partner. But we definitely have to know how to say what we think, but we cannot allow ourselves to be intimidated. When they tell us that they will not give us gas or oil, then we will have to learn how to tell them, "you can keep it." It would be better to use less light and less heat than to allow them to blackmail us.

Sean Gallup/Getty Images

 SUBJECTS: EUROPE
 

Susan Glasser is executive editor of Foreign Policy. Ivo Reznicek translated this interview from its original Czech.

Facebook|Twitter|Reddit

GOEDEL

11:41 AM ET

December 10, 2009

Neither a good solution, but one not a solution at all

"To a certain extent, in my opinion, Obama is harvesting the fruits of the works of the previous presidents. Neither clearing out of there nor sending a million soldiers in there is a good solution anymore."

So said Vaclev Havel, as reported in FP, about either pulling out of Af or sending in a "million troops".

Pulling out will leave Af to its own fate, bad as that may be for women and for democratic government. American government also suffers from no democracy, and our own tyranny grows with each military commitment of the US. Pulling out would nicely embarrass the military imperialists in the US and restore some measure of the freedoms we have lost since the first so-called "Patriot Act".