Former Czech President Vaclav Havel offered some criticism of President Obama’s snubbing of the Dalai Lama in a recent interview with Foreign Affairs magazine, and it raises important ethical and political questions. My own political stance, which I’ve termed prairie humanism, is based on the conviction that democratic politics are nothing more than extensions of our personal, intimate lives with one another and that human life is so thoroughly inter-subjective that it is literally true that no one is free while another is in chains. Exploitation of others — say, through the denial of health care, education or a living wage — ultimately costs us all, especially those doing the exploiting.
What do Havel, Obama, and the Dalai Lama have to do with it?
Havel warns that the seemingly insignificant snub of the Dalai Lama (Obama postponed a meeting, perhaps to avoid annoying China), can have terrifying future consequences. He points to the small compromises of the 1938 Munich conference and subsequent fascist exploitation of those compromises as examples. Havel, the playwright who led the Czech dissident movement and ended totalitarian rule in 1989, is famous for his “live in truth” ethic. Compromises on human rights, which always involve the sacrifice of truth even though they can seem pragmatically necessary at times, have consequences. Those consequences should be carefully weighed before the sacrifice of truth is accepted as the best alternative. Here’s what Havel says (on the jump):
FP: After President Obama’s decision to postpone his meeting with the Dalai Lama, you said something to the effect that these small gestures seem harmless, but over time can have a powerful, cumulative effect. For the hardhearted realists, can you explain that effect?
Havel: We know this from our modern history. When [French Prime Minister Edouard] Daladier returned from the [1938] Munich conference, the whole nation was applauding him for saving the peace. He made a miniscule compromise in the interest of peace. But it was the beginning of a chain of evil that subsequently brought about many millions of deaths. We can’t just say, “This is just a small compromise that can be overlooked. First we will go to China and then perhaps talk with the Dalai Lama.” It all looks practical, pragmatic, logical, but it is necessary to think about whether it is not the first small compromise that can be the beginning of that long chain that is no good. In this case perhaps it will not be, but it was the first thing that came to my mind.
FP: You make it sound so easy. But how, as president, do you decide when these small compromises are worth it and when they might lead to something more dangerous?
Havel: Politics, it means, every day making some compromises, and to choose between one evil and another evil, and to decide which is bigger and which is smaller. But sometimes, some of these compromises could be very dangerous because it could be the beginning of the road of making a lot of other compromises, which are results of the first one, and there are very dangerous compromises. And it’s necessary, I think, to have the feeling which compromise is possible to do and which, could be, maybe, after ten years, could be somehow very dangerous.
I will illustrate this with my own experience. Two days after I was elected president, I invited the Dalai Lama to visit. I was the first head of the state who invited him in this way, directly. And everybody was saying that it was a terribly dangerous act and issued their disapproving statements and expressions. But it was a ritual matter. Later, the Chinese deputy prime minister and the foreign minister came for a visit and brought me a pile of books about the Dalai Lama and some governmental documents about what good care they have taken of Tibet, and so on. They were propagandist, fabricated books, but he felt the need to explain something to me.
I had a press conference with this minister of foreign affairs. And he said, “It was wonderful, meeting, because we were speaking openly. Mr. Havel gave me his opinion, and I explained the opinion of our government. I gave him this book, and he thanked me for it.”
This was unbelievable! Why did they feel the need to explain their point of view to the leader of such a small nation? Because they respect it when someone is standing his ground, when someone is not afraid of them. When someone soils his pants prematurely, then they do not respect you more for it.
In other words, Havel argues that his simple gesture of truth succeeded, at least insofar as it did no harm. Before you dismiss it as meaningless or trivial, remember this: the Velvet Revolution happened through such small, simple gestures of truth. How does this relate to what I call prairie humanism? It is simply a matter of treating the world’s others as I would treat those living in my home or my neighborhood. Once I take the path of compromise and manipulation — even manipulation undertaken with a higher purpose — I put a nick in the truth of my life, and I make unexpected consequences more likely and, as it happens, much harder to see as well.
China is a world power that happens to hold a lot of U.S. debt. Many hope that economic freedoms will lead to political freedom there, but so far that seems highly unlikely. Instead, China appears to have developed a kind of totalitarian capitalism. It’s brutal occupation of Tibet is just one of its many assaults on human rights. The question is, can such a small thing — the postponing of a meeting with Tibet’s leader in exile — successfully manipulate China into greater respect for human rights? Doubtful. Does it send a signal to China that the U.S. will look the other way when it comes to human rights when it comes to the possibility of economic reprisal? Maybe, and that’s what Havel’s warning is all about.
I note this not so much as an analysis of international relations as I do to point to the ethical know-how that begins with how we treat one another nearby. It is the same ethical know-how we should call upon on the greater political stage. Sacrificing the human rights of others takes a chunk out of our own flesh. Sooner or later, we will face the consequences, just as we would if we stood idly by as a neighbor was brutally beaten.
A reminder about prairie humanism. Humanism is sometimes defined as anti-divinity, as putting humans at the center of the universe. I don’t mean it that way. I refer only to the respectful and compassionate ways that mark our neighborly, intimate lives together. The most hidebound conservative will risk life and limb to rescue a neighbor from a fire, basing the rescue not upon some ethical rule or “know-what,” but upon ethical know-how. We are a natural empathetic species, and much of what we do in our every day lives reflects that empathetic know-how. Prairie humanism advances the idea that we should live our public lives just as we do our private lives. I think we’d find we have a lot more in common than our artificial, uninformed, polarized political divisions lead us to believe.
We also have our dark, acquisitive, brutal and competitive natures as well. What I’m suggesting is that rather than separate private life from public life and attempt to exclusively structure the latter around abstract, inhuman principles to circumscribe the dark side, that we simply apply the know-how present in the relations between mothers and children, or great friendships, or the selflessness of lovers, to our public lives.
Thanks for reminding us that every decision we make has a consequence. As each of us presents a variety of faces to the world — and engage in a multitude of relationships — it is good to keep empathy at the heart of our decision-making. We may not always be aware of the consequences of our decisions — whether they impact our small, personal spheres or play out on the world stage — but with empathy as our compass, we have a better chance of making positive ripples!
A wise leader understands this, and I continue to hold out hope that President Obama is such a leader, and that he will heed the caution of Havel.
Glenn…thanks for giving me something to think deeply about on this cold, snowy day in West Texas!
Happy New Year, Janice. Heard it will be sunny tomorrow.
Happy New Year to you and yours!!!!!!!!!!!!!