Closing remarks

Václav Havel
Ladies and Gentlemen, dear participants,
In the beginning, I have two apologies: first, I would like to apologize that I am speaking in my mother tongue, but I do not wish to torture your ears with my globalized English. Second apology: I regret that I have not been able to be present throughout the entire Forum. I would like to assure you that I would much rather be here as an attentive listener than to be at some of the events where I, as President, must perform.
Now please allow me a number of pieces of information and remarks. First, I would like to thank all of you for your support for our joint initiative, together with Prince Hassan and Shimon Peres, so that we, this Forum, will send an independent observer to the Middle East and ask of him to think about, and speak with, numerous functionaires in order to ascertain points which would eventually contribute to solving the situation. I am proud to announce, even though we have not yet agreed on all the details, that we have found the suitable person, who was designated - according to everyone's agreement and who has accepted this responsibility. He fought against Salazar's dictatorship in Portugal, the former President of Portugal, Mr. Mário Soares.
Secondly, I would like to inform you that yesterday I received a very long and pleasant letter from the President of Iran, Mr. Khatami, who regrets that he was not able to come, even though he was invited, and who expressed his sympathies toward this Forum, its focus and aim, because as you know he himself often contemplates the need for peaceful discussion between diverse cultures and civilization spheres.
Thirdly, I would like to thank, in a timely manner, all who have made it possible for this Forum to take place. Mr. Sasakawa, whose Nippon Foundation significantly contributes to the fact that our Conferences are able to take place; further, Mr. Jiří Musil, the Chairman of the Program Committee for this Forum; then, the Forum 2000 Foundation with Mr. Oldřich Černý at its head who organizes and prepares this Conference.
And now, and many of you might be surprised, I would like to thank the media. The first Forum 2000, which was held four years ago, took place almost without being noticed by them. It is certainly easier to write about the fact that somewhere someone threw a stone at somebody rather than to refer to a three-day debate on the future of the world. However, during recent years the Forum 2000 has slowly found its way into the general awareness and even into the awareness of the media, and I was extremely surprised by how much attention they have dedicated to it.
A few words concerning the future of this Forum: the upcoming fifth Forum should take place approximately at this time of year in 2001, it will be the last of the series of Conferences, and it would be nice if it were some sort of a climax to the series. It is my opinion that it should be dedicated particularly to human rights and human freedom. It is a theme which continually returns and is connected with absolutely everything that we speak about here. Perhaps it would be good for the last Forum in the upcoming year to publish a form of a joint statement or viewpoint. There are people who are already occupying themselves with this issue. It is my belief that during this Forum we have avoided some mistakes from the previous Conferences, and I hope that the upcoming one will again avoid those mistakes that we have realized this year. And then, if God permits, or if the Gods permit, we would be delighted if the Forum transformed itself into something more modest from the outside, but perhaps more of a continuing nature, into something that would decentralize the work and would make it more concrete. Time passes quickly and it seems that it would be best to bring ourselves down from the noble rooms of this Castle into the space below, and to create this continuous work there.
I was asked here, why the Velvet Revolution was so peaceful and yet successful. However, at first I should add that the expression "velvet" was given to us by the international media. We never named our revolution "velvet". Therefore, I would like to attempt a short answer. To a certain extent, this Charles’ University student from Mexico answered that question in my place. She spoke so kindly in reference to me that it made me blush but, nonetheless, she answered that question. It is because, before the so-called peaceful revolution, there were many years of work which were demanding, ungratifying, and were accompanied by endless sacrifices and stays at police stations - some stays may have lasted four years - work that had very little understanding within society but, nevertheless, work that later brought about benefit. It was guided by the idea that it is not possible to take into consideration the fact that it would ever become beneficial. What matters is the principal and not an early planned outcome. That work was projected in a certain way into the character of these large transformations. The regime which stood against society had at its disposal all available means of power. Many of you can hardly imagine it: it was not only the army and the police, the media, industry, but wherever one laid his eye, everything was centrally directed by that regime. Therefore, it was not simple to oppose the regime, just as it was not simple to direct the demonstrations of a quarter of a million people so that no one would provoke violence or so that it did not begin to become impassioned, because such an amount of people must naturally give in to mass hysteria. Fortunately, that did not occur and the regime was peacefully replaced, also thanks to international support. However, when I think about why it was possible for it to happen in that way, than I say to myself that it was accumulation of that long and ungratifying work, the work of a minority and work done in a ghetto.
In conclusion, I would like to return to the frog.
But before I do so, I would like to make some comments on the debates which have taken place here. I do not even intend to make some sort of detailed conclusion. Nevertheless, it is possible to state a few things: First, it is that there were participants who spoke in distinct languages, used distinct terms and viewed the themes from different points of view, based on distinct backgrounds and experiences from various spheres of human activity; but, nonetheless, it seems to me that the fundamental sense and the aim were the same - the concern about the future of this world and the will to speak of the future in this particular way, as we used to speak of it in our dissident ghetto. To attempt a change, not by breaking the storefront of McDonald's, which is simple and is a substitute for thinking, but to attempt to think about the future. I am a friend to all peaceful demonstrations, happenings and carnivals, and it seems to me that it only makes the city more human. However, I must confess that I do not feel solidarity toward the "breakers". It is a dangerous weapon and, above all, it is shortcut thinking. Concern for the future of this world is substituted by the fact that we localize this danger into a one shop window, we break it symbolically, but we do not solve anything by doing that.
Secondly, it is clear that spiritual values have been highlighted here, from which everything else should emerge. That we have named various endangerments to this civilization. That everyone was lead by the concern for its future, that they are aware of the danger in the form of this dull and blind self-movement which has been perfectly described but, at the same time, no one has been able to stop. I believe that all that is good. Nevertheless, I think that the issue is to rehabilitate the word, the speech, the language, communication, understanding and not to worry that the world of words and reflection is enclosed in some sort of a ghetto. If we continue to be persistent and vigorous we will exit that ghetto in the same way as we exited the dissident ghetto during the time of our peaceful velvet revolution. And, towards the end, I am getting to the frog.
It seems to me that 95 percent of the frogs never notice that the water in which they are sitting slowly starts to warm up and that, eventually, it will boil all of them. Therefore, this is why it is good for one frog to scream out from the very beginning: "Careful, the water is getting warmer!" And perhaps someone else will jump out of it.

I would like to thank all of you for coming and for your participation, thank you for taking part in the debates and I look forward to seeing you in a year from now.