[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 93 (Thursday, June 8, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8020-S8023]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     COMMENCEMENT ADDRESS BY PRESIDENT HAVAL AT HARVARD UNIVERSITY

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, earlier today, President Vaclav Havel of 
the Czech Republic received an honorary degree from Harvard and 
delivered the commencement address.
  President Havel's address is an eloquent analysis of the human 
condition in our diverse, interdependent and increasingly technological 
world, where the greatest achievements of humanity can also lead to the 
greatest destruction. He speaks especially of the responsibility of 
politicians and the mass media to enhance respect for individuals and 
for other peoples, other nations, and other cultures, so that the 
discoveries of the modern age will be able to serve humanity, no 
destroy it. As he states, ``Our conscience must catch up to our reason, 
otherwise we are lost.''
  I believe that President Havel's eloquent and thoughtful address will 
be of interest to all of us in Congress, and I ask unanimous consent 
that the prepared text of the address may be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                        Address by Vaclav Havel

       Mr. President, Mr. Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen. 
     One evening not long ago I was sitting in an outdoor 
     restaurant by the water. My chair was almost identical to the 
     chairs they have in restaurants by the Vltava River in 
     Prague. They were playing the same rock music they play in 
     most Czech restaurants. I saw advertisements I'm familiar 
     with back home. Above all, I was surrounded by young people 
     who were similarly dressed, who drank familiar-looking 
     drinks, and who behaved as casually as their contemporaries 
     in Prague. Only their complexion and their facial features 
     were different--for I was in Singapore.
       I sat there thinking about this and again--for the 
     umpteenth time--I realized an almost banal truth: that we now 
     live in a single global civilization. The identity of this 
     civilization does not lie merely in similar forms of dress, 
     or similar drinks, or in the constant buzz of the same 
     commercial music all around the world, or even in 
     international advertising. It lies in something deeper: 
     thanks to the modern idea of constant progress, with its 
     inherent expansionism, and to the rapid evolution of science 
     that comes directly from it, our planet has, for the first 
     time in the long history of the human race, been covered in 
     the space of a very few decades by a single civilization--one 
     that is essentially technological. The world is now enmeshed 
     in webs of telecommunication networks consisting of millions 
     of tiny threads or capillaries that not only transmit 
     information of all kinds at lightning speed, but also convey 
     integrated models of social, political and economic behavior. 
     They are conduits for legal norms, as well as for billions 
     and billions of dollars, crisscrossing the world while 
     remaining invisible even to those who deal directly with 
     them. The life of the human race is completely interconnected 
     not only in the informational sense, but in the causal sense 
     as well. Anecdotically, I could illustrate this by reminding 
     you--since I've already mentioned Singapore--that today all 
     it takes is a single shady transaction initiated by a single 
     devious bank clerk in Singapore to bring down a bank on the 
     other side of the world. Thanks to the accomplishments of 
     this civilization, practically all of us know what cheques, 
     bonds, bills of exchange, and stocks are. We are familiar 
     with CNN and Chernobyl, and we know who the Rolling Stones, 
     or Nelson Mandela, or Salman Rushdie are. More than that, the 
     capillaries that have so radically integrated this 
     civilization also convey information about certain modes of
      human co-existence that have proven their worth, like 
     democracy, respect for human rights, the rule of law, the 
     laws of the market-place. Such information flows around 
     the world and, in varying degrees, takes root in different 
     places.
       In modern times this global civilization emerged in the 
     territory occupied by European and ultimately by Euro-
     American culture. Historically, it evolved from a combination 
     of traditions--classical, Judaic and Christian. In theory, at 
     least, it gives people not only the capacity for worldwide 
     communication, but also a coordinated means of defending 
     themselves against many common dangers. It can also, in an 
     unprecedented way, make our life on this earth easier and 
     open up to us hitherto unexplored horizons in our knowledge 
     of ourselves and the world we live in.
       And yet there is something not quite right about it.
       Allow me to use this ceremonial gathering for a brief 
     meditation on a subject which I have dwelt upon a great deal, 
     and which I often bring up on occasions resembling this one. 
     I want to focus today on the source of the dangers that 
     threaten humanity in spite of this global civilization, and 
     often directly because of it. Above all, I would like to 
     speak about the ways in which these dangers can be 
     confronted.
       Many of the great problems we face today, as far as I 
     understand them, have their origin in the fact that this 
     global civilization, though in evidence everywhere, is no 
     more than a thin veneer over the sum total of human 
     awareness, if I may put it that way. This civilization is 
     immensely fresh, young, new, and fragile, and the human 
     spirit has accepted it with dizzying alacrity, without itself 
     changing in any essential way. Humanity has evolved over long 
     millennia in all manner of civilizations and cultures that 
     gradually, and in very diverse ways, shaped our habits of 
     mind, our relationship to the world, our models of behaviour 
     and the values we accept and recognize. In essence, this new, 
     single epidermis of world civilization merely covers or 
     conceals the immense variety of cultures, of peoples, of 
     religious worlds, of historical traditions and historically 
     formed attitudes, all of which in a sense lie ``beneath'' it. 
     At the same time, even as the veneer of world civilization 
     expands, this ``underside'' of humanity, this hidden 
     dimension of it, demands more and more clearly to be heard 
     and to be granted a right to life.
       And thus, while the world as a whole increasingly accepts 
     the new habits of global civilization, another contradictory 
     process is taking place: ancient traditions are reviving, 
     different religions and cultures are awakening to new ways of 
     being, seeking new room to exist, and struggling with growing 
     fervour to realize what is unique to them and what makes them 
     different from others. Ultimately they seek to give their 
     individuality a political expression.
       It is often said that in our time, every valley cries out 
     for its own independence or will even fight for it. Many 
     nations, or parts of them at least, are struggling against 
     modern civilization or its main proponents for the right to 
     worship their ancient gods and obey the ancient divine 
     injunctions. They carry on their struggle using weapons 
     provided by the very civilization they oppose. They employ 
     radar, computers, lasers, nerve gases, and perhaps, in the 
     future, even nuclear weapons--all products of the world they 
     challenge--to help defend their ancient heritage against the 
     erosions of modern civilization. In contrast with these 
     technological inventions, other products of this 
     civilization--like democracy or the idea of human rights--are 
     not accepted in many places in the world because they are 
     deemed to be hostile to local traditions.
       In other words: the Euro-American world has equipped other 
     parts of the globe with [[Page S8021]] instruments that not 
     only could effectively destroy the enlightened values which, 
     among other things, made possible the invention of precisely 
     these instruments, but which could well cripple the capacity 
     of people to live together on this earth.
       What follows from all of this?
       It is my belief that this state of affairs contains a clear 
     challenge not only to the Euro-American world but to our 
     present-day civilization as a whole. It is a challenge to 
     this civilization to start understanding itself as a 
     multicultural and a multipolar civilization, whose meaning 
     lies not in undermining the individuality of different 
     spheres of culture and civilization but in allowing them to 
     be more completely themselves. This will only be possible, 
     even conceivable, if we all accept a basic code of mutual co-
     existence, a kind of common minimum we can all share, one 
     that will enable us to go on living side by side. Yet such a 
     code won't stand a chance
      if it is merely the product of a few who then proceed to 
     force it on the rest. It must be an expression of the 
     authentic will of everyone, growing out of the genuine 
     spiritual roots hidden beneath the skin of our common, 
     global civilization. If it is merely disseminated through 
     the capillaries of this skin, the way Coca-cola ads are--
     as a commodity offered by some to others--such a code can 
     hardly be expected to take hold in any profound or 
     universal way.
       But is humanity capable of such an undertaking? Is it not a 
     hopelessly utopian idea? Haven't we so lost control of our 
     destiny that we are condemned to gradual extinction in ever 
     harsher high-tech clashes between cultures, because of our 
     fatal inability to co-operate in the face of impending 
     catastrophes, be they ecological, social, or demographic, or 
     of dangers generated by the state of our civilization as 
     such?
       I don't know.
       But I have not lost hope.
       I have not lost hope because I am persuaded again and again 
     that, lying dormant in the deepest roots of most, if not all, 
     cultures there is an essential similarity, something that 
     could be made--if the will to do so existed--a genuinely 
     unifying starting point for that new code of human co-
     existence that would be firmly anchored in the great 
     diversity of human traditions.
       Don't we find somewhere in the foundations of most 
     religions and cultures, though they may take a thousand and 
     one distinct forms, common elements such as respect for what 
     transcends us, whether we mean the mystery of Being, or a 
     moral order that stands above us; certain imperatives that 
     come to us from heaven, or from nature, or from our own 
     hearts; a belief that our deeds will live after us; respect 
     for our neighbours, for our families, for certain natural 
     authorities; respect for human dignity and for nature: a 
     sense of solidarity and benevolence towards guests who come 
     with good intentions?
       Isn't the common, ancient origin or human roots of our 
     diverse spiritualities, each of which is merely another kind 
     of human understanding of the same reality, the thing that 
     can genuinely bring people of different cultures together?
       And aren't the basic commandments of this archetypal 
     spirituality in harmony with what even an unreligious 
     person--without knowing exactly why--may consider proper and 
     meaningful?
       Naturally, I am not suggesting that modern people be 
     compelled to worship ancient deities and accept rituals they 
     have long since abandoned. I am suggesting something quite 
     different: we must come to understand the deep mutual 
     connection or kinship between the various forms of our 
     spirituality. We must recollect our original spiritual and 
     moral substance, which grew out of the same essential 
     experience of humanity. I believe that this is the only way 
     to achieve a genuine renewal of our sense of responsibility 
     for ourselves and for the world. And at the same time, it is 
     the only way to achieve a deeper understanding among cultures 
     that will enable them to work together in a truly ecumenical 
     way to create a new order for the world.
       The veneer of global civilization that envelops the modern 
     world and the consciousness of humanity, as we all know, has 
     a dual nature, bringing into question, at every step of the 
     way, the very values it is based upon, or which it 
     propagates. The thousands of marvelous achievements of this 
     civilization that work for us so well and enrich us can 
     equally impoverish, diminish, and destroy our lives, and 
     frequently do. Instead of serving people, many of these 
     creations enslave them. Instead of helping people to develop 
     their identities, they take them away. Almost every invention 
     or discovery--from the splitting of the atom and the 
     discovery of DNA to television and the computer--can be 
     turned against us and used to our detriment. How much easier 
     it is today than it was during the First World War to destroy 
     an entire metropolis in a single air-raid. And how much 
     easier would it be today, in the era of television, for a 
     madman like Hitler or Stalin to pervert the spirit of a whole 
     nation. When have people ever had the power we now possess to 
     alter the climate of the planet or deplete its mineral 
     resources or the wealth of its fauna and flora in the space 
     of a few short decades? And how much more destructive 
     potential do terrorists have at their disposal today than at 
     the beginning of this century?
       In our era, it would seem that one part of the human brain, 
     the rational part which has made all these morally neutral 
     discoveries, has undergone exceptional development, while the 
     other part, which should be alert to ensure that these 
     discoveries really serve humanity and will not destroy it, 
     has lagged behind catastrophically.
       Yes, regardless of where I begin my think- ing about the 
     problems facing our civilization, I always return to the 
     theme of human responsibility, which seems incapable of 
     keeping pace with civilization and preventing it from turning 
     against the human race. It's as though the world has simply 
     become too much for us to deal with.
       There is no way back. Only a dreamer can believe that the 
     solution lies in curtailing the progress of civilization in 
     some way or other. The main task in the coming era is 
     something else: a radical renewal of our sense of 
     responsibility. Our conscience must catch up to our reason, 
     otherwise we are lost.
       It is my profound belief that there is only one way to 
     achieve this: we must divest ourselves of our egotistical 
     anthropocentrism, our habit of seeing ourselves as masters of 
     the universe who can do whatever occurs to us. We must 
     discover a new respect for what transcends us: for the 
     universe, for the earth, for nature, for life, and for 
     reality. Our respect for other people, for other nations, and 
     for other cultures, can only grow from a humble respect for 
     the cosmic order and from an awareness that we are a part of 
     it, that we share in it and that nothing of what we do is 
     lost, but rather becomes part of the eternal memory of Being, 
     where it is judged.
       A better alternative for the future of humanity, therefore, 
     clearly lies in imbuing our civilization with a spiritual 
     dimension. It's not just a matter of understanding its 
     multicultural nature and finding inspiration for the creation 
     of a new world order in the common roots of all cultures. It 
     is also essential that the Euro-American cultural sphere--the 
     one which created this civilization and taught humanity its 
     destructive pride--now return to its own spiritual roots and 
     become an example to the rest of the world in the search for 
     a new humility.
       General observations of this type are certainly not 
     difficult to make, nor are they new or revolutionary. Modern 
     people are masters at describing the crises and the misery of 
     the world which we shape, and for which we are responsible. 
     We are much less adept at putting things right.
       So what specifically is to be done?
       I do not believe in some universal key or panacea. I am not 
     an advocate of what Karl Popper called ``holistic social 
     engineering'', particularly because I had to live most of my 
     adult life in circumstances that resulted from an attempt to 
     create a holistic Marxist utopia. I know more than enough, 
     therefore, about efforts of this kind.
       This does not relieve me, however, of the responsibility to 
     think of ways to make the world better.
       It will certainly not be easy to awaken in people a new 
     sense of responsibility for the world, an ability to conduct 
     themselves as if they were to live on this earth forever, and 
     to be held answerable for its condition one day. Who knows 
     how many horrific cataclysms humanity may have to go through 
     before such a sense of responsibility is generally accepted. 
     But this does not mean that those who wish to work for it 
     cannot begin at once. It is a great task for teachers, 
     educators, intellectuals, the clergy, artists, entrepreneurs, 
     journalists, people active in all forms of public life.
       Above all it is a task for politicians.
       Even in the most democratic of conditions, politicians have 
     immense influence, perhaps more than they themselves realize. 
     This influence does not lie in their actual mandates, which 
     in any case are considerably limited. It lies in something 
     else: in the spontaneous impact their charisma has on the 
     public.
       The main task of the present generation of politicians is 
     not, I think, to ingratiate themselves with the public 
     through the decisions they take or their smiles on 
     television. It is not to go on winning elections and ensuring 
     themselves a place in the sun till the end of their days. 
     Their role is, something quite different: to assume their 
     share of responsibility for the long-range prospects of our 
     world and thus to set an example for the public in whose 
     sight they work. Their responsibility is to think ahead 
     boldly, not to fear the disfavor of the crowd, to imbue their 
     actions with a spiritual dimension (which of course is not 
     the same thing as ostentatious attendance at religious 
     services), to explain again and again--both to the public and 
     to
      their colleagues--that politics must do far more than 
     reflect the interests of particular groups or lobbies. 
     After all, politics is a matter of serving the community, 
     which means that it is morality in practice. And how 
     better to serve the community and practice morality than 
     by seeking in the midst of the global (and globally 
     threatened) civilization their own global political 
     responsibility: that is, their responsibility for the very 
     survival of the human race?
       I don't believe that a politician who sets out on this 
     risky path will inevitably jeopardize his or her political 
     survival. This is a wrongheaded notion which assumes that the 
     citizen is a fool and that political success depends on 
     playing to this folly. That is not the way it is. A 
     conscience slumbers in every human being, something divine. 
     And that is what we have to put our trust in.
       Ladies and gentlemen,
       I find myself at perhaps the most famous university in the 
     most powerful country in the world. With your permission, I 
     will say a few words on the subject of the politics of a 
     great power. [[Page S8022]] 
       It is obvious that those who have the greatest power and 
     influence also bear the greatest responsibility. Like it or 
     not, the United States of America now bears probably the 
     greatest responsibility for the direction our world will 
     take. The United States, therefore, should reflect most 
     deeply on their responsibility.
       Isolationism has never paid off for the United States. Had 
     it entered the First World War earlier, perhaps it would not 
     have had to pay with anything like the casualties it actually 
     incurred.
       The same is true of the Second World War. When Hitler was 
     getting ready to invade Czechoslovakia, and in so doing 
     finally expose the lack of courage on the part of the western 
     democracies, your President wrote a letter to the 
     Czechoslovak President imploring him to come to some 
     agreement with Hitler. Had he not deceived himself and the 
     whole world into believing that an agreement could be made 
     with this madman, had he instead shown a few teeth, perhaps 
     the Second World War need not have happened, and tens of 
     thousands of young Americans need not have died fighting in 
     it.
       Likewise, just before the end of that war, had your 
     President, who was otherwise an outstanding man, said a clear 
     ``no'' to Stalin's decision to divide the world, perhaps the 
     Cold War, which cost the United States hundreds of billions 
     of dollars, need not have happened either.
       I beg you: do not repeat these mistakes! You yourselves 
     have always paid a heavy price for them! There is simply no 
     escaping the responsibility you have as the most powerful 
     country in the world.
       There is far more at stake here than simply standing up to 
     those who would like once again to divide the world into 
     spheres of interest, or subjugate others who are different 
     from them, and weaker. What is now at stake is saving the 
     human race. In other words, it's a question of what I've 
     already talked about: of understanding modern civilization as 
     a multicultural and multipolar civilization, of turning our 
     attention to the original spiritual sources of human culture 
     and above all, of our own culture, of drawing from these 
     sources the strength for a courageous and magnanimous 
     creation of a new order for the world.
       Not long ago I was at a gala dinner to mark an important 
     anniversary. There were fifty Heads of State present, perhaps 
     more, who came to honor the heroes and victims of the 
     greatest war in human history. This was not a political 
     conference, but the kind of social event that is meant 
     principally to show hospitality and respect to the invited 
     guests. When the seating plan was given out, I discovered to 
     my surprise that those sitting at the table next to mine were 
     not identified simply as representatives of a particular 
     state, as was the case with all the other tables; they were 
     referred to as ``permanent members of the UN Security Council 
     and the G7'' I had mixed feelings about this. On the one 
     hand, I thought how marvelous that the richest and most 
     powerful of this world see each other often and even at this 
     dinner, can talk informally and get to know each other 
     better. On the other hand, a slight chill went down my spine, 
     for I could not help observing that one table had been 
     singled out as being special and particularly important. It 
     was a table for the big powers. Somewhat perversely, I began 
     to imagine that the people sitting at it were, along with 
     their Russian caviar, dividing the rest of us up among 
     themselves, without asking our opinion. Perhaps all this is 
     merely the whimsy of a former and perhaps future playwright. 
     But I wanted to express it here. For one simple reason: to 
     emphazise the terrible gap that exists between the 
     responsibility of the great powers and their hubirs. The 
     architect of that seating arrangement--I
      should think it was none of the attending Presidents--was 
     not guided by a sense of responsibility for the world, but 
     by the banal pride of the powerful.
       But pride is precisely what will lead the world to hell. I 
     am suggesting an alternative: humbly accepting our 
     responsibility for the world.
       There is one great opportunity in the matter of co-
     existence between nations and spheres of civilization, 
     culture and religion that should be grasped and exploited to 
     the limit. This is the appearance of supranational or 
     regional communities. By now, there are many such communities 
     in the world, with diverse characteristics and differing 
     degrees of integration. I believe in this approach. I believe 
     in the importance of organisms that lie somewhere between 
     nation states and a world community, organisms that can be an 
     important medium of global communication and co-operation. I 
     believe that this trend towards integration in a world 
     where--as I've said--every valley longs for independence, 
     must be given the greatest possible support. These organisms, 
     however, must not be an expression of integration merely for 
     the sake of integration. They must be one of the many 
     instruments enabling each region, each nation, to be both 
     itself and capable of co-operation with others. That is, they 
     must be one of the instruments enabling countries and peoples 
     who are close to each other geographically, ethnically, 
     culturally and economically and who have common security 
     interests, to form associations and better communicate with 
     each other and with the rest of the world. At the same time, 
     all such regional communities must rid themselves of fear 
     that other like communities are directed against them. 
     Regional groupings in areas that have common traditions and a 
     common political culture ought to be a natural part of the 
     complex political architecture of the world. Co-operation 
     between such regions ought to be a natural component of co-
     operation on a world-wide scale. As long as the broadening of 
     NATO membership to include countries who feel culturally and 
     politically a part of the region the Alliance was created to 
     defend is seen by Russia, for example, as an anti-Russian 
     undertaking, it will be a sign that Russia has not yet 
     understood the challenge of this era.
       The most important world organization is the United 
     Nations. I think that the fiftieth anniversary of its birth 
     could be an occasion to reflect on how to infuse it with a 
     new ethos, a new strength, and a new meaning, and make it the 
     truly most important arena of good co-operation among all 
     cultures that make up our planetary civilization.
       But neither the strengthening of regional structures nor 
     the strengthening of the UN will save the world if both 
     processes are not informed by that renewed spiritual charge 
     which I see as the only hope that the human race will survive 
     another millennium.
       I have touched on what I think politicians should do.
       There is, however, one more force that has at least as 
     much, if not more, influence on the general state of mind as 
     politicians do.
       That force is the mass media.
       Only when fate sent me into the realm of high politics did 
     I become fully aware of the media's double-edged power. Their 
     dual impact is not a specialty of the media. It is merely a 
     part, or an expression of the dual nature of today's 
     civilization of which I have already spoken.
       Thanks to television the whole world discovered, in the 
     course of an evening, that there is a country called Rwanda 
     where people are suffering beyond belief. Thanks to 
     television it is possible to do at least a little to help 
     those who are suffering. Thanks to television the whole 
     world, in the course of a few seconds, was shocked and 
     horrified about what happened in Oklahoma City and, at the 
     same time, understood it as a great warning for all. Thanks 
     to television the whole world knows that there exists an 
     internationally recognized country called Bosnia and 
     Herzegovina and that from the moment it recognized this 
     country, the international community has tried unsuccessfully 
     to divide it into grotesque mini-states according to the 
     wishes of warlords who have never been recognized by anyone 
     as anyone's legitimate representatives.
       That is the wonderful side of today's mass media, or 
     rather, of those who gather the news. Humanity's thanks 
     belong to all those courageous reporters who voluntarily risk 
     their lives wherever something evil is happening, in order to 
     arouse the conscience of the world.
       There is, however, another, less wonderful, aspect of 
     television, one that merely revels in the horrors of the 
     world or, unforgivably, makes them commonplace, or compels 
     politicians to become first of all television stars.
      But where is it written that someone who is good on 
     television is necessarily also a good politician? I never 
     fail to be astonished at how much I am at the mercy of 
     television directors and editors, at hoe my public image 
     depends far more on them than it does on myself, at how 
     important it is to smile appropriately on television, or 
     choose the right tie, at how television forces me to 
     express my thoughts as sparely as possible, in witticisms, 
     slogans or sound bites, at how easily my television image 
     can be made to seem different from the real me. I am 
     astonished by this and at the same time, I fear it serves 
     no good purpose. I know politicians who have learned to 
     see themselves only as the television camera does. 
     Television has thus expropriated their personalities, and 
     made them into something like television shadows of their 
     former selves. I sometimes wonder whether they even sleep 
     in a way that will look good on television.
       I am not outraged with television or the press for 
     distorting what I say, or ignoring it, or editing me to 
     appear like some strange monster. I am not angry with the 
     media when I see that a politician's rise or fall often 
     depends more on them than on the politician concerned. What 
     interests me is something else: the responsibility of those 
     who have the mass media in their hands. They too bear 
     responsibility for the world, and for the future of humanity. 
     Just as the splitting of the atom can immensely enrich 
     humanity in a thousand and one ways and, at the same time, 
     can also threaten it with destruction, so television can have 
     both good and evil consequences. Quickly, suggestively, and 
     to an unprecedented degree, it can disseminate the spirit of 
     understanding, humanity, human solidarity and spirituality, 
     or it can stupefy whole nations and continents. And just as 
     our use of atomic energy depends solely on our sense of 
     responsibility, so the proper use of television's power to 
     enter practically every household and every human mind 
     depends on our sense of responsibility as well.
       Whether our world is to be saved from everything that 
     threatens it today depends above all on whether human beings 
     come to their senses, whether they understand the degree of 
     their responsibility and discover a new relationship to the 
     very miracle of Being. The world is in the hands of us all. 
     And yet some have a greater influence on its fate than 
     others. The more influence a person has--be they politician 
     or television announcer--the greater the demands placed on 
     their sense of responsibility and the less 
     [[Page S8023]] they should think merely about personal 
     interests.
       Ladies and gentlemen, in conclusion, allow me a brief 
     personal remark. I was born in Prague and I lived there for 
     decades without being allowed to study properly or visit 
     other countries. Nevertheless, my mother never abandoned one 
     of her secret and quite extravagant dreams: that one day I 
     would study at Harvard. Fate did not permit me to fulfill her 
     dream. But something else happened, something that would 
     never have occurred even to my mother. I have received a 
     doctoral degree at Harvard without even having to study here.
       More than that, I have been given to see Singapore, and 
     countless other exotic places. I have been given to 
     understand how small this world is and how it torments itself 
     with countless things it need not torment itself with if 
     people could find within themselves a little more courage, a 
     little more hope, a little more responsibility, a little more 
     mutual understanding and love.
       I don't know whether my mother is looking down at me from 
     heaven, but if she is I can guess what she's probably 
     thinking: she's thinking that I'm sticking my nose into 
     matters that only people who have properly studied political 
     science at Harvard have the right to stick their noses into.
       I hope that you don't think so.
       Thank you for your attention.
       

                          ____________________