Organization: The American University
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.slovak-l
Date:         Fri, 28 Aug 1992 21:49:29 EDT
From:         Shinjinee Sen <SSEN@AMERICAN.EDU>
Subject:      Here is the Dubcek interview!
X-To:         Slovak Mailing List <slovak-l@ubvm.cc.buffalo.edu>
X-cc:         Thomas Marvan <tmarvan@sdcc3.UCSD.EDU>

Here is the Dubcek interview that I forwarded for Thomas Marvan, who does
not have access to this group. Please direct all inquiries to him; I do
not claim any special knowledge of Slovakia.

Shinjinee Sen
School of International Service
The American University
Washington DC 20016
======================================================================== 337
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 01:09:39 PDT
From: tmarvan@sdcc3.UCSD.EDU (Thomas Marvan)
Message-Id: <9208270809.AA04760@sdcc3.UCSD.EDU>
To: SSEN@american.edu
Subject: Re: Project on national conflict
Cc: tmarvan@sdcc3.UCSD.EDU

< stuff deleted>



  I thought the following interview with Alexander Dubcek, printed in
the August 9, 1992, edition of the LA Times, might be pertinent
given the current anniversary of the quashing of the Prague Spring
24 years ago.  It is reproduced without permission.

  The introduction is written, and the interview conducted, by Garret
White, a former managing editor of LA Style magazine, as well as a
former senior editor of Buzz.  He currently resides in Paris.

  Here follows the introduction and interview...


*******************************************************************


                       Alexander Dubcek

                     The Former Czech Leader
                  Surveys Another "Prague Spring"

                        by Garret White


                                            Prague, Czechoslovakia



  In the long, brutal nightmare of Soviet domination of Eastern
Europe, few names symbolized both hope and humiliation more
poignantly than that of Alexander Dubcek.  Elected Czechoslovak
leader in January, 1968, Dubcek presided over the flowering known as
"Prague Spring."  His regime initiated the market reforms and
relaxation of press censorship that ultimately incurred the wrath of
the Soviet leadership, provoking the Warsaw Pact invasion of August,
1968, and the resulting 20 years of darkness.


  In the green hills of Bratislava, on a winding street that looks
out over the city and the Danube, is Dubcek's home, where he has
lived alone since the death of his wife, Anna, last year.  On the
way, the road passes a large villa.  It is the home of Vasil Bilak,
last surviving signatory of the infamous letter that invited the
Soviets to quell the revolution - and beckoned tanks into
Czechoslovakia.


  Until Mikhail S. Gorbachev's 1987 visit to Czechoslovakia and the
relaxation of security, neighbors had grown accustomed to the police
camped on Dubcek's doorstep.  Such harrasment had cut him off from
friends in the years of "normalization."  He had been removed from
power in September, 1969.  But, instead of standing trial for
counterrevolutionary actitivities, he was sent as ambassador to
Turkey - partly in hope that he would emigrate, confirming his
label as a "right-wing opportunist."  He did not.  In June, 1970,
he was recalled and, two days later, was expelled from the party.
Dubcek was given a job in the Slovakian Forestry Commission, where
he worked until retirement.


  Miraculously, Dubcek survived two decades of vicious party
propoganda with his stature intact - though controversy still
surrounds him.  He repeatedly has had to justify the actions of 1968
- particularly post-invasion concessions that brough accusations of
weakness and political naivete.  On the eve of the 1989 Velvet
Revolution, however, it was clear that his name retained its magic.
He stood with Vaclav Havel above Wenceslas Square, hearing his name
again shouted by a crowd of thousands, and watched on television by
the nation.


  During the revolution, Dubcek was linked with Public Against
Violence, a Slovakian counterpart to Civic Forum.  He was courted,
unsuccessfully, by Vladimir Meciar, the controverisal nationalist
leader whose movement for a democratic Slovakis led the coalition
that won 45% in the June elections.  Dubcek instead joined the
Social Democratic Party, which won just enough to particiate in the
Slovak National Council.


  At 71, Dubcek has the bearing of a polished statesman.  His smile is
seen on psters dislaying a bouquet of roses - the Social Democratic
Symbol - with the slogan  "I'm with you, stay with me."  It is this
face, as others have remarked, that came to symbolize the phenomenon
of 68 - Socialism with a human face.

********************************************************************
THE INTERVIEW:
********************************************************************


Q:  You said in the past, "Politics opens the way to economic
reform."  Yet the Velvet Revolution was clearly a revolt against
ideologies.  What was the role of ideology in economic reform?

A:  Well, those are two different things.  First, I would say that
politics opens the door for economics and economic reforms...
Politics in everything.  Politics includes housing problems, the
issue of whether or not we can travel - politics is everything you
touch in the place that you live.  Polticis is always in one form or
another.  The point is only:  What should it be like?  Our idea is
that politics should be for people, that it should encourage
democratic development and social welfare, culture and all that is
related to man's life.  This is my understanding of politics.

    Before, we were striving for change in politics and installed a
new type of politics.  Now, evryone can participate in politics - be
it Christian Democrats, Liberals, the left, the right - and work
toward what we see in West European democratic life.

    Because of our location in the center of Europe, our politics
and economics will most likely develop along the lines of modern
West European democracies.  The fact that I am now speaking with you
proves that politics has opened the door...  A new spirit is here.


Q:  Now, on the coming seperation of the Czech and Slovak republics
- in June, the Slovakian National Council declared sovreignty.  You
have supported the historic need for self-determination among
Slovaks, yet you were opposed to the split?

A:  ...Yes, I am an advocate of the idea that, in this critical
moment constitutional crisis in Czechoslovakia, the constitutional
position and powers of the nations of Czechoslovakia can be tackled
so as not to break the Czechoslovak links and maintain the
Czechoslovak state in a new form adequate to the present times.

    This is why we - who are not part of the coalition [led by
Vladimir Meciar] - have been pointing out in the Parliament that the
integrative elements of Czechoslovak statehood must be preserved.
What are they?  Common currency, as it is the backbone of our union.
There might exist hundreds of common things, but if it were not for
a common currency, they would mean nothing.  Also, common border
guards and Army, banking and unified customs and tax systems - as
well as coordinated foreign policy.  So this is our idea.  I am
speaking about it - though many tell me that,as a politician, I
should not be taking the chance.  While this country is still
together, one must apply every effort to avoid a rift...

    The Czech political leaders insist that there either be a
federation as it used to be or nothing at all - which is not true.
Therefore we say that if certain links are preserved, there is some
hope for the future.  Seldom does a reunion folow divorce...

    Before the [June] election the Czech and Slovak political
leaders were interlinked in government coalitions.  The coalition
partners were all this time presenting, in Slovakia, proposals for
solutions of mutual relations.  In not a single case was a proposal
accepted by the Czech political representation.

    The going became more and more radical for Christian Democrats,
the Democratic Party, the Public Against Violence movement and all
other partners in the former coalition.  This is why we find
ourselves in such a crisis.  What we did not see was a coming
together of the coalition partners to find a consensus, and this is
needed if there is to be harmony.


Q:  As for those in Slovakia who exploit this - using nationalist
concerns - one point debated in the Wesy is the alliance between
former communists and rightwing nationalists.  What is your view?


A:  We must distinguish between two things: Not all that is going on
in the Slovak scene can be referred to as nationalistic or
extremist.  The Slovaks have been building up their national
identity for almost a thousand years, striving for autonomy and
affirmation of their own existence.  All this time, they have
striven for autonomous administration.  This was also their goal, in
1918, when the [Czechoslaovak] Republic was founded...

    Why am I talking about this?  because there are some aspects of
the current process that are well-founded - and as they had not been
tackled, they now create space for extremism.  In 1939, the
Czechoslovak Republic was broken up for some time into the [Nazi]
Protectorate and the Slovak State.  Next to Yugoslavia, the biggest
uprising against the Fascist regime was in Slovakia, with the aim of
restoring the Czechoslovak Republic and establishing national bodies
such as the Slovak National Council, which came into existence in
the course of the uprising.

    The roots of the Slovak National Councl reach as far back as
1848, when the nation was struggling for its existence.  All this
was later reflected in the so-called Kosice Program [declared in
1945 in the town of Kosice] and elaborated jointly by the Moscow and
London exile governments...

    If such aspirations are not listened to, then it is the grist of
the mill of the extreme national separatism.  And since no success
was achieved during these past three years, this is where we are now
and the scene has turned more radical.  Not only were there rifts in
the political coalition partners, but his also provided ground for
the absolute extremists who say that nothing but a split can be of
some use...


Q:  It is sometimes said in the West that what is happening here is
the result of former communists who would like to return the economy
to central planning.

A:  ...One must distinguish between orthodox [communitsts] and the
grouping that emerged as a consequence of having recognised that the
old way was leading nowhere.  This latter group has a different
genesis, they follow a different road.

    One mistake the Czech political radicals made was they did not
first attack the communistst from the period of the last 20 years,
but the '68 communists.  And there are hundreds of thousands of
them.  This is what made the democratic front weaker in the struggle
against the narrowminded, dogmatic, militant structures.  The '68
communists, though they had to work later as taxi drivers or window
cleaners, they did not lose their credibility.  So why should thye
be defamed in the eyes of the young generation?  But this is the
price we have to pay in the development of this revolution.  It's a
historical fact that when any revolution reaches a certain stage, it
starts devouring its own children.


Q:  With regard to economics - whether discussing orthodox
communists or those associated with 1968 - what can socialiam mean
in the current context?

A:  ...There is no power, including the left, that could reverse
this.  The question is not whether we would like to continue
economic reform, but how to make the reform we have chosen the most
successful, how to achieve prosperity, how to avois social tensions
that could bring our young, fragile democracy to a halt.

    It is true that the wrong steps could hamper teh democratic
development of this country.  But by having a highly qualified
expertise in place that would not replace but only modify practical
steps in the implementation of the economic reforem, we will not
give them the chance.  Even in France or Austria and other countries
they are still pondering how to solve the problem of the
privatization large businesses.  And this goes on within the
framework of the market economies.  In our country, where there was
only a totally directed economy, we have no pattern to follow in
questions of privatization.  And yet, we have this process in
place...



Q:  As someone who has suffered for 20 years under the regime
dismantled in 1989, what is your position on the Lustration Law,
limiting the participation of former communisits for five years?


A:  I am absolutely against it, because the screenings have missed
the original target and did not fulfill even the tasks staked out by
the Parliament.  Originally, the screening process was targeted at
those who worked with the State Security Police.  Unfortunately, it
ended up attacking hundreds of thousands who were suffering under
the previous regime.  All the people of 1968 are in those files.
And those who, some 40 years ago, were chairmen of local Communists
Party comittess or members of the Central Commitee cannot work at
present, say, in the local government as officilas responsible for
the environment or housing.  That is, those that were blacklisted
unlawfully over the past 20 years - they were sacked from their
jobs, their children could not attend schools.  These days they are
blacklisted again, but legally.

    Even while chairman of the federal Parliament, I was screened by
the Federal Bureau on Security shortly before elections.  It was
made public that a commission was investigating my case.  Germany's
President von Weizsaecker also got involved, when he said that, if
this act were to be put in force in the Soviet Union, both Gorbachev
and Yeltsin would have to be dismissed because they were both party
district committee chairmen...


Q:  What do you believe is the antidote to anti-democratic forces in
Slovakia?


A:  I would consider it a great success if those who share my
opinions - and this includes also the Party of the Democratic Left
and [Meciar's] Movement for Democratic Slovakia - if steps are
taken that will eliminate the current approach of that part of the
Czech political representation striving for the breakup.  We are in
a critical situation.  I cannot help thinking that, had I been
victor in the elections, I would strive for the best alternative,
the best achievable points, by showing good will and exerting
certain pressures.  I am still searching for others who think along
these lines, and trying to act accordingly - though our position
might seem hopeless.  It would be of benefit for both the Czechs and
Slovaks, as well as for Europe, if the best is preserved from ur
relations and applied in new form.  The divorce might bring
unpleasant elements into play that no one has even thought of.

    We have been working toward a positive solution.  What is good
is that these ideas are being given more attnetion in the Czech
political community, and this is wher I see hope that Czechoslovak
relations can be preserved in a new form and that the crisis will be
overcome.  That's why I say that hope dies last.  If we do not have
hope, we lose our sense of life.  As you see in the Olymiad,
everything is played until the last second.



***********************************************************************
END OF INTERVIEW
***********************************************************************

Typed by...
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU