The Havel Issue: A Lasting Stain on Van den Broek's Record

A Political Defeat 

The presentation of the Erasmus Prize finally took place on 13 November 1986. Havel could not attend in person because he might not be able to return after leaving his country. Two of his Charta friends represented him at the ceremony in Rotterdam's St Laurenskerk. Sweden-based Charta spokesman František Janouch accepted the award, and actor Jan Tryska, exiled from Czechoslovakia, delivered Havel's acceptance speech on his behalf.

The ceremony, however, had been preceded by much more. After he had been presented with the draft text of Havel's acceptance speech, Minister Van den Broek objected to certain passages. He was known to be very precise regarding ministerial responsibility for members of the Royal Family, and he did not allow Havel to represent Charta explicitly in their presence. The Erasmus Prize was, first and foremost, a cultural prize, and a "wholly political speech" did not suit it. He was not concerned with avoiding criticism of the Czechoslovak authorities, but the Head of State should not get involved. This was a matter of principle, mainly because of precedent, and he believed that if the phrases in question were not deleted, then the Royal Family could not be present.[7]  

The board of the Praemium Erasmianum Foundation wanted to avoid that situation but also struggled internally over what concessions it was willing to accept to that end. Part of the board was outraged by the request to amend the text, and soon, news of Van den Broek's intervention thus leaked out. It led to a wave of criticism from the media and also from MPs. Coalition party VVD asked the government a series of critical questions on 21 October 1986, and other MPs also expressed their concerns about the course of events. Had the minister committed censorship for fear of damaging good relations with Czechoslovakia? And was someone who fought for freedom of speech in his own country now being denied free speech in the Netherlands? That was unacceptable.

There were also hesitations in the cabinet about the appropriateness of Van den Broek's intervention. This was already evident during the parliamentary debate, where Prime Minister Lubbers was speaking because of Van den Broek's commitments abroad. One could wonder, he admitted, whether, in retrospect, the choice of Havel instead of Charta had been "sufficiently thought through in the sense that a somewhat artificial caesura was about to occur". The fact that tensions had come out in the matter was "proof that something is askew", and he regretted that.[8] Van den Broek resented Lubbers for not standing up for him more and for not bringing the aspect of ministerial responsibility more clearly to the fore in the Chamber. He felt that the parliamentary debate had unfairly put his performance "in a somewhat questionable light".[9]

That did not alter the fact that he had to accept the Chamber's verdict. The Council of Ministers on 24 October debated the question of what was wise in the circumstances. Unanimously, other ministers felt that the cabinet had ended up in an extremely unfortunate position. Several cabinet members felt that Van den Broek went too far in his interpretation of ministerial responsibility. It was unrealistic to assume that in a pluralistic society with a high degree of freedom of expression, the Head of State could always be shielded from political statements, thought Cees van Dijk (CDA, Home Affairs). Frits Korthals Altes (VVD, Justice) also pointed this out. Given the Dutch tradition and that of the Royal Family in matters such as freedom of speech and human rights, he found it "difficult to see why restraint should be exercised here in particular."[10] The conclusion that it was better to comply with the Chamber's wish was unanimous. 

Van den Broek remained convinced he was right but had no choice but to acquiesce. The adjustments he had desired were undone, and Havel's speech was recited in full on 13 November. There was applause in the church when Tryska expressed that, in his view, appreciation for Havel's work also included appreciation for Charta.[11]

Renewed Attention After 1989

The settlement of the issue was very painful for Van den Broek in several ways. Not only had he had to give in to pressure to have the controversial passage read out, but he also had to endure the public scorn and humiliation of Lubbers' not-so-open reprimand. Unfortunately for him, the ordeal continued as the media seemed unable to get enough of the issue. Especially when Havel was elected president of Czechoslovakia after the fall of the communist regime in 1989, the affair received renewed attention. "The Dutch government would do well to immediately invite President Havel for a state visit to our country," wrote the NRC Handelsblad, "because precisely now, when President Václav Havel so aptly personifies the regained 'free word' in Czechoslovakia, our country could wipe away an ugly stain in its relationship with Havel in particular and freedom of expression in general."[12]

This was also the opinion of Doeke Eisma, D66's foreign affairs spokesperson in the Lower House. Wouldn't it be good if the foreign minister invited Havel to visit our country "as a kind of compensation for then", he asked Van den Broek when debating the ministry's budget.[13] "I wonder, chairman," sighed the minister in his response, exasperated, "whether this will ever come to an end one day." It bothered him immensely that four years after the event, the events surrounding the awarding of the Erasmus Prize were now being revived. Not only was the persistent suggestion that censorship had been committed at the time incorrect in his view, but he also felt it was not in the interest of the image of the Netherlands to perpetuate the myth that the foreign minister was 'not clean on that score'.[14]

According to media reports, even the Czechoslovak president himself had not forgotten Van den Broek's conduct. When Havel visited the Netherlands at the end of 1991 as part of a tour of Europe, he did not mention Van den Broek's name once in his press conference, while Van den Broek's predecessor in foreign affairs, Max van der Stoel (PvdA) received full praise. There were also words of appreciation for Lubbers, Queen Beatrix and the members of the committee that awarded him the Erasmus Prize in 1986.[15] Whatever Van den Broek did, the Havel issue remained a stain on his political record that would not soon be forgotten.