Freedom of choice and “differentiation”. The Czech Republic is one of the most interesting countries of Europe and its capital, Prague, is one of the world's most fascinating cities, not only because of its beauty, of course, but also because of its history, its cultural traditions and for the people that live there. The bafflement caused by the Czech EU Council Presidency in the current circumstances (see yesterday's column) does not change this. Every nation, like every democratically elected political leader, is free to make its own choices when it comes to European matters, on condition that everyone accepts the consequences of that choice and that the nation in question acknowledges others have the same freedom of decision and action. The Union is becoming too large and too varied for everyone to have the same ambitions. If there had to be unanimity on every development, no significant progress would be possible. This, in fact, is one of the reasons why the Lisbon Treaty is essential: it will provide a legal framework for “differentiation”, which is already very present in Community life. The euro would not exist if it had been necessary for all member states to take part before it could come about, something that is also true for the Schengen Area. The era of European proselytism is over. He who wishes to remain on the margin is free to do so. Arrangements will always be found for those not wanting such strong links or who do not wish to take part in one or another project - experience has shown this to be the case.
Experience also goes to show that public opinion sometimes evolves. It is not certain that the Danish, the Swedish and perhaps even - if we look to some time in the future - the British will remain convinced they made the right choice in rejecting the single currency. Sometimes, reticence can be explained by past events. Poland, in a geographical vice between Germany and Russia, was at some periods of its history completely struck off the map of Europe both as a country and as a nation. It took some years for the majority of Poland's population and political class to recognise that it is precisely the European unit of currency that ensures such dramatic circumstances never arise again and that frees Poland from energy dependence in relation to Russia, and also rescues and relaunches agriculture, etc. Time will tell whether developments will be the same in Ireland and elsewhere - but without pressurising anyone.
A certain amount of detachment. The situation in the Czech Republic is very specific. Apart from the almost pathological case of President Vaclav Klaus, the population is not euro-sceptic, as shown by the results of observation and polls. More exactly, it shows a certain detachment towards European commitment, a legacy of disenchantment. Someone has written that this will be the first caustic European presidency, as any excessive exhibitionism of European anthems and flags would be accompanied by scathing public comment.
The history of a country, that during the last century came under the successive dominance of Vienna, Berlin and Moscow, can partly explain this scepticism. Vaclav Klaus did not hesitate to take his comparison with the past still further when, upon receiving a group of MEPs last month, he reacted to the stance taken by one participant saying: “The way Mr Cohn-Bendit speaks to me is exactly the same as that used in the past by the Soviets”.
Why, however, is it that the Czechs do not understand that a united Europe precisely means the end of the era when a small country had only irony as a weapon, or revolt, when it came up against the major powers? Two weeks ago, Claudio Magris, a great connoisseur of Central Europe (he was born in Trieste) and author of the famous essay, “Danube”, said: “Apart from the different nationalities and languages spoken, Mitteleuropa has been the wonderful and dark laboratory of civilisation's malaise (…) - its historical past has meant that it has developed a culture of resistance”. He went on to add: “The miracle of Mitteleuropa literature is symbiosis between German and Jewish culture”. I believe that Mr Magris' analysis leaves out a third essential element - that which, for Prague, is represented by Jaroslav Hasek's “Good Soldier Svejk”, who is the unforgettable embodiment of the people's good sense and irony towards emperors of any sort. The Czech Republic is in itself a central element of European culture, mainly in the musical field, and no-one should forget that its citizens have also proven that they know how to fight and to die for freedom against invaders' tanks. Will these same citizens understand that the goals of the European Union have nothing to do with past imperialism - that the EU affirms and protects the identity of every nation and of every state? Only time will tell.
For now, the first vicissitudes of the Czech Presidency seem to confirm doubts and perplexity expressed. Tomorrow's column will develop a number of other notions and musings. (F.R./transl.jl)