Events are still moving faster than the forecasts and commentaries. The six-month Czech Presidency of the Council announced few surprises and yet here it is confronting different dramatic situations from the very beginning: the conflict in the Gaza Strip and the radical reduction in Russian gas supplies through Ukraine. The Presidency began badly on the first subject with a declaration it urgently had to withdraw (see EUROPE the day before yesterday), even if the foreign affairs minister casually explained that this was simply down to the “human” error committed by the spokesperson and as such did not warrant any apology. The energy affair is to be discussed this Thursday in the informal “Gymnich type” session arranged by Prague. At the same time, the European Parliament has organised an emergency meeting on the matter and will hold direct discussions with Gazprom and Naftogaz leaders.
EU doesn't threaten, it reassures. The brusque acceleration in events will allow for an observation to be made of the Czech Presidency's behaviour on the ground, but it will not change its fundamental orientations, which are largely determined by the domestic political situation and history. Prague is perhaps the city that best represents European cultural diversity, its cultural, religious and political mixtures are so rich. The vicissitudes of the past, however, have created a deep scepticism among Czech citizens that is sometimes tinged with irony with regard to rhetoric and facile enthusiasm, as well as a certain distrust of projects that might, in their eyes, impinge on the autonomy and freedom it has managed to re-conquer.
Czech citizens ought to understand that the EU is in fact going in the opposite direction to the one they fear. It guarantees the territorial integrity of member states, as well as respect for their identity and protects them against any aggressive threats made by third countries. Far from representing a threat, European unity should be about providing assurances. The Lisbon Treaty improves and expands the possibilities of “differentiation” between member states, which includes the defence domain. Each nation is free to makes is own choices and can remain on the sidelines of any area it so wishes, without participating, of course, in the management of projects it rejects. The Lisbon Treaty even introduces the facility of member states being able to leave the European Union.
These considerations should help towards providing an appropriate evaluation of the Czech Presidency's problems, whose tenure is relatively brief - it ends on 30 June. The Euro-scepticism, however, proclaimed by the president of the Republic, comes on top of the domestic difficulties experienced by the government and provokes a number of concerns. It is not about his freedom of expression being in jeopardy but the compatibility of his opinions with the European role of this country.
Causes for concern. A few examples. Vaclav Klaus says that climate change is not chiefly the result of human activity. In his opinion, environmental questions are a bi-product of luxury and Europe should abandon its action plan in this area. Moreover, this action plan, approved by all the institutions and member states, represents a pillar of Community activity in this six month period and the EU will be striving to get it accepted at a global level next December. The president of the Czech Republic also expressed his solidarity with the initiatives of Irish billionaire Declan Ganley, who, as we are all aware, played a certain role in getting the Lisbon Treaty in Ireland rejected and then founded a multinational Eurosceptic party that seeks to win the next European elections. He has the right to do so and Mr Klaus has the right to express his opinions but for the country presiding over the EU, this is not exactly ideal. Even more so, given Mr Klaus' intention not to sign the Lisbon Treaty (the parliament of his country will give its opinion on the matter next month) until Ireland has given its definitive verdict on the question. He also rejects the European flag and other symbols, which remind him of “the time when the Soviet red flag flew over Czechoslovakia”. There is also the indignation felt by several MEPs when they found out that their recent meeting in Prague with Mr Klaus had been recorded without their knowledge and was partially leaked. Jo Leinen, the president of the EP's constitutional affairs committee, asked to what extent the Parliament could have a relationship based on trust with the Czech authorities and called for immediate clarification.
Vaclav Klaus is not the president of any Community body but according to one commentator, his ability to cause damage, will be quite considerable. On the question of the government's intentions and orientations, I advise readers to look at its programme (summarised in yesterday's edition of EUROPE), as well as No.2510 in our “Europe documents” series (23 December last), which contains an exclusive interview with the vice prime minister in charge of European affairs, Alexandr Vondra. This is hardly stirring stuff but the experience proves that for a government plunging into Community dossiers, with the responsibility for bringing them to fruition, preparing compromises and taking into account different opinions, it helps to understand the general European interest and role of the EU. Why does all this appear to pass Prague by?
(F.R./transl.rh)