Since the end of January 2007 the Czech Republic and Poland have been in the media spotlight, especially in Russia. At the same time, both countries have fielded the Kremlin’s criticism for starting to negotiate the terms and conditions of deploying elements of US anti-missile systems in Europe on their territories - radar stations in the Czech Republic and 10 anti-missile systems in Poland.
Why is the Czech government willing to consider the US proposal and seems inclined to accept it? How did the Czech Republic respond to the Russian president’s statements in Munich about the Energy Charter and NATO expansion plans? Karel STINDL, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Czech Republic to Ukraine, kindly agreed to comment on these and other issues in the following interview with The Day.
Could you explain to our readers what principles guide the leadership of your country in meeting the Americans halfway, allowing them to deploy elements of US anti-missile systems in your country?
K.S.: Of course, I do not know the details of the way this matter is being dealt with by the Czech government. However, I am confident that this is a simple matter. My country is a NATO member; one of our allies, the US government, proposed to the Czech and Polish governments that they deploy certain elements of anti-missile systems. These proposals have just started being considered. The deliberations will most likely result in the signing of an agreement specifying the terms and conditions of the installation, operation, and maintenance of the radar station in the Czech Republic.
One of the arguments used by those opposed to the deployment of this radar station is that such a military installation would serve only US national security, rather than NATO’s. Our Communist Party is adamantly opposed to this military base; the Social Democratic Party is demanding that this base be made part of the NATO defense network. I can make the following statement: US security is in the sphere of NATO interests, and this also concerns the national security of all the other NATO member countries.
How would your country benefit from the signing of the radar station installation agreement?
K.S.: The Czech media are actively discussing some economic and social benefits. I think that dozens of Czech citizens will be employed on this project. The greatest benefit is that the Czech Republic will simply become part of the allied security system.
Does this mean that Prague is trying to curry favor with Washington, as alleged by the Russian defense minister?
K.S.: (laughing) I guess Ivanov’s statement is germane to Russian diplomacy. We are simply an ally of the US, and we were offered a proposal that is being deliberated in full conformity with democratic procedures.
Russia’s top-ranking officials keep saying that the deployment of elements of US anti-missile systems is a threat to Europe and Russia’s security. How does the deployment of a US radar station in your country threaten Russia?
K.S.: I would rather describe this as a propaganda stunt. It is common knowledge that similar Soviet installations are also deployed far into the West, for example in western Ukraine. For all I know this is another propaganda campaign.
Will your government consider public opinion when it comes time to make a decision on the radar station deployment project? Your polls show that over 50 percent of Czech citizens are opposed to such plans.
K.S.: Our public opinion appears to be divided approximately 50-50. The Communist Party even organized small rallies of 100 to 200 individuals to protest the radar installation project. Your question addresses an important subject, namely who is to have the final say in solving our national security problems. Since the beginning of the development of industrialized societies overall education and national defense have been entrusted to the government. Even in Russia and the Soviet Union the government would never ask citizens for their opinions on how best to organize state security. Citizens pay taxes and rely on the government to make decisions in this sphere. This might sound somewhat demagogical, but in my opinion this is a good example. There wasn’t a single government in the 20th century that asked its citizens’ opinions on how to act under enemy attack.
Will your country hold a referendum on this issue, considering that the communists have submitted a pertinent bill to your parliament?
K.S.: I believe that a referendum is the wrong way to solve national security problems. The Czech Republic doesn’t have a law on referendums. The only referendum we held was on the Czech Republic’s entry into the EU. Our parliament will decide whether or not we will have a referendum on the deployment of the US radar station. I cannot predict its decision, just as I cannot predict the course of the parliamentary debates. But the alignment of forces in the Czech parliament is such that the initiators of the referendum cannot obtain support from the parliamentary majority, which comprises three- fifths of the seats in parliament. Therefore, it is safe to assume that there will be no referendum.
Why do you think that most survey respondents are against the deployment of the US radar system? Is this a flaw in the Czech government or a failure of the US information campaign?
K.S.: How can we discuss the failure of a campaign that has not even begun? Concrete talks are just beginning now. What we have so far is a proposal made by the US government to which our government has responded positively.
I find it hard to explain why more than half of respondents are opposed to the radar instillation project. Certain political forces are preparing a vigorous campaign against this base, capitalizing on the emotions of Czech citizens who still remember Soviet military bases and the Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia. Some propagandists appear to have succeeded in convincing people that a US radar station is no different from a Soviet one, from the presence of Soviet troops in what was then Czechoslovakia. But this is nonsense.
But the Czech government should also do something: disseminate information if not launch a propaganda campaign.
K.S.: Our government is already informing the population, but a decision on the deployment of the US radar station is still a long way off. A decision could be made by the end of the year.
Are you aware of the Ukrainian leadership’s reaction to the possibility that elements of US anti-missile systems will be deployed in your country?
K.S.: I don’t know Ukraine’s official view on the matter. I heard Minister of Defense Anatolii Hrytsenko stating in an interview that Ukraine has no formal stand on the bases in Poland and the Czech Republic.
Has the Czech government informed the Ukrainian side about these plans?
K.S.: Discussing any such plans would be premature because they are still being deliberated.
You probably remember last year’s events, when Ukraine passed up an opportunity to raise the level of its relations with NATO to the Membership Action Plan (MAP). Do you think the current Ukrainian administration is interested in developing closer relations with NATO?
K.S.: Yes. This subject is often discussed in political circles, especially after Prime Minister Yanukovych’s statement in Brussels that Ukraine is still not approaching MAP. He also said that close cooperation with NATO will continue — which is true. Ukrainian troops are taking part in a number of overseas missions, some of which are under the aegis of NATO.
Do you think that Ukraine will take advantage of the new opportunity to obtain MAP in 2009? NATO’s Secretary General mentioned that year in Munich as a possible next stage in the alliance’s enlargement program.
K.S.: I can’t make assumptions. No one will ask my opinion, although I personally believe that Ukraine should take advantage of this opportunity.
Will your country support Ukraine?
K.S.: Yes. The Czech Republic supports both directions of Ukraine’s integration — into the European Union and NATO.
Do you think the Ukrainian government is interested in learning from Czech experience or in using expert recommendations from your country to integrate into both structures as soon as possible?
K.S.: We are prepared to share our experience. In fact, there is a multiaspect document from 2005 on cooperation in concrete spheres. According to this document, Czech ministries are prepared to transfer their experience of work on the road to integration with the EU and NATO.
Is the Ukrainian side using this opportunity?
K.S.: This is a regular process between the foreign and defense ministries.
What is your impression of Putin’s speech in Munich? Didn’t some of his statements smack of the Cold War?
K.S.: Somewhat, but I liked the calm response of our Minister of Foreign Affairs, Karel Schwarzenberg: “We will take care of our security problems ourselves.”
How do you think the EU and NATO should respond to Putin’s statements concerning the Energy Charter, which Russia regards as unfair, and NATO enlargement plans, which Russia considers a threat?
K.S.: Their response has been very calm so far. I believe that it will remain on a calm level. Of course, two different issues are at stake: energy and security, although they are actually interrelated. Obviously, all of Europe is very dependent on oil and gas supplies from Russia. European experts are predicting that the Russian side will not take any radical steps because there is mutual interest in oil and gas supplies. Russia, in turn, is also very dependent on energy importers.
Does this mean that there will be no return to the days of the Cold War?
K.S.: I hope not, for the time being.
What if NATO continues to expand to Russia’s borders?
K.S.: In the first place, I don’t know whether NATO will expand. You see in your own country that Ukrainian society is mostly opposed to NATO membership. Your government is talking cooperation rather than membership. Therefore, it is hard to say whether NATO will enlarge at all.
What about Georgia? In that country NATO membership is supported by the majority of the population.
K.S.: I know that most people are in favor of joining NATO, but I don’t know what concrete talks will take place between Georgia and NATO. It’s hard for me to say whether Georgia will be admitted to NATO
On whom does this depend? Russia?
K.S.: I believe that all this largely depends on NATO and Georgia.
Why does Russia fear NATO expansion?
K.S.: I believe that Russia’s resistance to NATO’s enlargement plans is rooted in old myths of the alliance’s aggressiveness. I think that certain governments are scared of NATO not as a military force, but because values expand together with the alliance. Personal freedom, freedom of thought, and freedom of expression arrive together with NATO and the EU in countries where until recently such values did not exist.
The allegation that NATO is a threat has always been a myth. This organization was established to protect Europe from Soviet expansion after the Second World War. I was 10 years old in 1948 and I remember how the West was alarmed after the Soviet Union “acquired” Czechoslovakia through a communist putsch. NATO emerged as a defense organization and it will remain one.
