by Charles Grant
On a recent visit to Prague, people kept asking me how the Czech Republic was doing as EU member-state, and whether it was a successful member. With the Czechs preparing to take over the rotating presidency of the EU next January, a lot of people outside the Czech Republic will start to ask that question, too.
In my view, the Czechs are neither at the top nor the bottom of the ‘class of 2004’, that is the group of countries that joined the EU almost four years ago. They have not been curmudgeonly and difficult, as have, say, the Poles, threatening to veto the Lisbon treaty because of its voting rules, or the Greek Cypriots, who have prevented the EU ending the isolation of Northern Cyprus because of their conflict with Turkey. But the Czech Republic has not become an easy-going, middle-of-the-road member like Slovenia.
The Czechs have not been afraid to take strong positions on a number of issues. On the positive side (as far as the CER is concerned), the Czechs are ardent free-traders, always voting against anti-dumping duties as a matter of principle. The government believes that EU foreign policy should take account of human rights, and vigorously seeks to promote them in countries like Belarus, Burma, Cuba and Iran. The economy has performed quite well (certainly compared with Hungary), growing by about 6 per cent a year. It meets most of the ‘Maastricht criteria’ that aspiring euro members should comply with.
But the Czechs have put aside their plans to join the euro. This is because President Vaclav Klaus, a Thatcherite eurosceptic, is deeply hostile to monetary union. Although an over-valued crown is hurting Czech exporters such as Skoda, and two thirds of the country’s trade is with the eurozone, the Czechs are unlikely to join the euro so long as Klaus is in office (he has just begun a second five-year term).
On other issues, too, Klaus often takes idiosyncratic positions that put Prague at odds with other EU capitals. He is the only EU leader to argue that climate change is not a problem, and his interventions have ensured that Prime Minister Topolanek’s government is hesitating over supporting some of the European Commission’s recent proposals on climate change.
Part of Klaus’s strange political genius is that he manages to be pro-US, and particularly pro-Bush, while enjoying a warm relationship with Vladimir Putin. His Atlanticism spurs him to welcome American radars onto Czech soil, as part of the US’s controversial (and unpopular among Czechs) missile defence system. Yet Klaus also defends Putin from his western critics, praises his achievements in Russia, and speaks proudly of the medal that the Russian president recently bestowed upon him. Perhaps it is not so strange for the leader of a small and rather weak country – that was invaded only 40 years ago – to be so respectful of the powerful, whether or not they are democrats.
When I was last in Prague, just before the country joined the EU, everybody complained about corruption. On my recent visit I was told that the problem was no better. At all levels of government, apparently, bribery may play a role. The courts, too, suffer from this malaise. The fact that corruption afflicts many other countries that have recently joined the EU – as well as some of the older members – is no excuse. During the 1990s the Czech Republic seemed in many ways the most advanced of the countries applying for membership. When it comes to governance, the Czechs are no longer ahead of the pack, and have fallen behind the Baltic states.
The Czechs are natural allies of the British. If one listens to people in the Czech government talking of the need to slash spending on the common agricultural policy, they sound like officials in the British Treasury. The Czechs support close transatlantic ties and are wary of European federalism.
Yet despite their natural sympathy for the UK, many Czechs complain of being ignored by the British. Ministers in London seldom find time to visit Prague – though French ministers are often in town, cultivating partnerships with the Czechs. Last autumn, when Czech ministers spoke out in favour of the British stance on Zimbabwe, and said they would boycott the EU-Africa summit if Robert Mugabe turned up, nobody in London bothered to call Prague to say thank you. The British are generally not the most popular people in Europe. They should therefore do more to nurture close ties with those who share their world view, such as the Czechs.
Charles Grant is director of the Centre for European Reform.
Comments
I realize that realism is part -sometimes large part - of a healthy political discourse/policy, but isn't the fact that Turkey forcibly occuppies large part of Cyprus - now European Union soil - a real fact also? We don't read about this fact in any of the discussions/essays about Turkey's EU aspirations at the CER. Or when we do read something it is usually a comment very dismissive of the case of Cyprus; as if one whole country, a member of the EU, doesn't matter.
Perhaps Mr. Sarkozy represents a much needed new generation of leaders with more political morals, a true believer of a common fate for European small and large nations.
I'm not so sure the idea of a Mediterranean Union should be dismissed so lightly. In the short term it does appear to offer sideline Turkey's EU aspirations into a second best option (with Sarkozy offering Turkey a co-leadership role).
But would it be second best or a new approach to Neighbourhood Policy? In the longer term Morocco, at least, will also be seeking probable membership of a very wide EU. And Tunisia, Lebanon? Is Mark Leonard's rather bleak 2020 forecast of a region outside the general international flow really the only option?
The Barcelona process has a few more years to run in its current work programme. A Med Union will take several years to construct.. is it a possible successor to Barcelona? Its attraction to the Med partners is clear as it may offer them a more equal relationship to the EU rather than the existing process of Action Plans.
French business leaders were promoting the Med Union concept back in January in Turkey well before the election campaign. It offers Turkey's reformers a tangible immediate step and enables EU citizens in 10-15 years time to make a choice between Turkey as Med Union partner or a full partner in the EU.
By then perhaps we will have determined whether a country under Sharia law does meet the Copenhagen criteria and can inform Turkey accordingly.
All the signs show that Sarkozy is going to ask for a break on the EU/Turkey negotiations (see Lamassoure interview on euobserver.)I believe that, as he made such a high preference in his campaign, he won't turn back.
On the CAP, it is indeed interesting to see that Sarkozy did not say much about it durign his campaing. He talked about prices that need to be guaranted (by who?) and asked that agriculture should stay productivist (much like Chirac). Moreover, Sarkozy attacked Mandelson more or less in the same way that Chirac did. Not sure that things will change much.
To speak about Franch-EU-Turkish relations and not to mention the Middle East crisis, nor USA, (except Baby 'the war' Bush - as a part of a group of EU's leaders), is not what I was expecting from the director of of one think-tank.
If you don't mind I'll stick to chief economist's analyses from now on. Much more closer to my taste.