DATELINE 30TH MARCH 2005

The German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung interviewed the Czech President Vaclav Klaus about the EU Constitution, the change of Government in Prague and the relationship with Germany.

INTRODUCTION BY FREENATIONS: If the people of the nations of Europe could choose a leader to represent their desire to maintain the democratic sovereignty of their nation states then the Czech President Vaclav Klaus would be that leader. But as we know the individual peoples have never been allowed to vote for what they want. They were usually given no vote at all. When they were given a vote a form of words was chosen which "focus groups" indicated they would "swallow" and the answer the manipulating Governments wanted was to be the "Yes" side - since generally people don't like to say No! But the Danes said No. The Swedes recently said No to the Euro. The Dutch look like they are going to say No to the EU Constitution and the French will probably also give a resounding No.

No country knows better what it is like to be battered and conquered by German Europe than The Czech Republic (unless it is Yugoslavia). Both countries have recently been attacked, broken up into the same ethnic statelets which Nazi Europe produced in the 1940s and turned into puppets of the Euro-State. For the details of how Germany persuaded Slovakia to split from the Czechs see the book Fascist Europe Rising (Publications on this website). Here is the major part of the FAZ interview with President Vaclav Klaus (translated by Rodney Atkinson). The increasing iritation of the |president with the German interviewer is a product of the fundamental tensions between a large country building a new supranational European State and a small country with an identifiable "Demos" seeking democratic self government after its hard won freedom from Soviet control!

Mr President you are one of the most prominent critics of the EU Constitution. Why?

I have been criticising the EU's development for a long time. So I have no new position on the EU Constitution - it is for me just the tip of the iceberg. I approve of European integration, the opening up of Europe and the removal of various barriers which prevent free movement.

People say you only want a free trade area?

I approve not only of the free movement of goods but also of people and ideas, ideologies political ideas and so on, as I have repeated hundreds of times. But I oppose the second phase of European integration which is based on quite different ideas. I differentiate clearly between integration on the one hand and unification on the other. That for me is something completely different. I have observed the transition from integration to unification for some time - it began with Jacques Delors and the Maastricht Treaty.

The Constitution is a further step in that direction?

For me the EU Constitution is the completion of that process and not only its passive completion but its active promotion to a quite different level.

And therein lurk the dangers?

The dangers are that Europe is departing from the foundations of democracy and liberty. I cannot imagine a democratic society without a nation state. I do not mean an ethnically pure nation state which I reject. Democracy needs an identifiable state as its base - otherwise we are in a post democracy and the European Union is a post democratic institution.

Usually it is suggested that the competences of the European Parliament need to be expanded in order to counter this democratic deficit.

That is a well known suggestion and it is absolutely false. I can hardly imagine that anyone takes that seriously. For a democracy and a parliamentary system one needs one Demos, that is one people and that is not present in Europe. I also cannot imagine that we are anywhere near having such a European Demos. That's why the analogies to the United States are quite wrong. The differences between Massachusetts and Texas are much less than for instance the differences between Finalnd, Greece, Ireland and Portugal. In Europe there is no Demos. We can see that daily in how the European Parliament functions. It is not a question of competences as is often claimed. The extension of competences cannot compensate for the absence of a Demos.

Do you equate "post democratic" with "undemocratic"?

The subtle differences between post, un or anti democratic are suitable for an essay not a conversation.

You mean that the democratic deficits in the EU cannot be remedied?

They are irreparable and they have nothing to do with the change in competence of the European Parliament. That is a false assumption - an illusion in which the authors of the EU Constitution indulge.

The Constitution assumes that the expansion of the EU demands a stronger centre which can control the larger and more complex EU. Is that wrong?

The expansion brings massive problems - we all know that. The question is how we solve those problems. The old socialist idea which we know well from the history of our own country is that the more regulation is necessary from above the more complex the system must be.

Friedrich von Hayek rightly pointed out that the "unseen hand" becomes all the more important the bigger and more complicated the system Unfortunately I must say that the supporters of the Eur-State take an anti-Hayek position. The EU Constitution and its instruments are the false solution to problems associated with EU expansion.

Do you believe that the process of ratification of the Constitution and the further deepening of EU integration can be held up?

Certainly - that is my hope. I am afraid for Europe. That is my main message. I am afraid and that is why I oppose the EU Constitution - nothing else.

Have you allies in that belief? The large majority of EU States are for the Constitution - most politicians.

My fellow fighters are not countries for countries have no ideas. My fellow fighters are people and I am sure that the majority of Europeans understand what I say and they have similar fears. But unfortunately the EU and the debate about the Constitution are in the hands of people, eurofederalists, who have bound their own future to the EU. These people need supranational powers like the EU that is the ideal forum for people like them - where they see personal prospects for work, salary, profession and reputation.

Here also Hayek opened my eyes. After the second world war Hayek noticed how everything was moving towards supranational organisations for there was the democratic deficit par excellence. That is today still the case. For these people who breakfast in Venice, lunch in Dublin and dine in Stockholm there is Kunderas "unbearable lightness of being". For them it is a paadise which they must defend. But normal people must oppose that.

You want the Czechs to decide about the EU Constitution in a referendum?

Yes, and for that I have two reasons. The EU Constitution represents such a dramatic change in the Czech constitution that it cannot simply be ratified by just our Parliament. In addition there is also an enormous gap between the opinion of the political class and that of the people.

But a no less important decision in 1992 which broke up Czechoslovakia into the Slovak and Czech Republics happened without a referendum.

That was different. Then a part of Czechoslovakia did not want to remain in the federation. I was on the Czech side and wanted Czechoslovakia to remain intact but the Slovaks wanted to go it alone. There were no grounds for a sensible question to be put to the Czechs in that situation. But if the Czechs had been asked whether they wanted the division of their country they would have replied NO - but that would not have helped matters.

In Germany however I note there will be no referendum about the EU Constitution just as there was none about the introduction of the Euro (and the abolition of the Deutschmark) - because it was clear that the answer would have been NO! If we are speaking of democratic deficits…….. but perhaps I had better not comment on that!

How should the EU develop?

The EU does not need a Constitution. That is just an attempt by the eurofanatics to accelerate unification. Europe does not need that. Eurofederalists like Romano Prodi and the Czech Foreign Minister Cyril Svoboda make a false analogy when they talk about having to keep riding the bicycle otherwise one falls off. The comparison is ridiculous.

Do you support the expansion of the EU taking in Turkey, Ukraine or even Russia?

Expansion cannot be discussed without discussing deepening. I oppose further deepening but support expansion.

And Russia?

Russia is too big. And I don't think the Russians are interested.

In countries which have a similar past to the Czechs, for example Slovakia, Hungary or Slovenia (note that these countries all have fascist pasts while The Czech Republic fought German imperialism - ed) Could it be that the special Czech sensibility has more to do with the Austro-Hungarian monarchy than the Soviet Union?

Certainly and why not? The approach of the other countries though is somewhat different for another reason. The Czechs are confident of their position in the Heart of Europe. We, like Poland, don't need EU membership as confirmation of that. Other countries which are further east or South feel differently.

60 years after the war what role does that past play in Czech German relations?

The past is what it is but it cannot put brakes on the future development between our two countries. There are groups who always return to these questions but that does not affect our day to day relations.

In the process of EU entry The Czech Republic successfully defended the Benes Decrees (the post war dispossession of those seen as collaborators with the Nazis, mainly of course Germans -ed) Does that mean that the decrees which affect Germans and Hungarians are now untouchable?

What do you mean "successfully defended"? We simply said that we cannot change the past. The demand to abolish the decrees means trying to change the past and that I cannot accept. The moral distancing from those events is different. Czechoslovak politicians and the Czech Republic have repeatedly done so since 1989. We can't say the same thing ten times. I refer also to my speech last year in Aussig.

In your speech you condemned those events "from today's perspective". Does that mean that from the perspective of those times it was acceptable?

Acceptable is another matter. It happened then with the support of the majority of the Czechoslovak people and the support of the victorious Allied powers. I don't understand why this question is coming up again. Where do we draw a line under history? Should we go back to 1918 when we did not receive all the reparations due from Austria? Is there any point in that? We don't just have problems with the Second World War, we also had 40 years of communism and all that the Soviet Union did. Should I travel to Russia and demand compensation for the unpaid for deliveries of uranium? That is not my question to Putin and I do not understand why Germany puts this question to me.

Berthold Kohler, Karl-Peter Schwarz, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 15.03.2005
Translated by Rodney Atkinson, 30th March 2005