Great potential in Prague’s EU presidency
Güncelleme Tarihi:
Oluşturulma Tarihi: Ocak 02, 2009 00:00
The English, it can surely be said, place a premium on reserve and wit. The French are famous for devotion to culture and Americans love the individualist. If Czech culture has a hero, it is the intellectual.
In our anti-intellectual age, this is something worth pondering as the small but hyper-literate Czech Republic assumes the presidency of the European Union. The six-month stewardship is a first for a "new" EU state. It is also a test of a small nation which follows the presidency of a large state, France, and its very large president, Nicolas Sarkozy.
This dimension in the transfer of symbolic leadership that occurred yesterday is perhaps unheralded. But it is important. For in this sure-to-be-difficult year in Turkey’s ongoing effort to accede to the EU, the moral authority, historical insight and cultural sensitivity that is the province of the Czechs can be decisive.
Among the Czechs’ national icons is the country’s founder Tomas Masaryk. He is remembered for many things, among them a speech he gave in 1915 on "The role of small nations." Much has changed, of course. But the essence of his argument was that integration, Ñ what the EU today is all about Ñ must allow for diversity and uniqueness. "History tends not toward uniformity, but towards variety," Masaryk argued.
Today’s Czech President Vaclav Klaus makes much the same argument. Klaus has argued that today’s "problem" in Europe is that "the people in Europe do not believe in Europeanism, in supranationalism, in the necessity of making decisions in Brussels. They are experiencing a huge democratic gap. They see a deep gap between ordinary people and the EU political elites, between "real" and "political" Europe.
While committed to the idea of the European Union, Klaus is also committed to the maintenance of national sovereignty. And if any country has a history of challenging the bullying tendency of the major powers it is the Czechs who challenged Soviet hegemony long before the fall of the Berlin Wall.
We believe this intelligent and experienced "small nation" perspective is precisely what the Union needs today Ñ particular as the Union relates to Turkey. For the essential problem in today’s struggles with the EU is not the opening or closing of chapters, the marginal trade potential between Greek-run Cyprus and Turkey’s still-closed ports nor even Turkey’s slow progress toward standards of "subsidiarity" or "local social capital" development.
Rather, the problem is that the high priests of the EU Commission simply don’t understand Turkey. The policy prisms in Brussels, Berlin or Paris refract Turkish reality poorly. But we believe, for a host of reasons, that a more nuanced understanding is possible in Prague. We are thankful that it is Prague’s turn.
This dimension in the transfer of symbolic leadership that occurred yesterday is perhaps unheralded. But it is important. For in this sure-to-be-difficult year in Turkey’s ongoing effort to accede to the EU, the moral authority, historical insight and cultural sensitivity that is the province of the Czechs can be decisive.
Among the Czechs’ national icons is the country’s founder Tomas Masaryk. He is remembered for many things, among them a speech he gave in 1915 on "The role of small nations." Much has changed, of course. But the essence of his argument was that integration, Ñ what the EU today is all about Ñ must allow for diversity and uniqueness. "History tends not toward uniformity, but towards variety," Masaryk argued.
Today’s Czech President Vaclav Klaus makes much the same argument. Klaus has argued that today’s "problem" in Europe is that "the people in Europe do not believe in Europeanism, in supranationalism, in the necessity of making decisions in Brussels. They are experiencing a huge democratic gap. They see a deep gap between ordinary people and the EU political elites, between "real" and "political" Europe.
While committed to the idea of the European Union, Klaus is also committed to the maintenance of national sovereignty. And if any country has a history of challenging the bullying tendency of the major powers it is the Czechs who challenged Soviet hegemony long before the fall of the Berlin Wall.
We believe this intelligent and experienced "small nation" perspective is precisely what the Union needs today Ñ particular as the Union relates to Turkey. For the essential problem in today’s struggles with the EU is not the opening or closing of chapters, the marginal trade potential between Greek-run Cyprus and Turkey’s still-closed ports nor even Turkey’s slow progress toward standards of "subsidiarity" or "local social capital" development.
Rather, the problem is that the high priests of the EU Commission simply don’t understand Turkey. The policy prisms in Brussels, Berlin or Paris refract Turkish reality poorly. But we believe, for a host of reasons, that a more nuanced understanding is possible in Prague. We are thankful that it is Prague’s turn.