| Interview with Josef Zieleniec, Convention member of the Czech Senat 1. Is there any specific Czech national interest being put through by the Czech delegation in the European Convention?
The main idea of the Convention is to bring forward all relevant political thoughts concerning the future of Europe. Not only of representatives of the governments in office, but also from the opposition. The Czech political parties decided that the structure of the delegation should represent all main Czech political streams. The government representative follows the social democratic point of view. However, the chambers of Parliament decided to choose also Mr.Zahradil, who as a member of the opposition, can be regarded as having a non-socialist view, therefore euro-sceptic. I was delegated to represent the non-socialist but pro-European faction. Since we all have different views and opinions, the Czech delegation cannot have a uniform position. Still, this doesn’t mean, that in some cases concerning national interests we don’t share common opinion. On the contrary, in problems in which we share a common attitude, we work on a common coordinated policy. 2. Could you mention any example of such an important national interest?
Yes, for example problems concerning the position of Czech republic as a candidate state. We agreed on the fact that we don’t want the results and outcome of the work of the Convention to be discussed at an IGC without the participation of the candidate countries or that these countries wouldn’t have equal rights compared to the current member states.
3. Lately, the Polish delegation came up with its proposal of the European constitution. Is it possible that the Czechs would contribute with something similar to the discussion?
As regards the Constitution, we are all active in working groups and so giving our contributions constantly. I’m mostly involved in the European people´s party, which in my opinion presented one of the most deeply elaborated proposal of the constitution. I´m also the co-founder of the Intergroup “European constitution”, which has about twenty members and which pushes forward the adoption of the constitution in general. The effectively of the work doesn’t just appear in the making of a proposal, but mostly in the way we will influence the final result.
4. What kind of structure or formation of the EU do you prefer? It is known that you refused to divide the dispute over the future of Europe on federalists and antifederalists.
I don’t refuse the debate, but I certainly disagree with the words, which are used for the description of the discussion. I believe, that to find a solution in the political future of the EU, it is essential to create an area for the existence of European politics and European politicians. EU is going through major changes. Until now the representatives of the national govenments gave its shape, while in the future representatives should form it with direct mandate from voters. This is enjoyed by the members of the European Parliament, but the powers of this institution are so limited, that it doesn’t create an ideal area for competition of political projects concerning the functioning of the EU. A key change, which would start up the European politics, is according to me the naming of the president of the European Commission. Today it is the Council who names the president. However, the transfer of such power towards the EP, would mean that the European elections will be voting about the programme of the European executive. There would be political programmes, which would compete among themselves on the ground of the EP. Today the politically neutral European Commission would politicise itself and that would create a European political platform as a counterweight to the national political platform. I understand this as essential and I’m convinced that the Convention is stepping forward towards these changes.
5. So you side more or less the federalist concept.
I see that even you can hardly ignore the terminology, which creates lots of misunderstandings…
6. …but even the strengthening of the EP and the politicisation of the European Commission are one of the most important goals of the federalists.
Yes, but we must understand, that by using the word federation we refer to a certain political concept. Under the word federation we imagine for example Germany or USA and by this we bring in an element, which has got nothing in common of our policy. There is no question: „Federation, yes or no?“, let’s rather talk about political connection between civil vote and the character of the European Commission and other institutions. If we took it strictly and formally, we would have to admit that the elements of federation do exist in the EU nowadays. The EU isn’t just about international cooperation; it has many institutions, which by their character remind us of a federal state. The division of the debate over federalists and anti-federalists simplifies the whole problem about illegibility.
7. Now to the political connection between EU and its citizens. In your article Convention: searching for the way to the politicisation of the EU for the magazine Integration you say that there: „exist fifteen national policies but there doesn’t exist (or nearly doesn’t exist) one European policy.“ According to you, is there already a European citizen or do you believe that he will be „created“ by the new European institutions?
A European political people don’t exist in the strict sense of the national peoples like the Czechs or the Germans do. It doesn’t exist also because there isn’t a European policy. The EU is part of a global area and it is in this economic area that common values, historical roots and traditions are strong common interests uniformly. For this reason it must have a European policy and therefore must gradually create a European political identity. The process of creation of the European identity has already begun but the „European political nation“ is a question of many generations.
8. The president of the Convention Valery Giscard d´Estaing lately proclaimed that Turkey isn´t an European country and should never be accepted into the EU. Would you be able to describe a European citizen, from his values or from the territorial point of view?
This discussion, which was strongly influenced by Giscard, is essential for the EU. Even though the object of the discussion is Turkey, the debate is about us. Are we a pragmatically corporation created for our welfare or are we building a community with all its consequences, which bring about solidarity, mutual support and security? If we expect more from the European project than just practical organisation for cooperation, than we should realise that we must follow our ties with the cultural tradition. And it is in this moment that we start thinking about the finality of the EU. The discussion is often led hypocritically. Many politicians don’t want to fall into a dispute with Turkey, as it is our important ally. I believe, that we should be honest; we shouldn’t make up more and more conditions, criteria and postpone the date of the launch of accession talks etc. Turkey doesn’t belong to the concept „European house“ which we are building. Turkey should be our very close ally but not part of the European project.
9. What differs an European from a Turk?
Today’s European citizen grew up in the European cultural and political tradition. The area, which Europe covers, is up to certain extent given. It covers more or less a Western Christian cultural tradition. I say more or less, since for example Greece is a member of the EU. A big problem would become if the EU were to enlarge further to the east and behind the borders of the current enlargement. Accepting Romania and Bulgaria shouldn’t be such a problem, but the acceptation of Ukraine or Belarus, not mentioning Russia, would according to me bring immense difficulties.
10. Jan Kohout, your colleague from the Convention referred in the National forum at the Senate to the cooperation of the states of Benelux and talked about profitable cooperation of the small states of the Visegrad group with other small states in the enlarged EU. Poland isn’t much a smaller state and its policies will be most likely different from those of Czech republic or Hungary. What are the perspectives of the collaboration of the Visegrad group in the new EU?
The reason of creating the Visegrad group was to stabilize the situation in Central Europe and avoid Russia to expand its influence to this area again. We share common opinions and views in most matters and in this case it doesn’t matter that Poland is a larger state. Visegrad is a group that solves certain common problems with the vital cooperation with Austria and Slovenia. However, I don’t suppose the Visegrad group remains by all means in its current shape. Nevertheless, some form of Central European cooperation is essential for us. I hope that after accessing the EU, we will see a deeper cooperation for example with Austria.
11. How do you evaluate the contribution of such organisations as the Club of young Europeans?
Its contribution is immense. The European question needs civil engagement and interest. Civil initiatives are important but it’s a pity that a large part of the society is not included in the process of creating the future of Europe.
Doc. Ing. Josef Zieleniec, Csc worked before the Velvet Revolution in the Research institute of machine technology and economy, later in the economical institute of the Czechoslovak academy of science. In the beginning of 1990 he founded and became the first director of the Center for economy and general education at Charles University in Prague. In 1992 he co-founded the Civic Democratic Party. After the election in 1992, he was named as minister of foreign affairs where he remained in office until 1997. In 2000 he was elected as an independent candidate into the Upper chamber of the Parliament. In 2002 he was chosen as a delegate of the Senate to the European Convention.
Interview conducted by: OndYej Kuera and Václav þvejda.
Information uploaded by JEF Secretariat on March 27, 2003 05:42 PM
| 
