Speech of the Prime Minister Mirek Topolánek at the U.S. Missile Defence in Europe: Consequences for the Transatlantic Relations held on 31st May 2007
It is not my first speech on the anti-missile defence I must say. And it is not my last speech either. I regard it as evidence that there is something odd. There is something odd if such an obvious step invites so many negative emotions and useless political disputes.
I have said many times that creation of the anti-missile shield is for the benefit of security of entire Europe. And I am going to repeat it again and again; how many times it is necessary.
As the first American president George Washington said: First in war, first in peace. These words are still valid. We want to be prepared for the defence, not for an attack. Therefore we have the Ministry of Defence, not the Ministry of War.
Nowadays we are holding very broad and responsible discussion of the entire society
in our country and also a professional discussion in NATO on all geopolitical, security economic, foreign, internal, legal, military and health aspects of this step.
Nevertheless, I do not want to deal with details of this discussion. All the necessary data on negotiations and technical information, as well as standpoints of members of the government presented at the Parliament or elsewhere, are available for all those who are interested in them.
Now I want to concentrate on the principal message; on what I, as the Prime Minister, regard as principal in connection with the anti-missile defence and North-Atlantic cooperation. I do not think that it concerns primarily radar and ten interceptors, in fact. It is not really very essential. It primarily concerns an utterance of free will to defend ourselves. Europe can survive without radar. But it would be end of our civilization without our will to defend ourselves.
Negotiations on the antimissile umbrella – and I do not anticipate their result on the American or the Czech side – have three significant aspects for me: moral (which I have indicated now), geopolitical and national.
Moral challenge is clear and understandable: In case we are not willing, for the benefit of the defence of the Euro-Atlantic area, to adopt such matters like elements of the anti-missile defence, how can we face greater challenges, which may occur?
Our world is not safe. And it will be the less safe the more European countries will have a feeling that it is not necessary to attend to defence; a feeling that nothing threatens in fact, and if it is so, that somebody else should attend to our security.
Anti-missile defence is a kind of a small test; a painless test, because it concerns relatively small facilities with couple of soldiers, into whom we need not invest a single crow, because they are paid by the government of the United States.
If I compare it with bases of US Army, US Air Force and US Navy, which are placed in Europe and have many thousands of soldiers, it is really just a detail. But in spite of the fact that those bases were accepted positively, the anti-missile defence come up against stiff opposition.
What is the problem? We could discuss it for long hours. But I am of the opinion that the grounds of problems have a common denominator: disappearing will to defence, defence freedom.
After the World War Two, when Americans arrived to safe Europe for the second time, inhabitants of the free world wished Americans to defend them for ever. And American soldiers succeeded in frightening the Evil Empire away from starting a new war. And Europe was awaken from this nice dream neither after 11th September nor Madrid nor London.
Thus looks start of the end of every civilization, even the most powerful one. It starts with illusion of enjoying a golden age, which cannot be breached by anybody. Even if it true now, resignation concerning our defence will cause decline sooner or later. I cannot see any chance for Europe to escape from this axiom.
We just must show that we are willing to defend the Euro-Atlantic area, that we are ready to defend our values. We have done just little in our fight against terrorism; we have not done anything for protection of the freedom of speech in our own house – and now number of us doubts bases of our alliance in the framework of NATO. It is a way to hell.
As long as we are allies in NATO we must be prepared to take responsibility for the collective defence. And so I am approaching the second meaning of those negotiations on the anti-missile base. It is a geopolitical decision, a confirmation of our affiliation to the Euro-Atlantic area.
The Euro-Atlantic cooperation fills up that "infinite space" between Germany and Russia, as General Wellington said. Thanks to this cooperation the nations of the Middle Europe do not live in a vacuum, in a vacuum that great powers try to fill up somehow.
This geopolitical aspect and nothing else is the cause of protests of Russia regarding the radar in the Czech Republic and the base in Poland. Everybody who just minimally considers this issue must see that these facilities do not represent any threat for Russia.
For that matter even NATO itself, against enlargement of which Russia protested, does not represent any danger for Moscow. On the contrary, it draws a space of peace, security and stability nearer to its frontiers.
So, Russia is not endangered militarily. However it feels to be jeopardized in its newly found great power policy. It feels that there is a chance here to bring confusion among allies, to strengthen its position and to weaken Euro-Atlantic alliance, if it is successful in vetoing placement of bases.
Russia has been loosing its European position during last ten years. First, its soldiers left post-communist countries. Then, those countries have been gradually integrated into NATO. Now, when the will to defence has weakened in Europe, Russia feels a chance to reverse the process or to doubt it, at least.
But we really do not want to belong to the sphere of Russian influence. We do not belong to the area of countries that must ask Russia, in case they want to ensure their own defence.
We have equal position with Russia in the framework of NATO; we will be glad to cooperate with Russia in number of issues and we want to hold a dialogue with it, definitely. But we will decide on our internal affairs ourselves. We do not want to restrict our freedom that has been acquired recently.
It is up to Russia, whether it wants to be ally, whether it wants to contribute to collective security or whether the reverse is the case.
And this is third meaning of cooperation in anti-missile defence. Our nation acquired real independence on 30th June 19901, when the last soviet occupier left our territory. When we became a member of NATO on 12th March 1999, we became a part of a community, which guarantees defence of this independence and freedom.
After the date of ratification of the treaty with the USA on antimissile defence is add to these dates, we will become a country, which is ready to defend its own independence and freedom and independence and freedom of our allies. It is a question of our national pride and responsibility for our fate and fate of our allies.
These are the three principal reasons, which lead me to the support of negotiation on the anti-missile defence.
As you can see, I did not speak about concrete threats of so called "naughty" states. I did not speak about concrete conditions, which we lay down regarding placement of the radar. I spoke neither about number of technical details nor about internal consequences.
These are issues that are very important for gaining support of the public, of course. And we will be holding a fair dialogue both with the Czech public and opposition. We want to play an open hand. I wanted to use this forum to speak about our objectives, not only about means.
I am convinced that it is right to show free will to defend. For that matter, as long as the ČSSD was in power, it acted in the same way – it just was afraid of saying it openly to citizens.
I am sure that the anti-missile defence is purely defensive project, which does not jeopardize anybody, but which crosses plans of terrorists and naughty states.
I firmly believe that the anti-missile defence will enhance security of the Czech Republic, our allies and further European countries. Otherwise, we would not continue in those negotiations.
The will to defence is also the will to freedom. We are often forgetting that freedom is not only an obvious thing, but that it is a result of the fight and willingness to defend it.
Many of us try to haunt. They say that construction of the radar will make a target of a possible attack of us. "It is said not to be safe", they say. But how an American politician, diplomat, natural scientist and philosopher Benjamin Franklin said: He, who relinquishes freedom in order to gain security, he deserves neither freedom nor security. I think it is the best answer in conclusion.
