CZECH PUBLIC DEBATE ON MISSILE DEFENSE

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 PRAGUE 000934 SIPDIS SENSITIVE SIPDIS EUR/NCE FOR FICHTE, EUR/PPD FOR PAPAZIAN, PM/RSAT FOR DOWLEY, OSD/ISP FOR SADOWSKA, OSD/FP FOR MINATELLI, NSC FOR DAMON WILSON E.O. 12958 N/A TAGS: MARR MOPS PREL PGOV EZ SUBJECT: CZECH PUBLIC DEBATE ON MISSILE DEFENSE REF: PRAGUE 820 PRAGUE 00000934 001.2 OF 004 ¶1. (SBU) SUMMARY AND COMMENT: Since reftel report on July 19, Czech media coverage has intensified, with a steady stream of editorials and news coverage about a potential siting of a U.S. missile defense facility in the Czech Republic. Pro-MD commentators continue to make the arguments that an MD site will fulfill Czech NATO requirements and contribute to European security. Anti-MD activists accuse the Czech government of being American lackeys and conflicting with NATO. On the whole, opinion makers continue to be mostly in favor, while the general public is still divided. The most recent poll (by STEM agency) of 650 people found that 51 percent of those polled are opposed to the base, 32 percent are in favor of it, and 17 percent are undecided, while 61 percent favor holding a referendum. A majority of commentators complained that the public is unable to decide based on a lack of information, and two thirds of those polled by STEM said they had no understanding of how the missile defense system would function. Lone commentators have also voiced some more imaginative viewpoints, suggesting that if the Czechs host a base, they should demand "visa waiver and regular White House visits" in return, or warning that the U.S. could "build a new Abu Ghraib." END SUMMARY AND COMMENT. -------------- -------------- OPINION POLL: PUBLIC STILL DIVIDED, WANTS MORE INFO -------------- -------------- ¶2. (U) While the week of July 10 saw three different opinion polls, there has only been one additional one since then, conducted by the respected STEM agency. Of the 650 respondents, 51 percent are opposed to Czechs hosting a U.S. missile defense facility, 32 percent are in favor of it, and 17 percent are undecided, while 61 percent favor holding a referendum on the issue. Two thirds said they had no understanding of how a missile defense system would operate. ¶3. (SBU) Commentators agree that there is a dearth of information. Czech Radio noted: "Another reason for the lack of information is the politicians' suspicion that the public will not take kindly to missiles...They are embarrassed by their fellow citizens..." Czech Wall Street Journal equivalent HN's Jan Machacek noted that more thorough and professional polls were needed, which would allow politicians to determine where to focus "a convincing...information campaign." Czechs themselves caution that more information is not guaranteed to win the hearts and minds of their traditionally-skeptical compatriots, however. Editor-in-Chief of highest-circulation daily MFD Robert Casensky wrote, "Even though the Czech public does not know much about the American anti-missile base, it is intuitively against its being positioned on Czech territory...I would be surprised if any major shift in public opinion took place." NATO Information Center Director Zbynek Pavlacik told Poloff and AIO in an August 9 meeting that he believes public opinion is still very much against the base and that the Czech public will have to be convinced of the benefits. -------------- NEW ARGUMENT: LET'S NOT LOSE OUT TO THE POLES -------------- ¶4. (U) As reported reftel, only one commentator had previously argued, "The Poles will perhaps take on this burden, but why should they always be taken for being the best friends of the U.S.? Are we less so?" The pro-MD argument of not "losing" the base to Poland has picked up speed, with former Chief of the Czech General Staff Jiri Sedivy noting on July 20 that "if we say no, the base will be elsewhere..." The head of the foreign desk at WSJ equivalent HN wrote, "In contrast to Poland, the political consensus of the Czech elite is also unclear..." Consultant Ivan Gabal said it most bluntly in an op-ed titled "U.S. Base More Probably Will be in Poland: the Czechs Have Lost Their Chance," stating that placing a site in Poland is more advantageous both from a geo-strategic perspective and because of greater public support. Gabal continued: "The CR will be kept in the running a while longer to put competitive pressure on Poland, but...it will be Poland that is chosen in the end." HN's Jan Machacek noted that in Poland "support for the base is not just a matter for elites; it is also supported in public opinion...If we don't want to lose out on the base, our politicians need to start working on it." -------------- NEW TREND: IMAGINATIVE PROS AND CONS -------------- ¶5. (U) Along with the standard pros and cons, some more imaginative arguments have appeared in the press. Several op-eds have mentioned job creation, with one noting, "it's important that the business PRAGUE 00000934 002.2 OF 004 community take on the role of driving force to convince the public..." Time-equivalent weekly Tyden maintained: "An American presence would counterbalance the growing influence of Germany and the alarming tendency of creating German-Russian dominance in Central Europe." HN defense and security expert Vaclav Bartuska noted: "The absolute minimum the CR should receive in return are visa waiver and regular White House visits." Frantisek Hezoucky of the IAEA argued in MFD that the decision is about moral responsibility for everything that will happen on Czech soil, worrying that the U.S. could "perhaps even build a branch of the Abu Ghraib prison..." Former Czechoslovak Foreign Minister Jiri Dienstbier doubted that the CR is truly under threat, writing in leftist Pravo that "it is difficult to take seriously the idea of Iran or North Korea attacking America, Europe or the Czech lands with cutting edge military technology..." -------------- OLD ARGUMENTS CONTINUE -------------- ¶6. (U) ODS FM candidate Sasa Vondra best summed up the pro arguments by writing in HN that the proposed system will increase Czech security, is purely defensive, will allow Czechs to contribute to the trans-Atlantic alliance, that the threat posed by rogue regimes is serious, and that the base would have a positive impact on the position and prestige of the CR. Debate over the need for a referendum continued, and anti-base commentators continued to maintain that the Czechs would be American lackeys; that they should be worried about the legal status negotiated for U.S. troops on Czech soil; that the base is intended only to protect the U.S.; that the system might be incompatible with NATO; and that the Czech public is being irrationally frightened by the threat posed by Iran or North Korea. -------------- SAMPLE EDITORIALS -------------- ¶7. (U) Following is a sampling of missile defense editorials from all the major Czech dailies. Interest in the topic is heating up; when choosing representative editorials from a month's supply for reftel, we chose among 12, whereas for this update we chose among the past month's 22. ¶8. (U) "American Base is not a Soviet One" Commentary by Jiri Sedivy (former chief of the Czech General Staff) (July 20, 2006 / MFD, A6) ...I categorically reject the comparison of the stationing of Soviet troops on the territory of Czechoslovakia and the possible U.S. base...In 1968 the Soviet Union barged into our country without asking and stayed for another twenty years. The U.S. is asking us whether we would allow them, under our given conditions, to station several hundred of their troops here. If we say no, the base will be elsewhere...As proper allies we should not only utilize the advantages of the alliance, but also offer something for the good of others. That does not limit our decision making as a sovereign state...In the future, anti-missile defense will be a part of the defense of all strong states and alliances. We will never be rich enough to secure this for ourselves alone. And I am convinced that the U.S. anti-missile system will become the generally accepted system of NATO. ¶9. (U) "American Missiles" Commentary by Ivan Hoffman (July 20, 2006 / Czech Radio Channel One - Radiozurnal - Morning Show Note) ...the first quick sampling of public opinion has indicated that a significant majority of our citizens do not want Americans with their missiles here. They have generally very prosaic reasons for this. For example, if something happens they would become a target, or they suspect that something is getting cooked up behind their backs without their knowing exactly what. Even the American Ambassador thinks that the lack of information is main reason for the public lack of support. That there is no information has, of course, its causes. The main one is that soldiers love secrets and make public only that which is already known. Another reason for the lack of information is the politicians' suspicion that the public will not take kindly to missiles. The politicians would like to have an agreement with the Americans on the bases, if for no other reason than it would be unpleasant to give a friendly superpower the boot. They are embarrassed by their fellow citizens whom they suspect of being against the base, nevertheless, these are voters and it would not do to get them angry. So they discuss the bases behind the scene, show off military areas to the American experts, and at the same time pretend to the voters that nothing significant is happening...The common citizen could get used to a missile base, but he is extremely sensitive to being taken for a fool. PRAGUE 00000934 003.2 OF 004 ¶10. (U) "American Bases - Think the Unthinkable" Commentary by Petr Robejsek (July 21, 2006 / Tyden, 59) ...Who's threatening us? To think about security policy means, in the words of the great strategist Herman Kahn, "to think the unthinkable." ...NATO works as a two-class alliance. The majority preach, while only a few countries fight.... Either let's pray and depend upon our white knight, or let's fill the gap with the help of the one country that is able and at the same time willing to do something for us...Of course, Americans are primarily concerned with their own interests, but we can capitalize on that....American presence would increase our security and decrease our defense burden. The benefits wouldn't be limited to security policy; the bases would be at least as valuable for our economic development. Foreign capital would feel safer with us and American investment would increase. And finally: an American presence would counterbalance the growing influence of Germany and the alarming tendency of creating German-Russian dominance in the Central European region. ¶11. (U) "U.S. Anti-Missile Base? Politicians Should Say Yes" Commentary by Editor-in-Chief Robert Casensky (July 27, 2006 / MFD, A6) Even though the Czech public does not know much about the American anti-missile base, it is intuitively against its being positioned on Czech territory. We can of course argue about the credibility of individual polls, but I would be surprised if any major shift in public opinion took place.... There are various pros and cons discussed with regard to this military facility, but there is one argument standing high above the others - we became NATO members and U.S. allies some time ago. Alliances are not only about advantages but also about obligations and we can only meet the common defense requirements by agreeing to have the base on our territory.... It will be a difficult nut to crack for politicians, because they will have to go against public opinion. There are however moments in history when public opinion was dead wrong, especially on issues of foreign and defense policy, and politicians had to push things through for the good of the future of the country.... This is exactly such a case. ¶12. (U) "An American Base? The People Should be Asked" Commentary by Frantisek Hezoucky of the International Atomic Energy Agency (August 03, 2006 / MFD, 7) Should we host a U.S. anti-missile base?... NATO says that in this case it's a two-sided negotiation between the U.S. and the Czech Republic, not NATO. Moreover, our NATO membership does not require us to allow an ally's military base on our land. Czech soldiers could presumably operate a NATO base. A U.S. base, from press reports, means that the Czech Republic gives up a part of its land for the benefit of another country, and that country can then do what it wants on the land - perhaps even build an branch of the Abu Ghraib prison....This is mainly about moral responsibility for everything that will happen on our territory without our being able to influence it in any way...The serious and responsible thing for politicians to do would be to say publicly: I do not have the right to decide without regard to the citizens of the Czech Republic. It's about an intrusion on the sovereignty of the country. We are a part of the West and are allies of the U.S. in NATO, and we intend to fulfill our alliance obligations. But we will not write them a blank check...we will consider everything carefully and act as the real representatives of the citizens of the CR, in agreement with their wishes since we are their elected representatives not guardians...Therefore, we cannot promise in advance that we will agree to the placement of the base. ¶13. (U) "U.S. Military Base: Let's Take the Bull by the Horns" Commentary by Alexandr Vondra (ODS candidate for Foreign Minister) (August 3, 2006 / HN, 8) The U.S. offer to build one of its anti-missile defense bases in Central Europe is a challenge we should not shy away from. To belittle our security is a thing that backfired on us several times in our history. The proposed anti-missile system is purely defensive and has nothing in common with the positioning of Soviet assault missiles under the previous regime.... The current situation in the world is different and much less predictable. The irrational behavior of countries like Iran and North Korea make them a continuous threat.... The concept of an anti-missile system has been approved in an all-American consensus... and the program will be implemented regardless of who will be in the White House next.... The need to develop an anti-missile system... has been acknowledged by all U.S. allies in Europe and is part of the Prague NATO Summit Declaration. In the framework of NATO, this system is realistic and will only be successful if it is interlinked with the American one. Europe has neither the financial nor the technological means to develop its own system. We have only two options. We can wait passively till NATO decides on its own system for the protection of Europe. In view of our strategic position in Europe, we will most probably host the base anyway and, moreover, will have to bear a share of its cost. Or we will accept the American offer. All expenses will in such a case be taken up by our American allies.... There are three reasons PRAGUE 00000934 004.2 OF 004 why we should accept the challenge; naturally, only after broad negotiations that would fully respect out interests. Firstly, we will significantly contribute to the trans-Atlantic alliance.... If we and other Europeans hesitate the U.S. might close itself from the world behind its own shield pulling its soldiers out of Europe and losing interest in any further cooperation. NATO could disintegrate.... Secondly, we should not take the threat posed by the missile and nuclear programs of Iran lightly.....Thirdly, the existence of this base would have a positive impact on the position and prestige of our country..... The Czech public has a reserved attitude to the possibility of situating the U.S. base in CR. Irrational worries, traditional unwillingness to take risks, and various historical parallels play their role. There is, however, no reason to succumb to this atmosphere. Quite the reverse, it should be taken up by Czech politicians and experts as a challenge; they should patiently explain that such a step will provide security for us and our allies and that the advantages outweigh the risks. ¶14. (U) "U.S. Base Will More Probably Be in Poland. Czechs Have Lost their Chance." Commentary by Ivan Gabal (August 09, 2006 / HN, 11) ....The current debate over the pros and cons of hosting a U.S. anti-missile base in the CR is pointless as it will most probably not be us who will be offered the chance to participate in the project. Situating the military base in Poland would be more advantageous from the geo-strategic perspective... Furthermore, Poland wants the base and has been able to actively support the U.S. militarily in critical times when many of the other allies failed.... CR also lacks the inner political consensus to lead tough political negotiations with the U.S.... The attitude of our President, as the Czech military commander in chief, to defense and military projects is contradictory and hard to foresee.... Americans will not want to put themselves or their ally in a position of defeat from their own citizens in a referendum.... The CR will be kept in the running for awhile longer to put competitive pressure on Poland, but since negative aspects in the CR prevail over positive ones in Poland... it will be Poland that will be chosen in the end.... It is a pity that Czechs will lose a unique chance to participate in a program that could have [increased our security; given opportunity to Czech experts to work in top-notch research teams; gained acknowledgement and credibility among the NATO members]. ¶15. (U) "Base vs. Voice of the People" Commentary by Jan Machacek (August 09, 2006 / HN, 10) ...[In Poland] support for the base is not just a matter for the elites, it is also supported in public opinion...If we don't want to lose out on the base, our politicians need to start working on it. They still haven't begun....This won't work without a clearer position. The Social Democrats are an important mainstream political party and must say what they want. The President also should clearly and convincingly express himself. If a critical domestic partisan argument breaks out over the base, then we can forget about it. Another thing: do we know the people's opinion? One poll of 350 respondents doesn't mean anything; we should conduct more thorough and professional polls. Not so that elites can form opinions from them; they should have already had them for a while. Politicians can determine, by means of detailed polls, where to focus a convincing...information campaign. What should the politicians explain? For example: The populist anti-missile signature campaign points out that if Czech courts could not try American soldiers, their stay here would be unconstitutional. But Americans don't only have bases in countries which were defeated in the Second World War and where they didn't negotiate about conditions for placing the bases. They have bases in Britain and Denmark, where political representatives knew how to negotiate legal placement of American troops. Why couldn't we? If Czech politicians have vision and a clear opinion, they should convince the citizens of it too.... CABANISS