The voice of countries like the Czech Republic and Poland is more audible because of the war, but we are not just saying “we were right about Russia”, We are also bringing solutions, says Czech Deputy Foreign Minister Jaroslav Kurfürst in an interview with EURACTIV.cz.Jaroslav Kurfürst, a long-time career diplomat and former Czech ambassador to Belgium, has been working at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic as Deputy Minister for Europe since July this year.How do you think the war in Ukraine has changed the geopolitical scales?One of the important things is the extraordinary unity of the West. The war in Ukraine has united both the European Union and the Western community more broadly, that is, the world’s democracies. At the same time, it is clear that other countries have had to respond. The vote in the United Nations General Assembly showed that more than 140 countries have taken a negative stance on the war.
It also showed that Russia was isolated. As the bombing of civilian infrastructure continues and Russian brutality increases, it is sinking deeper into it. Russia also seems to be isolated by China and India, although ‚isolation‘ may be too strong a word, but these two countries do not want to identify with Russian aggression and are showing increasing discontent.
From a geopolitical point of view, it is clear that China and some other countries that are ‚shielded‘ from this conflict can benefit geopolitically from it, because it does not affect them, does not burden them, perhaps even gives them the position of some kind of ‚mediator‘, although it is difficult to find a middle ground between normality and evil.
Some countries may also benefit economically from the war because Russia will sell its non-energy raw materials at more favourable prices.
In any case, the unification of the West and the isolation of Russia are two significant phenomena in geopolitical terms.
You talk about the unification of the West. So how have transatlantic relations changed?I see much greater political unity, especially on security issues. One of the biggest irritants in the transatlantic relationship was that the United States felt that the Europeans were not doing enough for their security and that the United States was paying the price. The war has changed the mindset in many European states, which are now increasing their defence spending quite dramatically, and so the main problem of transatlantic relations has been removed.
So, on the one hand, we have a great political unity in terms of strategic approach to the war and coming together behind common values, and, on the other hand, a strengthening of the alliance in terms of commitment to increasing European defence spending.
Of course, transatlantic relations are not without a cloud, there is a lot of discussion about the Inflation Reduction Act and several other issues.
The war has therefore forced Europe to think differently about security and defence. What did it show about Czech defence capabilities?The Czech security community, political leaders and state officials have realised that this conflict is something that we have to face very clearly. The Czech Republic is therefore a significant vanguard in supporting Ukraine, including in the form of weapons.
It is also clear that an increase in our military capabilities is necessary, and in principle, no reasonable democratic political force can question this, because the security environment has changed. There is a consensus on that.
At the same time, there is an opportunity for countries with a defence industry to develop it. There will be a great demand for weapons across Europe, while Ukraine is draining a lot of capacity. The arms industry is part of the solution to all this, including strengthening our resilience and defence.
If we look down to a more tactical level, we can see how hugely important a missile defence system is. This is one of the Czech Republic’s weaknesses, so in this respect Russian aggression brings us another lesson. This is a capacity where we need to develop. But we could go on to talk about other capacities.
So do the calls of German Chancellor Olaf Scholz for the creation of a common European anti-missile system make sense for the Czech Republic?The Czech Republic is already part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation’s integrated air defence system NATINAMDS. What Chancellor Scholz was talking about is more like joint purchases. More effective acquisitions are certainly not a bad idea in my opinion, but you would have to ask your colleagues in the Ministry of Defence and other departments directly concerned.
On the arms front, the EU tested the so-called European Peace Facility during the war, which was used to reimburse arms shipments to Ukraine. How has it worked and what is its future? In recent months, the question has been where to get more money for it…The European Peace Facility had a budget of more than €5 billion for seven years, i.e. for the entire multiannual financial framework of the EU. It was originally intended to be used mainly for peacekeeping operations in Africa and various other parts of the world, but in the last nine months it has been about 80 % used up because of the war in Ukraine.
So there was a debate on the table about refilling it, and this is one of the things that the Czech Presidency has managed to complete. It was decided to increase it by about €2 billion, and after further evaluation, it can be increased by another €3 billion.
It is a functional instrument, and we were surprised at how well it worked, because its original intention was different, as I mentioned. The problems have been solved.
The Czech Republic, Poland and the viability of the V4
This interview is a follow-up to the Czech-Polish expert forum that took place in Prague last week. Do you feel that thanks to a good response to the war from countries like the Czech Republic and Poland, the influence of Central and Eastern Europe is getting stronger?There is a lot of talk about this, especially in academic circles. It is clear that the Czech Republic, Poland and other countries in Central and Eastern Europe have been drawing attention to the Russian threat, which has been on the rise, and the countries to the west of us have perceived it much less intensely. They were hoping that it was still possible to reach an agreement with Russia and that the whole thing was not heading towards the catastrophe that we are now witnessing.
I think that the voice of Central and Eastern Europe is really being heard more strongly. In many ways, we are also a kind of vanguard in that we are also able to make proposals on what to do in crisis situations. It is not just a retrospective analysis that “we were right”, but we are also able to put proposals on the table that are workable and that our partners in the EU or NATO can then identify with. In short, because such proposals meet the needs of the times.
The energy sector in particular has gained great strategic importance, and the dependence on Russia has also become evident in the Czech Republic and Poland, so cooperation is on offer. Can you mention how we are trying to overcome this situation together with the Poles? There is a lot of talk about the Stork II gas pipeline.One of the answers to the difficult energy situation is to build new infrastructure, which is, of course, LNG terminals, but it is also interconnections between different countries. For us, in relation to Poland, it is building the Stork II interconnector in a situation where the Stork I interconnector is already in operation. This is a topic that is alive and that we are discussing with our Polish partners. We are definitely interested in seeing this succeed.
Then there is a really big package of measures that is being agreed at European level, where we are trying to ensure that the situation in terms of energy security and price sustainability for the Member States is favourable in the long term, sustainable, and that there are solidarity mechanisms. The energy packages concern gas, oil and electricity, and in many respects we are very close to Poland and we are able to cooperate effectively.
It is evident that the current leadership of Czechia and Poland understand each other at the political level, for example, Prime Minister Fiala coordinated with his colleague from Warsaw, Morawiecki, before the European Council last week. However, everything is not all sunshine. The Czech presidency announced that it had managed to negotiate an all-round agreement on a package that included an 18 billion loan for Ukraine. But the Polish government later threatened not to support it because of the inclusion of the global corporate tax issue. This was not confirmed in the end, but what happened there?Czech diplomacy announced the agreement the moment it was reached – it was on Monday (
12 December). At that moment, the problematic “Hungarian package” was resolved, there was a regulation on conditionality, which was linked to the topic of the national recovery plan and so on. All this was agreed.
Poland, somewhat surprisingly, came later (
Thursday 15 December) to say that there was no consensus on its side on the global corporate tax, so the package was still open for further discussion before the European Council. So we still had to do the diplomatic work, but in the end everything was approved. Indeed, Poland is one of the biggest supporters of Ukraine, so on such a crucial issue – €18 billion of macro-financial assistance – I personally could hardly imagine Poland not approving it. It was really about something else.
As you yourself mention, the main obstacle has been Hungary, which has been undermining the common European response to the war in various ways for a long time. Do you think it makes sense to continue the Visegrad Four format at the highest political level when interests and positions diverge so significantly?It is difficult to comment on this from an expert level. But it always makes sense when there is a common interest, whether it is the Visegrad Group or another coordination platform. At the moment, I can see that Hungary has a different approach to a number of issues, and especially to Russian aggression, than the rest of the Visegrad countries. Here, then, coordination is not possible, not because there is no will, but because interests and positions are at odds. This is the biggest problem at the moment.
At the time when we were the “honorary moderator” as the Czech Presidency, we were really careful not to be perceived in this way and not to promote one specific group of countries. This was clearly reflected in Visegrad cooperation, and not only in Visegrad cooperation.
Hungary’s veto threat or its obstruction in general once again shows the limits of the EU’s common response, not only in the Common Foreign and Security Policy. Reform in this respect is unlikely to be forthcoming any time soon. Do you think that there will now be much more recourse to these “package solutions”, where several things are brought together to force the “troublemakers” to compromise?I don’t like to use the word “veto”, it is about making decisions unanimously, which I think is much more apt. In “high politics”, i.e. foreign policies, unanimous decision-making has its value. It is a whole diplomatic world in which solutions are sought that are acceptable and lead to an agreement of the whole EU. So in some situations, it may be a case of putting several things together in a package and negotiating an overall compromise, but in other situations it may be a different mechanism. That is what diplomacy is all about, to approach issues creatively so that in the end everyone comes out feeling that they have gained something and are satisfied with the final compromise.
On treaty change – I am rather sceptical in the short and maybe even medium term, because on many issues the voting has already moved from unanimity to qualified majority. Other topics that could potentially move there are already politically very sensitive.
The outcomes of the Czech EU Presidency
The Czech Presidency is almost over. What do you consider to be its greatest political successes and failures?I personally see the greatest success as maintaining the unity of the European Union throughout the Presidency. Sometimes it has been more work, such as now towards the end, where there were difficult decisions. We successfully went through all the decisions around Ukraine, which were really countless.
If I mention the success that will have the greatest impact on the daily lives of Czech citizens, it will be the removal of border controls at the Croatian border. So, when Czechs go on holiday, they will not have to stand at the border thanks to Croatia’s entry into Schengen. This country also joined the euro area during the Czech Presidency.
And the setbacks? Or the things that have not been achieved?The “market correction mechanism” (
capping of gas prices) has not yet been achieved, but I would certainly not say that it is a failure, on the contrary, the Czech Presidency is doing an incredible and admirable job, which is highly appreciated by its EU partners. (
The interview took place on Friday, 16 December; on Monday, 19 December, the ministers agreed on the price cap, ed.)
We regret that it was not possible to agree on the accession of Romania and Bulgaria to Schengen. Those countries are ready. That is why we really tried to do everything. However, I do not think that this is a failure of the Presidency, i.e. of our negotiations. The energy that we put into it at all levels was enormous. But the resistance was obviously greater.
Experts and the top of EU institutions also praise the Czechs very highly, and the praise seems sincere.I think it has been a great Presidency with great achievements. For example, as regards the Western Balkans, something has started to happen there after a long period of no movement. We have launched two intergovernmental conferences (
accession talks with Albania and Northern Macedonia, ed.), there is candidate status for Bosnia and Herzegovina, visa liberalisation for Kosovo, and the country’s EU application has been handed over. There has also been a summit with the Western Balkans, directly in the region. That in itself is a huge development. Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia were included in the conclusions of the European Council’s declaration on enlargement, and I have to say that this language really cost a lot of work. We can be satisfied.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the people at the Permanent Representation (
of the Czech Republic in Brussels), we have great diplomats. I would also like to thank the people in the Office of the Government, in all the ministries, who have really pulled together, which has led to such a good end to the Presidency that our partners in the Union and beyond are rightly patting us on the back.
