RSS

Mirek Topolanek's comparison of American remedies for the recession to the "way to hell" has stirred great controversy among the media and the public in the European Union. Without doubt, the Czech Republic's prime minister's comment was unprofessional and undiplomatic and it seemed to contain a substantial amount of personal anger over the lost no-confidence vote in the Czech parliament only a day earlier. Despite the unacceptable form in which Topolanek brought forward his criticism, the lack of substance to it is even more striking. To condemn the US for fiscal stimuli which might turn out to be a burden for international financial markets in the future is easy, proposing serious alternatives, however, is hard, if not to say impossible. Even the foremost economists disagree over what has to be done in this situation and that is no surprise, as there is neither past experience with comparable situations to draw from nor a proven panacea to lead us out of the crisis. Yes, the stimulus package might indeed be a strain for financial markets in the months to come, but no governmental fiscal action at all might turn out to be just as bad or even worse. Furthermore, one should not forget that the fiscal stimulus packages are also likely to help the EU economy, since more than one fifth of its exports go to the US.

Journalists have articulated large concern that Topolanek's thoughtless behavior has poisoned the atmosphere for the upcoming summit of the G-20 and the following EU-US summit in Prague, especially because the Czech Republic currently holds the rotating EU presidency. Certainly, the remark has not been beneficial for the talks between the heads of state, but significant progress or substantial joint solutions or initiatives cannot be expected anyway due to the complexity of the crisis and the obviously different plans to solve it.

Another concern that has been voiced over Topolanek's comment and the lost no-confidence vote is the potential danger to the Lisbon treaty and the further process of integration in the EU. This fear has not only been articulated by journalists, but also by leading European politicians. Ireland's foreign minister, Micheál Martin, said that the Czech situation will make the ratification of the Lisbon treaty more difficult in his country (Financial Times, March 26, 2009, p. 2). The crux of the matter lies here exactly. Having a "president pro tempore" of the EU, who does not have a majority in his own parliament, is not indeed a desirable situation. However, considering that one gaffe and a temporary minority-government are able to raise such serious doubt over further European integration, must lead to the conclusion that this process obviously is not on track. If the EU and its leaders cannot overcome obstacles of that dimension, what will happen if really serious difficulties set in?

One cannot get rid of the notion that Topolanek´s remark and his minority-government, which is nothing unusual for European democracies, serve as a welcome scapegoat for potential failure of the upcoming summit talks and, even more seriously, national resistance to further European integration. The European Union might not be on the way to hell, but the way to sanctuary is just as far.

Dr. Matthias Fifka is assistant professor at the University Erlangen-Nürnberg and deputy director of the German-American Institute Nürnberg. He is doing research on US politics and US foreign policy as well as on international organizations (NATO, WTO, EU) and Corporate Governance.

Related materials from the Atlantic Community:

• Tobias Wolny: In Defense of the Czech EU Presidency
• Jordan Michael Smith: Making Europe's Relationship With Obama More Than a Flirt
• Jan Rovensky: Bumpy Road Ahead for Czech EU Presidency