The current political crisis in the Czech Republic continues to occupy the EU agenda. The recent developments in the country, who is also holding the rotating presidency of the Union, raise concerns in Brussels regarding the future of the Lisbon Treaty. As is known, the Treaty which envisages substantial changes in the institutional framework of the Union is pending before the national authorities of four EU countries including the Czech Republic to be ratified.

The stalemate in the ratification process began with the surprising rejection of the Irish people in June 2008. The Irish voters in a referendum turned down the Treaty by 53.4% to 46.6%. The Irish government, following negotiations, agreed in holding a new referendum by November, 2009 in return for a set of guarantees addressing some concerns of the Irish people such as family issues, representation in the EU Commission and the state’s traditional neutrality. Poland is another EU country who has not ratified the Treaty yet. The President of Poland, Lech Kacynzki who is well known for his skepticism towards the European integration defines the ratification process as “pointless” and refuses to approve the Treaty until the Irish question is resolved in the upcoming months. Ironically, legal proceedings in Germany constitute one of the obstacles before the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. Although the parliament has approved the Treaty, Germany’s highest court is currently considering the compatibility of the Treaty with the German Constitution.    

The Czech Republic is of utmost importance among these countries. The Republic is currently conducting the EU Presidency and its term is to end by July, 2009. On March 24^th, the cabinet of Prime Minister Topolanek was toppled after losing the no-confidence vote in parliament. The biggest political parties of the Czech parliament, Topolanek’s Civic Democrats and his rivals, the Social Democrats agreed on a deal that envisages formation of an interim government which will perform until the early general elections on 9-10 October 2009. On April 9^th, the euroskeptic Czech President, Vaclav Klaus appointed Jan Fisher, former head of the Czech Statistical Office and assigned him to form a new cabinet. The interim government is expected to come into office by May 9^th. However, it is still not accurate who is going to preside over the EU Council summit in June in Brussels, Klaus or Fisher.

Up until now, Brussels’ attitude towards the political turbulence in the Czech Republic has not been destructive; on the contrary, top EU officials expressed their confidence in the Czech Presidency and its capability to cope with the rotating of the EU until the end of June. However, besides encouraging the Czechs, both the EU Commission President Barroso and the EU Parliament President Pottering “urged” the government not to sacrifice the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty to the current domestic political tensions. In this context, Barroso reminded both the Czech government and the opposition of their responsibility to other EU countries to ratify the Treaty. More interestingly, Pottering reacted as, “I can not imagine that 10 million Czechs will turn against (the other) 490 million EU citizens.”   

Indeed, the above quoted statement reveals the contradiction of the European Union in itself. Regarding the Lisbon Treaty case, the central institutions of the Union and especially the big member states have preferred to put pressure on the rejecting countries to carry on the ratification process. And in this context, they usually made reference to the “common good” of the Union. The future of the enlargement strategy and the continuation of the political integration were closely linked to the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty. As will be remembered, Merkel and Sarkozy, as the most striking figures during this process, have sent negative signals to Turkey over its EU membership bid.

However, regrettably, the pointed leaders couldn’t have shown the same determination on the Cyprus issue and its natural consequence, Greek Cypriots’ unrestricted power of veto over the opening of chapters in Turkey’s accession negotiations with the EU. Although the Greek Cypriot community rejected the UN proposed Annan Plan by over 75% in the reunification referendum of 24 April 2004, Cyprus acceded to the European Union on 1 May 2004, just like receiving a prize. Since then, Cyprus has many times put forward its veto rights that emanate from one of the fundamental principles of the European integration, ‘equality of states’, contrary to Turkey’s interests. Currently, 8 chapters (free movement of goods, right of establishment and freedom to provide services, financial services, agriculture and rural development, fisheries, transport, customs union and external relations) are suspended under the veto threat of Cyprus.

Nowadays, the most disputed issue regarding the negotiations is the opening of energy chapter. As is known, the EU attaches special importance to the energy issue, in particular the energy security. Russia’s suspension of gas flow to Ukraine and accordingly to the Central European countries in August 2008 had led to a deep crisis between Russia and the EU. Understanding the urgency to diversify the energy sources, the EU began to put much more emphasis on the Nabucco Project which is planned to transport natural gas from Turkey to Austria, via Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary. However, once more EU’s main interests are contradicting with the Cyprus’. Greek Cypriots are reluctant to pave the way for energy negotiations until their own gains are guaranteed.

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, during his visit to Brussels in January, touched upon the progress of negotiations and said that “If we are faced with a situation where the energy chapter is blocked, we would of course review our position [on Nabucco]; the other side [the EU] ought to be fair in its treatment.” Regrettably, Erdogan’s statements were interpreted by many Europeans as a “threat”. However, this perception does not seem to meet the objectivity of the accession negotiations and balance of interests. Firstly, the EU membership should not be understood as a process which is entirely conducted through unilateral demands. Certainly, Turkey, as a candidate country should do her best to meet the EU’s accession criteria and also to advance the life standards of her own people. But, equally the EU should stay loyal to her commitments and carry out the process fairly.

Secondly, showing respect to Turkey’s position and speeding up the opening of the energy chapter would also serve for the interests of the EU; in other words would promote the “common good” of the European people. At the moment, the EU is acting short sighted and focusing on the gains of today. However, the EU should not forget that Turkey, notwithstanding her probable EU membership, is a crucial and indispensible partner for Europe. Their cooperation ranges from economy to foreign policy.

In summary, allowing Cyprus or any other big or small member state to pursue their own goals and undermine the main interests of the Union would be equal to sacrifice the future of the EU. If the EU is determined to take place as a respected actor in the global arena, it needs to speak with one voice in the exact sense. Otherwise, it is destined to lose its credibility and reliability. It’s time for the EU to ask this question: “Can we imagine that 790 thousands Greek Cypriots will turn against (the other) 500 million EU citizens?”  

By Ceren Mutus