In an exclusive interview with Hospodár(ské noviny, President Václav Klaus speaks for the first time about the American radar base on Czech territory. "I'm glad that a serious debate about the radar base has begun. Let's debate about military, legal, international implications. ... If you would like, I say yes, with the assumption of a thousand details to be ironed out," he replied to the direct question of whether he is for the radar.

Russia recently expressed serious reservations about the plan. According to Klaus, it isn't certain whether the American radar on Czech territory will be a topic for discussion on his planned April visit to President Vladimir Putin in Moscow: "Let's wait to see if the Russian president will introduce this question at all." Klaus is prepared to present his opinions to Putin.

The question of the American radar station has so far divided the Czech political scene, with ODS and KDU-C(SL coming out for; the Social Democrats and Communists against; the Greens conditioning support for the radar on NATO's agreement, and they want a referendum.

In the interview, President Klaus also expressed his opinion on the recent finding of the UN scientific panel on global warming. In his opinion, warming is a myth and he again attacked "green ideology" and environmentalism, which he identified as the incarnation of leftism and a fashionable metaphysical worldview.

"I see no destruction of our planet. Nowhere in life have I seen it and I do not think that any serious and reasonable person could say it," Klaus responded to the repeated warnings in various reports on the state of the climate and the environment. As he has announced, he will publish his own book on the topic in the next few months.

INTERVIEW
Václav Klaus: I don't see any destruction of the planet and I've never seen any
Prague, 9 February 2007

"I would like to demonstrate my non-militant mood by showing that I have brought a Europencil, which the German presidency is handing out to all friends and enemies alike, for taking my notes at this interview. So that I may demonstrate my passivity and devotion, I have brought it right to this interview with you," President Václav Klaus said at the beginning of his interview with Hospodár(ské noviny on Czech national interests, American radar, the direction of Europe and the dispute on whether global warming is a myth or a fact.

HN: With that pencil, you are playing up to the first question.
That's exactly what I thought.

HN: In recent days and weeks it appears as if everyone is conspiring against you, or as if you have been against everything on purpose - against Europe, against the UN panel on the climate, against ODS and the three-party coalition. ... How do you feel as the lone fighter on all these fronts?
I think it is a caricature, a hoax, and there is nothing of the sort. Firstly: It would be necessary to more precisely define, untrivialise and undemonise these fronts. And secondly, I am far, truly far from being alone in these encounters. On the other hand, I hope it demonstrates the consistency of my opinions. I know that I am constantly evaluated in the media in an antagonistic manner. Either they say that I am doing everything so that I the public will like me, or they say that I only criticise - and that I am alone. The media should therefore decide which is true.

HN: Perhaps you would change your opinions - we would not suspect you of it - but do you recall any European politician who has spoken about such issues as loudly and controversially as you?
Let's differentiate statesmen from that which is really taking place. The debate about the next developments in European integration is not about the constitution, but about the shape of the next integration, and that is a topic that should interest absolutely everyone. Politicians who have gotten used to acting civilly and in a spirit of kamaradschaft, and who today and daily go to Brussels, don't talk about these things publicly, but in private. I really don't see any solitude in these issues.

I don't believe Mr. Leinen means it seriously
HN: Do you mean to say by this that your isolation is apparent only in public?
Look, I am invited all over Europe today and daily, more than anyone else, and not just domestically, to write special articles and appear at conferences. I see no isolation in it. Maybe I say various things in a better thought-out, deeper and more conceptual way, things some people say in insinuations and not with such complexity, and in this maybe there is a difference, but I would be proud of it - the word "proud" in quotes, please.

HN: If we were to ask again for the name of a European statesman who stands up so loudly and controversially ...
For instance, the point of view of the Polish president on the European Constitution isn't so divergent from mine. Now, I don't want to betray what various prime ministers and presidents tell me when we sit together for coffee. ... But there is such a self-consciousness that constantly connects Europe with the European Union. They're always accepting false slogans like pro-European and anti-European, whereas it's not at all about these slogans. It's about concrete questions about the institutional arrangement of one European organization called the EU.
Maybe people have already accepted the cliché and the schematic and don't close themselves off against it so clearly any more. That's why I think it is necessary to remove some of the false dilemmas. Let's not discuss whether it's yes or no on the European Constitution. Let's discuss what the task was, and about whether the text of the document called the European Constitution fulfilled it at all.

HN: But your critics reject this and say that if Václav Klaus speaks about the Organisation of European States and wants to talk about Europe completely differently than we are doing now, he will lead his country into isolation. They simply do not want to change the design.
That it's Mr. Jo Leinen saying it, that's something so laughable that hardly anyone wants to make any fundamental judgments. Mr. Jo Leinen wrote an article maybe three days before Chancellor Merkel came to Prague. In this article there wasn't a word about Klaus and I read it neutrally. My conclusion from this text was, however, that this person has possibly gone mad. This isn't a pragmatic argument, this can't be possible, I said to myself. And it wasn't an attack on me, but rather on German ex-president Herzog. I don't believe that this person could mean it seriously. Surely this isn't about the hard-headedness of a small group of Czech euroskeptics; this is only about the justified fears of a European superstate.

HN: When you know who those who disagree with you are, when you know how strong their position is and your's is, doesn't your strong rhetoric - for example, provocative pronouncements about the Organisation of European States - lead to your opinions being taken as isolationist?
This is the very cunning method of these people, to mark it as isolationism. They're not able to lay down counterarguments, and therefore they give labels. It's undignified. We lived through it under communism. The name-calling of Mr. Jo Leinen is the same as that done by Rudé právo in the 1970s and '80s.

HN: But you're a pragmatic politician, so you know that you could have maybe achieved more if you toned down your rhetoric.
But then nobody will listen and we'll move in this foggy, blurry world of unclear statements. Long ago I wrote down the famous comment, "It's impossible to think clearly in understatements." And that's one of my life's instructions. Political correctness is one of the most malignant things of today's era. It's as horrifying as Marxism. It takes us infinitely backward.

HN: Let's look at your idea for the Organisation of European States. Would you say it means the repudiation of the 60-year history of political movements that developed into the European Union? Or how would you represent it?
Firstly: The OES was an idea designed to expose a differing viewpoint. I am not attached to the name, and it would be a mistake for it to remain as its defining characteristic. My wife always tells me not to use foreign words, but readers of Hospodár(ské noviny will understand them. For me the argument against intergovernmentalism or supranationalism is sufficient. I would like to inhibit supranational elements. It is, I think, a legitimate political position. The name OES was more of an attempt to draw attention, a controversial trick.

HN: There are two paths here. One says, 'Let's revive the European Constitution,' and the other that you are championing is, Let's return to point zero and talk about it all again. Do you think your opinion will gain supporters?
If I were to correct the request to return to point zero - that isn't a real request; in the political world it simply isn't possible. So I would say that I am fully convinced that it will gain more and more followers. But - to express my ambitions in a softer way - not to return to point zero, but never to end discussion. Develop it better, more deeply, more seriously.

HN: But that means to sweep the work of [Valéry] Giscard d'Estaing, the chairman of the convention from which the constitution originated, off the table ...
You use stronger words than those I would use. This work was swept from the table by his own country, remorselessly and infinitely.
For me, Mr. Jo Leinen made an unbelievable statement - I really don't understand how he could be the chairman of the constitutional legal committee of the European Parliament - when he said that I am proposing to change the rules of the hockey match in the middle of play. He really can't see the tip of his nose? He really doesn't know that he wants to change the rules? He really doesn't know that a requirement for ratification of the European Constitution was in all countries of the European Union? And now, when two don't ratify, he will say that 18 [said] yes, that's enough of a reason to pursue it? The rules of the hockey match are being changed in play, unfortunately, by this man, and with him not the mainstream of Europeans but European officials. That's the real mainstream.

Radar yes, but we must iron out a thousand details
HN: Is it in the Czech national interest to have an American radar base on Czech territory?
I'm glad that a serious debate about the radar base has begun. This debate is political, and has its civic basis as well, and political parties are expressing themselves. I would consider it terribly unfortunate if we were to narrow this debate at this phase, as some politicians are trying to do, to yes, no.
Let's debate about military, legal, international implications, and let's then clear these up mutually. Only then will it be easy to say yes or no. Nonetheless, I stated clearly at the meeting of the state security council that I agree with the security council giving a green light to these talks on the radar.

HN: What role would you want to play in these talks?
I don't need to play any specific role.

HN: You yourself mentioned that 80 percent of the population trusts you. In this context as well, won't people expect clearer words from you on what you think about the radar base?
I have clearly said it, and I do not intend to amplify it in any way. There are a lot of issues here for discussion. For example, fine-tuning questions of Czech-U.S. relations in regards to Czech-NATO relations and the European Union plus the further implication of other states is a legitimate issue. I noticed that at a press conference Polish President Kaczyn'ski got the same question and answered: I assume that we will say yes, but we have time for it and have to clarify all issues. And I said to myself, nobody here has used that wording.

HN: As a representative of unsavvy readers ...
... you needlessly expose and add, your readers are savvy ...

HN: ... the meaning is, "Yes, when?"
If you would like: Yes, with the assumption of a thousand details to be ironed out.

HN: You will soon travel to Russia and you will have a chance to discuss the American radar with President Putin as well. Will you explain to him why Russia should not be afraid when this radar is here?
I have never hidden my opinions from foreign statesmen and I will not hide them from President Putin. Let's wait to see if the Russian president introduces this question at all. I have great experience in meetings with Russian leaders in the last 17 years and I know that there was a very similar debate over the Czech Republic's entry into NATO. Russian leaders have always made very strong pronouncements on this topic for a domestic audience. When you sit with them for two hours and meet, they don't mention this issue at all. They simply very carefully differentiate genres.

HN: When we discuss the Czech national interest, are you satisfied with the public debate about what Czech national interests are or what they should be?
Firstly: Those words have lost their taboo, which is a huge change, which I perceive very sensitively. In the beginning they were nearly unusable words, but today they are part of the debate. This government has shifted this debate to a completely different place than where it was in 1998, in a good way. I look at it with very positive expectations.

HN: In this context, during the naming of the government you expressed your displeasure with Karel Schwarzenberg's nomination as foreign minister. Now, after the meetings you have had and after the comments a person hears, it appears that never before has Czech foreign policy been as united as it is now.
Don't exaggerate either the first or the second. I once and only once said one sentence: When Mr. Topolánek to my great surprise brought a proposed government, I posed the question whether the naming of this person is optimal. Since then I haven't said anything; everything else is only media bubbles. On the other hand, let's wait for further concrete steps. I consider it very useful, for example, that the foreign minister will be going with me on a visit to Japan. This is a positive breakthrough.

Only Al Gore could say that. But not anyone who is normal
HN: The European Commission on Wednesday approved a new directive limiting CO2 emissions in automobiles. The week before a UN panel published a report which again warns that global warming is one of the greatest dangers for all of civiliSation. Before that, the Stern report on similar threats was published. And you say to this that global warming is a false myth. Try to explain how you came to this.
I didn't come to this. It's a false myth and I think that every serious person and scientist says it. Pointing to a UN panel is unfair. It isn't a scientific institution, it's a political organ. It's like creating a non-governmental organization of green coloring. This isn't a choice of neutral scientists, a balanced group of scientists. These are politicised scientists who are coming to this with one-sided opinions and assignments. It is again an undignified slapstick that isn't abided by this panel's May report, but now that there is a fundamental reaction to the political content of this report, when all the "buts," "whens," "ifs" are crossed out and left out, there are simple theses there.
This is simply such an unbelievable failure by all, starting with the media and ending with politicians. If the European Commission doesn't immediately jump on this, it's another huge reason why it should not decide on such a thing and leave it up to individual states.

HN: How do you explain that, in Europe, no other statesman in your position can be heard advocating such a standpoint so loudly? No one is defining it so strongly ...
I simply have an opinion, and the lash of political correctness strangles the voice of the next top-caliber politician.

HN: But surely you're not a climatologist. Do you think you have enough information and knowledge?
Environmentalism as a metaphysical ideology and a worldview that has absolutely nothing in common with science and the climate. Unfortunately, it has nothing in common with the social sciences either, and it is becoming the fashion of the modern era. That terrifies me. The second half of the sentence: We have bundles of studies and books by climatologists who have come to the absolutely opposite opinion.
I don't measure the thickness of ice in the Antarctic. I really don't know and I don't aspire to. As a scientifically based person, though, I know how to read scientific reports on this issue and I know how to read how it is with the ice in the Antarctic. I don't have to be a climatologist for that. And any similar conclusions I have seen in newspaper headlines, I have not read. But let me promise you something: This topic bothers me very much, so I started to write an article at Christmas, which expanded for me into a book. During the next several months I will publish it. There I have organised my opinions on the topic. Of seven parts, one touches on the debate on climatological changes.
Environmentalism and green ideology is something completely different. Various clamoring and findings by some scientists are later used and misused for this ideology.

HN: How do you explain that conservative and rightist media look at it skeptically and leftists take it as a foregone conclusion? Why do leftists and rightists divide on this point?
It isn't a completely precise leftist-rightist division. But it is certain that environmentalism is the modern incarnation of leftism.

HN: Granted that, even if you were right ...
I am right.

HN: Isn't there enough empirical evidence and realities observed with one's own eyes that man is destroying the planet and harming himself?
That is such nonsense. I have probably never heard greater.

HN: You do not believe that we're destroying our planet?
I'm going to act as if I did not hear that. That could only be said by Mr. Al Gore; a normal person would be hard-pressed. I see no destruction of our planet. Nowhere in life have I seen it, and I do not think that any serious and reasonable person could say it. You represent the economic press, so I assume a certain economic erudition. My book will answer that for you. But, for example, we know that there is a huge connection between the view toward nature and the development and riches of human society. It is evident that the poorer human society is, the more brutally it behaves toward nature; the more developed it is, the opposite is true.
At the same time it is true that there are societal arrangements, such as those which liquidate private ownership and so on, that destroy nature far more than freer societies. Those are long-term tendencies and will lead us unequivocally to the fact that nature today on 8 February is infinitely better protected than it was on 8 February 10, 50, 100 years ago.
How is it possible to utter the sentence you just uttered? In insensibility? Or as a provocation? That I would be so naïve and be provoked to answer that? I rather think that what is on my heart is on my tongue. That is simply your opinion.

Let the government demonstrate to us what it can do
HN: Do you see around you the victims of the cold civil war in Czech society that you spoke about in your New Year's address?
The Czech cold civil war has, to a certain extent, died down. Under the surface is the fact, however, that the government has placed itself in office and has begun to work, so thank God that the debate has shifted from who won the election to individual topics. It is a huge step forward and I am happy for it. How long it will hold out, I don't want to prophesise. But the government has created a certain stability and will have a chance to demonstrate what it knows how to do and what it doesn't, how unified it is and how it will move reformingly forward. I will make no judgments about it.

HN: You have given it your blessing, despite the fact that according to you the government doesn't have confidence in the full sense of the word due to defectors?
I am not one to revoke my past words. But we don't need now to play out the last war. I am occupied with how it works now, and let's follow how. I will leave the previous debate alone and and will let the words from my speech be erased.

HN: Are you aware of the criticism of some of ODS members that your criticism of Mirek Topolánek's govenrment could complicate re-election?
Nobody could expect from me that I would change my opinion like a weathervane, according to what happens. I would like to emphasise one thing to these people: For four years I disputed one party's opinion that I am, as president, the extended arm of one political party. Therefore it's completely laughable when the same criticism comes from the other party. It only confirms that I'm probably doing it right. I would also like to say to these people that the debate about defection was originally thought of completely for the other party. If someone wants me to forget about it, if it affects one party, they must consider me immensely naive.