As EU correspondent for The Economist since 2007, David Rennie is one of Brussels’ most influential journalists. He authors the weekly Charlemagne column on European affairs. He previously worked as a Brussels correspondent for the Daily Telegraph, a British newspaper that had also sent him to Australia, Beijing and Washington. Rennie is married with two children.
In the past half-year, the Czech Republic earned itself many negative headlines in western newspapers. You stoutly defended it. Why?
I like the Czech Republic. My wife grew up in Prague in the communist era as her father was a British diplomat sent to Prague. She’s told me many childhood stories from Czechoslovakia and to this day has an emotional bond with Prague. But, above all, if I were to choose between spending time with people from the Romanian government who used to be part of Ceauşescu’s Securitate secret service, or with people from a standard western government, or with those from the Czech government who used to be dissidents, I wouldn’t hesitate and choose the Czech dissidents.
But there haven’t been ex-dissidents in every Czech government nor former apparatchiks in every Romanian government. Isn’t your view of Czechia too romanticised?
Mirek Topolánek’s cabinet, for example, featured several very reasonable and inspiring figures who had stood on the right side in the totalitarian era. Talking to Karel Schwarzenberg, Alexandr Vondra or Václav Bartuška was an interesting experience for me. Also, the Czech Republic was subjected to heavy criticism even before the start of its European Union presidency, which was unbelievable. And the unfair assessment lasted for the rest of the term. This obviously made me defend Czechia. Yet I have to admit that, with time, it was increasingly difficult to defend your presidency, particularly after the government fell.
Where do you think the assessment was unfair?
You didn’t receive enough credit for your achievements while your mistakes were being overblown and regarded as proof of the notions that these central Europeans are terrible Eurosceptics, that this Václav Klaus is in charge and hence the presidency is and will be a disaster. We should realise a few things: First, the Czech Republic is similar to the UK in that its position often doesn’t follow the mainstream within the EU, which the mainstream doesn’t like. Second, you took the presidency over from France. Nicolas Sarkozy had enchanted many people. The French presidency had coincided with the end of the Bush era, when America was weakened as a global leader and France seemed to rule the world. Third, there are still enough politicians, civil servants and journalists in the EU who oppose enlargement and distrust new member states because they have spoiled their cute little club. And lastly, there’s ignorance. What do most western Europeans know about the Czech Republic? They know there is this guy called Klaus who works very hard, dislikes the Lisbon Treaty, denies global warming and loves America. That’s it. As a result, the media made many unbelievably superficial and hypocritical shortcuts that were very far from truth. Despite all this, you did make mistakes of course. You had a very bad start when the premier’s spokesman called the war in Gaza an act of Israel’s self-defence.
The stigma of failure
Wasn’t that evidence that a small inexperienced state can’t manage international conflicts?
No, many countries make mistakes during their presidency – most of them actually. Large ones as well as small. This case was worse because it strengthened the prejudice that when it comes to Israel, Cuba, etc., Czechia will act as America’s envoy in the EU and that it won’t be as neutral as the presiding country should be. When this mistake occurred, many people saw this as evidence; they said, “This is how it now will be for the rest of the term”. And they closed themselves off to competing opinions. You made up for this mistake during the gas crisis – although you didn’t receive full credit for this because you chose a less-grandiose style than Sarkozy. And then your government fell and that was a real disaster – that was the end.
Isn’t the word “disaster” too strong? Jan Fischer’s caretaker cabinet completed the presidency successfully, and no crucial agenda was put on ice because Topolánek had fallen.
Right, but we are talking about the perceptions of the presidency. In this sense it was a disaster because it undermined the arguments of people like me. I had written again and again that Klaus was not going to run the EU and that it’s unfair to say Czechs are chaotic. And then came a moment of total chaos and Klaus took over the chairmanship of several summits. Hence you retroactively justified the cliché and substantiated prejudice held against you as an untrustworthy Eurosceptic state that would fail.
How long will it take for Czechs to shake off the stigma of the messed-up presidency?
It depends on what you’ll do with the Lisbon Treaty. It may be unfair because Czechs are not responsible for Lisbon’s problems and because there are legitimate arguments against approving the treaty. But if Klaus remains reluctant to sign it even after an Irish referendum and after the ratification in Germany, etc., the hangover will drag on.
The Eurosceptics
How do you read Klaus’s crusade against Lisbon?
I’ve never met Klaus; I’ve only talked to people who know him quite well and they usually come up with contradictory explanations. Some say Klaus merely loves to be in the spotlight and uses this issue to make himself visible. Others say he is fundamentally opposed to a supranational delegation of power – that he fights the last international fight and hence his obstinacy. As an external observer, I can only say with certainty that if Klaus considers himself a patriot and defender of the Czech public and the Czech national interests and at the same time had a role in toppling Topolánek’s government, then he has inflicted a massive blow to the Czech national interests. He did the opposite of what a patriot would have done.
Would it be patriotic of him not to sign Lisbon, which benefits large states?
As a foreigner I don’t feel entitled to comment on this. It’s a national issue.
You’ve described the new European Parliament faction founded recently by the British Conservatives and the Czech Civic Democrats (ODS) as a “very stupid idea”. Why?
The problem with the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) group is that the Tories have presented it as a solution to their problem with Europe. But I’m of the opinion that the faction is rather a symptom of the problem. David Cameron is courting centre-right voters, who in the UK constitute an entrepreneurial middle class that is very Eurosceptic. The same centre-right voters elsewhere in Europe are, on the other hand, pro-European. In order to find European partners matching the Tories’ Euroscepticism, Cameron had to turn away from the mainstream centre and rightwing parties and towards the frustrated nationalist right, which is socially dogmatic and not at all economically liberal. The ODS are obviously the most moderate of the Tories’ allies in the ECR and closest to their agenda. But the rest are not. The Tories and the ODS could have achieved ideological coherence by allying themselves with Poland’s Civic Platform, the Netherlands’ Christian Democrats or Germany’s FDP. These are the mainstream rightwing parties that are currently part of the European People’s Party, the Strasbourg group that the Tories and the ODS have left.
Are the Tories aware of this?
No. The British Conservatives are staunch Eurosceptics, and they think it was a smart move to found a separate faction. They don’t study “details” such as who are the faction’s other members. Cameron had to pledge to leave the EPP group in order to receive the support of several key Tory MPs and hence to become party leader. They asked him, he said he would do it, and he did. That was it for the Tories.
‘The cleverest village in the world’
You’ve been in Brussels for five years, and you chose to stay even after moving to the Economist, although you could have returned to London. What do you like about the work here?
Brussels is full of very clever people. Given its rural nature, it is the cleverest village in the world that I’ve ever seen. To discuss, for example, the question of whether Turkey should join the EU with someone who has worked on this issue for years is extremely intellectually stimulating, at least for me. And then I like the international community: the exchange of opinions with fellow journalists and the fact that my kids have friends from all around the world.
Where do you place yourself on the scale between Eurosceptic and -optimist? The Economist seems sceptical in many ways.
In Brussels I pass for a sceptic and in London for a Europhile. So I’m floating somewhere in the middle of the English Channel. Brits are too Eurosceptic; they don’t understand that the EU is a good idea. But Brussels’s conventional thinking pushes me towards scepticism.
Before your current job, you used to be a Brussels correspondent for the Daily Telegraph. Has The Economist’s prestige opened doors that were previously closed?
I would lie if I said no. I now have direct access to many of the main players, including EU commissioners, which I didn’t have before. So it is really about The Economist, not about me. The Economist is an authority, and many of the people I get to talk to read us. Hence they have an interest in talking to me. Here in Brussels I find it much easier to get firsthand information than back when I was a correspondent in Washington. There I was a small fish in a big pond, while here I’m a big fish in a small pond, which is always an advantage.
Was your communication with the Czech presidency easy?
It was. Alexandr Vondra, for example, was very efficient when it came to keeping journalists updated. He selected a smaller group of journalists and told us he would like to be in touch on a regular basis. We had his mobile number – which is not common, given that he was a deputy prime minister – and we dined with him several times. He didn’t give us any classified materials and didn’t try to lobby us the way French used to do, but he was very good at providing off-the-record information.
