VZCZCXRO7790
OO RUEHAST
DE RUEHPG #0934/01 2230844
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 110844Z AUG 06
FM AMEMBASSY PRAGUE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 7773
INFO RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHDC IMMEDIATE
RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC IMMEDIATE
RUEHZL/EUROPEAN POLITICAL COLLECTIVE

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 PRAGUE 000934 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
SIPDIS 
 
EUR/NCE FOR FICHTE, EUR/PPD FOR PAPAZIAN, PM/RSAT FOR DOWLEY, 
OSD/ISP FOR SADOWSKA, OSD/FP FOR MINATELLI, NSC FOR DAMON WILSON 
 
E.O. 12958 N/A 
TAGS: MARR MOPS PREL PGOV EZ
SUBJECT: CZECH PUBLIC DEBATE ON MISSILE DEFENSE 
 
REF: PRAGUE 820 
 
PRAGUE 00000934  001.2 OF 004 
 
 
¶1. (SBU) SUMMARY AND COMMENT: Since reftel report on July 19, Czech 
media coverage has intensified, with a steady stream of editorials 
and news coverage about a potential siting of a U.S. missile defense 
facility in the Czech Republic.  Pro-MD commentators continue to 
make the arguments that an MD site will fulfill Czech NATO 
requirements and contribute to European security.  Anti-MD activists 
accuse the Czech government of being American lackeys and 
conflicting with NATO.  On the whole, opinion makers continue to be 
mostly in favor, while the general public is still divided.  The 
most recent poll (by STEM agency) of 650 people found that 51 
percent of those polled are opposed to the base, 32 percent are in 
favor of it, and 17 percent are undecided, while 61 percent favor 
holding a referendum.  A majority of commentators complained that 
the public is unable to decide based on a lack of information, and 
two thirds of those polled by STEM said they had no understanding of 
how the missile defense system would function.  Lone commentators 
have also voiced some more imaginative viewpoints, suggesting that 
if the Czechs host a base, they should demand "visa waiver and 
regular White House visits" in return, or warning that the U.S. 
could "build a new Abu Ghraib."  END SUMMARY AND COMMENT. 
 
--------------------------------------------- ------ 
OPINION POLL: PUBLIC STILL DIVIDED, WANTS MORE INFO 
--------------------------------------------- ------ 
 
¶2. (U) While the week of July 10 saw three different opinion polls, 
there has only been one additional one since then, conducted by the 
respected STEM agency.  Of the 650 respondents, 51 percent are 
opposed to Czechs hosting a U.S. missile defense facility, 32 
percent are in favor of it, and 17 percent are undecided, while 61 
percent favor holding a referendum on the issue.  Two thirds said 
they had no understanding of how a missile defense system would 
operate. 
 
¶3. (SBU) Commentators agree that there is a dearth of information. 
Czech Radio noted: "Another reason for the lack of information is 
the politicians' suspicion that the public will not take kindly to 
missiles...They are embarrassed by their fellow citizens..."  Czech 
Wall Street Journal equivalent HN's Jan Machacek noted that more 
thorough and professional polls were needed, which would allow 
politicians to determine where to focus "a convincing...information 
campaign."  Czechs themselves caution that more information is not 
guaranteed to win the hearts and minds of their 
traditionally-skeptical compatriots, however.  Editor-in-Chief of 
highest-circulation daily MFD Robert Casensky wrote, "Even though 
the Czech public does not know much about the American anti-missile 
base, it is intuitively against its being positioned on Czech 
territory...I would be surprised if any major shift in public 
opinion took place."  NATO Information Center Director Zbynek 
Pavlacik told Poloff and AIO in an August 9 meeting that he believes 
public opinion is still very much against the base and that the 
Czech public will have to be convinced of the benefits. 
 
--------------------------------------------- 
NEW ARGUMENT: LET'S NOT LOSE OUT TO THE POLES 
--------------------------------------------- 
 
¶4. (U) As reported reftel, only one commentator had previously 
argued, "The Poles will perhaps take on this burden, but why should 
they always be taken for being the best friends of the U.S.?  Are we 
less so?"  The pro-MD argument of not "losing" the base to Poland 
has picked up speed, with former Chief of the Czech General Staff 
Jiri Sedivy noting on July 20 that "if we say no, the base will be 
elsewhere..."  The head of the foreign desk at WSJ equivalent HN 
wrote, "In contrast to Poland, the political consensus of the Czech 
elite is also unclear..."  Consultant Ivan Gabal said it most 
bluntly in an op-ed titled "U.S. Base More Probably Will be in 
Poland: the Czechs Have Lost Their Chance," stating that placing a 
site in Poland is more advantageous both from a geo-strategic 
perspective and because of greater public support.  Gabal continued: 
 "The CR will be kept in the running a while longer to put 
competitive pressure on Poland, but...it will be Poland that is 
chosen in the end."  HN's Jan Machacek noted that in Poland "support 
for the base is not just a matter for elites; it is also supported 
in public opinion...If we don't want to lose out on the base, our 
politicians need to start working on it." 
 
------------------------------------ 
NEW TREND: IMAGINATIVE PROS AND CONS 
------------------------------------ 
 
¶5. (U) Along with the standard pros and cons, some more imaginative 
arguments have appeared in the press.  Several op-eds have mentioned 
job creation, with one noting, "it's important that the business 
 
PRAGUE 00000934  002.2 OF 004 
 
 
community take on the role of driving force to convince the 
public..."  Time-equivalent weekly Tyden maintained:  "An American 
presence would counterbalance the growing influence of Germany and 
the alarming tendency of creating German-Russian dominance in 
Central Europe."  HN defense and security expert Vaclav Bartuska 
noted:  "The absolute minimum the CR should receive in return are 
visa waiver and regular White House visits."  Frantisek Hezoucky of 
the IAEA argued in MFD that the decision is about moral 
responsibility for everything that will happen on Czech soil, 
worrying that the U.S. could "perhaps even build a branch of the Abu 
Ghraib prison..."  Former Czechoslovak Foreign Minister Jiri 
Dienstbier doubted that the CR is truly under threat, writing in 
leftist Pravo that "it is difficult to take seriously the idea of 
Iran or North Korea attacking America, Europe or the Czech lands 
with cutting edge military technology..." 
 
---------------------- 
OLD ARGUMENTS CONTINUE 
---------------------- 
 
¶6. (U) ODS FM candidate Sasa Vondra best summed up the pro arguments 
by writing in HN that the proposed system will increase Czech 
security, is purely defensive, will allow Czechs to contribute to 
the trans-Atlantic alliance, that the threat posed by rogue regimes 
is serious, and that the base would have a positive impact on the 
position and prestige of the CR.  Debate over the need for a 
referendum continued, and anti-base commentators continued to 
maintain that the Czechs would be American lackeys; that they should 
be worried about the legal status negotiated for U.S. troops on 
Czech soil; that the base is intended only to protect the U.S.; that 
the system might be incompatible with NATO; and that the Czech 
public is being irrationally frightened by the threat posed by Iran 
or North Korea. 
 
----------------- 
SAMPLE EDITORIALS 
----------------- 
 
¶7. (U) Following is a sampling of missile defense editorials from 
all the major Czech dailies.  Interest in the topic is heating up; 
when choosing representative editorials from a month's supply for 
reftel, we chose among 12, whereas for this update we chose among 
the past month's 22. 
 
¶8. (U) "American Base is not a Soviet One" Commentary by Jiri Sedivy 
(former chief of the Czech General Staff) (July 20, 2006 / MFD, A6) 
...I categorically reject the comparison of the stationing of Soviet 
troops on the territory of Czechoslovakia and the possible U.S. 
base...In 1968 the Soviet Union barged into our country without 
asking and stayed for another twenty years.  The U.S. is asking us 
whether we would allow them, under our given conditions, to station 
several hundred of their troops here.  If we say no, the base will 
be elsewhere...As proper allies we should not only utilize the 
advantages of the alliance, but also offer something for the good of 
others.  That does not limit our decision making as a sovereign 
state...In the future, anti-missile defense will be a part of the 
defense of all strong states and alliances.  We will never be rich 
enough to secure this for ourselves alone.  And I am convinced that 
the U.S. anti-missile system will become the generally accepted 
system of NATO. 
 
¶9. (U) "American Missiles" Commentary by Ivan Hoffman 
(July 20, 2006 / Czech Radio Channel One - Radiozurnal - Morning 
Show Note) ...the first quick sampling of public opinion has 
indicated that a significant majority of our citizens do not want 
Americans with their missiles here.  They have generally very 
prosaic reasons for this.  For example, if something happens they 
would become a target, or they suspect that something is getting 
cooked up behind their backs without their knowing exactly what. 
Even the American Ambassador thinks that the lack of information is 
main reason for the public lack of support.  That there is no 
information has, of course, its causes.  The main one is that 
soldiers love secrets and make public only that which is already 
known.  Another reason for the lack of information is the 
politicians' suspicion that the public will not take kindly to 
missiles.  The politicians would like to have an agreement with the 
Americans on the bases, if for no other reason than it would be 
unpleasant to give a friendly superpower the boot.  They are 
embarrassed by their fellow citizens whom they suspect of being 
against the base, nevertheless, these are voters and it would not do 
to get them angry.  So they discuss the bases behind the scene, show 
off military areas to the American experts, and at the same time 
pretend to the voters that nothing significant is happening...The 
common citizen could get used to a missile base, but he is extremely 
sensitive to being taken for a fool. 
 
 
PRAGUE 00000934  003.2 OF 004 
 
 
¶10. (U) "American Bases - Think the Unthinkable" Commentary by Petr 
Robejsek (July 21, 2006 / Tyden, 59) ...Who's threatening us?  To 
think about security policy means, in the words of the great 
strategist Herman Kahn, "to think the unthinkable." ...NATO works as 
a two-class alliance.  The majority preach, while only a few 
countries fight.... Either let's pray and depend upon our white 
knight, or let's fill the gap with the help of the one country that 
is able and at the same time willing to do something for us...Of 
course, Americans are primarily concerned with their own interests, 
but we can capitalize on that....American presence would increase 
our security and decrease our defense burden.  The benefits wouldn't 
be limited to security policy; the bases would be at least as 
valuable for our economic development.  Foreign capital would feel 
safer with us and American investment would increase.  And finally: 
an American presence would counterbalance the growing influence of 
Germany and the alarming tendency of creating German-Russian 
dominance in the Central European region. 
 
¶11. (U) "U.S. Anti-Missile Base?  Politicians Should Say Yes" 
Commentary by Editor-in-Chief Robert Casensky (July 27, 2006 / MFD, 
A6) Even though the Czech public does not know much about the 
American anti-missile base, it is intuitively against its being 
positioned on Czech territory.  We can of course argue about the 
credibility of individual polls, but I would be surprised if any 
major shift in public opinion took place.... There are various pros 
and cons discussed with regard to this military facility, but there 
is one argument standing high above the others - we became NATO 
members and U.S. allies some time ago. Alliances are not only about 
advantages but also about obligations and we can only meet the 
common defense requirements by agreeing to have the base on our 
territory.... It will be a difficult nut to crack for politicians, 
because they will have to go against public opinion.  There are 
however moments in history when public opinion was dead wrong, 
especially on issues of foreign and defense policy, and politicians 
had to push things through for the good of the future of the 
country.... This is exactly such a case. 
 
¶12. (U) "An American Base?  The People Should be Asked" Commentary 
by Frantisek Hezoucky of the International Atomic Energy Agency 
(August 03, 2006 / MFD, 7)  Should we host a U.S. anti-missile 
base?...  NATO says that in this case it's a two-sided negotiation 
between the U.S. and the Czech Republic, not NATO.  Moreover, our 
NATO membership does not require us to allow an ally's military base 
on our land.  Czech soldiers could presumably operate a NATO base. 
A U.S. base, from press reports, means that the Czech Republic gives 
up a part of its land for the benefit of another country, and that 
country can then do what it wants on the land - perhaps even build 
an branch of the Abu Ghraib prison....This is mainly about moral 
responsibility for everything that will happen on our territory 
without our being able to influence it in any way...The serious and 
responsible thing for politicians to do would be to say publicly:  I 
do not have the right to decide without regard to the citizens of 
the Czech Republic.  It's about an intrusion on the sovereignty of 
the country.  We are a part of the West and are allies of the U.S. 
in NATO, and we intend to fulfill our alliance obligations.  But we 
will not write them a blank check...we will consider everything 
carefully and act as the real representatives of the citizens of the 
CR, in agreement with their wishes since we are their elected 
representatives not guardians...Therefore, we cannot promise in 
advance that we will agree to the placement of the base. 
 
¶13. (U) "U.S. Military Base:  Let's Take the Bull by the Horns" 
Commentary by Alexandr Vondra (ODS candidate for Foreign Minister) 
(August 3, 2006 / HN, 8)  The U.S. offer to build one of its 
anti-missile defense bases in Central Europe is a challenge we 
should not shy away from.  To belittle our security is a thing that 
backfired on us several times in our history.  The proposed 
anti-missile system is purely defensive and has nothing in common 
with the positioning of Soviet assault missiles under the previous 
regime.... The current situation in the world is different and much 
less predictable.  The irrational behavior of countries like Iran 
and North Korea make them a continuous threat.... The concept of an 
anti-missile system has been approved in an all-American 
consensus... and the program will be implemented regardless of who 
will be in the White House next.... The need to develop an 
anti-missile system... has been acknowledged by all U.S. allies in 
Europe and is part of the Prague NATO Summit Declaration. In the 
framework of NATO, this system is realistic and will only be 
successful if it is interlinked with the American one.  Europe has 
neither the financial nor the technological means to develop its own 
system.  We have only two options.  We can wait passively till NATO 
decides on its own system for the protection of Europe.  In view of 
our strategic position in Europe, we will most probably host the 
base anyway and, moreover, will have to bear a share of its cost. 
Or we will accept the American offer.  All expenses will in such a 
case be taken up by our American allies....  There are three reasons 
 
PRAGUE 00000934  004.2 OF 004 
 
 
why we should accept the challenge; naturally, only after broad 
negotiations that would fully respect out interests.  Firstly, we 
will significantly contribute to the trans-Atlantic alliance....  If 
we and other Europeans hesitate the U.S. might close itself from the 
world behind its own shield pulling its soldiers out of Europe and 
losing interest in any further cooperation.  NATO could 
disintegrate....  Secondly, we should not take the threat posed by 
the missile and nuclear programs of Iran lightly.....Thirdly, the 
existence of this base would have a positive impact on the position 
and prestige of our country..... The Czech public has a reserved 
attitude to the possibility of situating the U.S. base in CR. 
Irrational worries, traditional unwillingness to take risks, and 
various historical parallels play their role.  There is, however, no 
reason to succumb to this atmosphere.  Quite the reverse, it should 
be taken up by Czech politicians and experts as a challenge; they 
should patiently explain that such a step will provide security for 
us and our allies and that the advantages outweigh the risks. 
 
¶14. (U) "U.S. Base Will More Probably Be in Poland.  Czechs Have 
Lost their Chance."  Commentary by Ivan Gabal (August 09, 2006 / HN, 
11) ....The current debate over the pros and cons of hosting a U.S. 
anti-missile base in the CR is pointless as it will most probably 
not be us who will be offered the chance to participate in the 
project.  Situating the military base in Poland would be more 
advantageous from the geo-strategic perspective... Furthermore, 
Poland wants the base and has been able to actively support the U.S. 
militarily in critical times when many of the other allies 
failed.... CR also lacks the inner political consensus to lead tough 
political negotiations with the U.S.... The attitude of our 
President, as the Czech military commander in chief, to defense and 
military projects is contradictory and hard to foresee.... Americans 
will not want to put themselves or their ally in a position of 
defeat from their own citizens in a referendum.... The CR will be 
kept in the running for awhile longer to put competitive pressure on 
Poland, but since negative aspects in the CR prevail over positive 
ones in Poland... it will be Poland that will be chosen in the 
end.... It is a pity that Czechs will lose a unique chance to 
participate in a program that could have [increased our security; 
given opportunity to Czech experts to work in top-notch research 
teams; gained acknowledgement and credibility among the NATO 
members]. 
 
¶15. (U) "Base vs. Voice of the People"  Commentary by Jan Machacek 
(August 09, 2006 / HN, 10) ...[In Poland] support for the base is 
not just a matter for the elites, it is also supported in public 
opinion...If we don't want to lose out on the base, our politicians 
need to start working on it.  They still haven't begun....This won't 
work without a clearer position.  The Social Democrats are an 
important mainstream political party and must say what they want. 
The President also should clearly and convincingly express himself. 
If a critical domestic partisan argument breaks out over the base, 
then we can forget about it.  Another thing: do we know the people's 
opinion?  One poll of 350 respondents doesn't mean anything; we 
should conduct more thorough and professional polls.  Not so that 
elites can form opinions from them; they should have already had 
them for a while.  Politicians can determine, by means of detailed 
polls, where to focus a convincing...information campaign.  What 
should the politicians explain?  For example:  The populist 
anti-missile signature campaign points out that if Czech courts 
could not try American soldiers, their stay here would be 
unconstitutional.  But Americans don't only have bases in countries 
which were defeated in the Second World War and where they didn't 
negotiate about conditions for placing the bases.  They have bases 
in Britain and Denmark, where political representatives knew how to 
negotiate legal placement of American troops.  Why couldn't we?  If 
Czech politicians have vision and a clear opinion, they should 
convince the citizens of it too.... 
 
CABANISS