Government passes bill on foreign missions
A vote in the lower house on Wednesday has ensured that the Czech Republic will continue its foreign military missions for at least another year. Following hours of debate on Wednesday, the government won a majority for the continuation of its missions in Afghanistan and Kosovo in 2009, although troop numbers will be lower than the government had previously hoped. Back in December a draft which would have boosted numbers in Afghanistan substantially was rejected. Even this time around, the government’s footing ahead of the vote appeared shaky.
Ever since the government’s first bill on foreign missions was rejected in December by oppositions, its plans for a continued Czech presence in Afghanistan as well as Kosovo, had been on thin ice. A reworking of the bill, proposing lower troop increases in Afghanistan from 415 to just 480 (as opposed to the more than 700 originally envisaged) went to the vote on Wednesday, but only after hours of debate, and only after, showing once again, how badly weakened Mirek Topolánek’s minority government has become.
This time around the prime minister appealed directly to the opposition Social Democrats to change their stance to ensure the foreign missions continued. Four did, although paradoxically, in their support was not needed in the end, as the government secured a 105 majority in the 200 member Chamber of Deputies. On Thursday I spoke to one of the Social Democrats, Jan Hamáček, the head of the foreign committee, and asked him why he and three others had changed their minds and backed the bill in the end:
“I think the decisive moment came when the prime minister and the head of the Civic Democrats’ deputies group approached us, saying the government didn’t have a secure majority and that they needed our votes. Therefore I and three others reconsidered our position.”
As the head of the foreign committee, how satisfied are you by compromises in this bill – as opposed to the draft which failed in December?
“I was involved in the process after the first proposal failed and I think this document which has been approved is much more realistic. The figures in the first bill were too high and unnecessarily high. 745 troops were not needed, the army itself later admitted. I think that 480 is a more realistic figure to fulfil our obligations there.”
And to do so safely?
The head of your deputies group as well as others have suggested that a more long-term strategy is needed, especially with regards to Afghanistan. Do you agree with that assessment?
“I think it’s absolutely necessary to have substantial debate about our commitments abroad - especially in Afghanistan. I can’t imagine that our missions for 2010 would be approved in the same manner. It would be better if the government approached the opposition on a long-term strategy regarding the coming years, 2011 and 2012. Not that long ago the government was willing to promise troops it didn’t have backing for – which resulted in failure. Now I think the government has learned its lesson.”
You say it has learned its lesson, but the prime minister nevertheless appeared defiant, suggesting that it was your party, by voting at least in part in favour, that had avoided ‘isolation’. Do you think that is the case?
“No, I don’t think so, I don’t think that was a real threat. The real issue here was whether the government had a majority or not. We helped and there was no talk of isolation”
