A few days before the beginning of the conflict, Schwarzenberg wrote a document that foresaw the crisis in Gaza, where “mankind’s basic morality is at stake”. The article was co-authored by Havel, Desmond Tutu, Hans Küng, arab El Hassan bin Talal and other influent intellectuals. The article called also for “nonviolent alternatives” and supported the idea to institute a protectorate in the area, capable to ensure security to Israel but also to “to protect the Palestinians from their own more dangerous elements, the Palestinians from the Israelis, and perhaps even the Israelis from themselves”. The article sustained that “one key element in building up a structure for reconciliation must be economic growth”. Now he that has undressed the role of cultural relations international playmaker (Schwarzenberg is also one of the co-founders of Reset-Dialogues on Civilizations) and became Minister in charge, he’s still willing to say his opinion: “You can’t defeat a guerrilla movement with air strikes or army devices. It requires a very long effort; the process involved is more a matter of psychological means than military strategies. First of all the quality of life in Gaza must change and improve”.

But Israel’s intention is to neutralize the missiles threat.

Hamas forces are weaken and won’t be able to launch missiles on the Israeli territory for a while. Israel’s first goal is to cease the supplies of armies sneaking through the Egyptian border. There were more than 900 tunnels underground. If the supplies come to an end, Israel will cease the fire.

What is the role that the presidency of the EU – now addressed to a small country such as the Czech Republic – can play in an Union split also on the Middle East crisis?

Substantially our mission is to moderate the divergences between the 27 States of the Union and to gather a common point of view. In the extraordinary situation going on, the Presidency must assume a leading role; as the French did during the crisis in the Caucasus. Actually we are facing two contemporary crisis: the one between Ukraine and Russia, that is threatening the gas supplies in Europe and that we managed to solve only in the last few hours thanks to the straight involvement of the Czech Prime Minister Topolanek, so that the gas is still running. The other crisis refers to the Middle East situation. Now we are working with several meetings in Egypt, Jerusalem, Ramallah and Amman. We met the Israeli and Palestinian leaders with Sarkozy. After many contacts and revisions we managed to achieve a resolution by the Security Council of the United Nations.

But there’s no ceasefire yet.

Because the Israelis think they should “clear the job in Gaza”, which means they want to occupy the so called “Philadelphia corridor” above the tunnels that cover weapons and rockets smuggling. On the other hand Hamas has its own reasons to believe they will win. One can predict that in the future they will take advantage from the consequences of a battle that’s killing so many Palestinians, especially among women and children.

The Czech Republic leadership of the Union appeared to be one-sided in the press, for two reasons: Prague has been involved in a recent deal about the dislocation of Us anti-missiles radars – with anti-Russian aims – and the Czech government was addressed with a statement according to which Israel is only protecting its right for security.

Let’s wait a moment, we are talking about two different things. The US and their radars in the Czech Republic have nothing to do with this conflict. Even if we live in an interdependent world, this doesn’t mean that we can’t be trusted as reliable partners representing the Union. Even the Russians have accepted our role in that situation, when they needed the deal with Ukraine. Our Czech Prime Minister had several meetings with Putin and was in Moscow even two days ago. Our different opinions regarding the radars seem to be far less important than the actual crisis.

And what about Topolanek’s unfortunate statement?

That was a whole misunderstanding. The Prime Minister received a call from his spokesperson while he was skiing. The line was disturbed, as it often happens, and he answered to his spokesperson – who was submitting him a dispatch – that the text sounded too weak and “defensive”. The spokesperson misunderstood and related the word “defensive” to the Israeli military action in Gaza. Trust me, this is the real story. By the way the position of the Presidency on this war had already been made official and widespread in the Arabic countries. The misunderstanding caused a little panic, but that’s all.

But the Jerusalem Post attributes you a statement on the increasing number of rockets propelled by Hamas.

Yes, but this is simply a fact. Hamas suddenly increased the launches on Israel provoking its reaction in a way no one expected.

How can the Presidency in charge unify such different positions going across the Union?

There always have been differences within the Union, but in the end the States gathered together to support this mission. Obviously I’m in touch with the German, French and English; there are no unaffordable problems. The Italian view on Gaza is different too, even if close to the German one. If one analyzes how President Sarkozy was attacked by the Arabic media he may be amazed, because the positions in the Union aren’t so different from each other.

Are you planning to send more European military troops in the area?

Actually this hasn’t been discussed, because an influent country as Egypt won’t accept foreign soldiers on its soil, as president Mubarak stated to me clearly. And Israel won’t accept it too.

Will there be any change with the new incomer at the White House?

Compared to Bush presidency there will be a shift in style and language, but we must realize that there won’t be a significant change in the Us interests. They will basically rest the same. Probably the White House will make an effort towards Africa and the developing countries; maybe it will glance more at the Pacific situation than at the Atlantic one. Hillary Clinton will put her expertise and cleverness into it. We should remember, though, that according to the US Constitution the Secretary of State is very dependant from the government, much more than the Italian, German and Czech Foreign Minister is.

(Translated by Claudia Durastanti)