On October 12, 2009, Prague hosted a series of accompanying events to the annual conference of Vaclav Havel’s Forum 2000 on “Democracy and Freedom in a Multipolar World.” One of them was a café (babel) debate on “Economic Crises: American vs. European Approach” that was co-organized by Prague redaction.
The aim of the debate was to discuss and compare the ways Americans and Europeans have tackled the crises so far. Two renowned Czech economists, Jan Svejnar and Ludek Niedermayer, have shared their views and opinions with a crowd of enthusiastic people in the knowledge.
In spite of the fact that the discussion lost its initial global “insight”, it proved to be a very challenging debate!
At the beginning, the debaters provided a comparative analysis of both American and European anti-crises policies but it was revealed later that differences between both are not as considerable as many think. Because the audience were mostly interested in the Czech agenda of fighting the crisis, both Mr. Svejnar and Mr. Niedermayer were challenged to provide a thorough knowledge of the development of the Czech anti-crisis policies.
We hope that all of the participants left the venue satisfied and enriched by the valuable contributions of our guests.
As avant garde lovers, Czechs gave Europe the Entropa that contributed to an all-over-Europe debate about national stereotypes and partially triggered off xenophobic discussions in various parts of the continent. The London Summit of G20 was an event, which will not be probably attended by any Czech representative for a long time ahead. However, the meeting that was meant to be a cure for the problems of today, looked more like a “hot media matter”. What followed next, was just a struggle for a “sustainable continuation” of the Union’s policies under auspicies of a toppling government.
And that is the true cafebabel.com spirit - to build a platform for a dialog about the current European affairs and to discuss such topics in a paceful way with a cup of coffee. The future schemes of European integration were presented - the deepening of the integration, the petrification of the current state of affairs and also the reverse progress of transferring the power from the EU level to the national one. The need of true European politicians who promote European themes and do not advocate particular national interests only was also discussed. 
The question from the audience were touching the European constitution (the need of such a document, its character, lenght and structure, mainly in comparison with such a document existing within NATO). Other questions were about the ratification process of the Lisbon Treaty in Ireland and the Czech Republic, the coherence of the European Foreign and Security Policy (with regrad to the anniversary of Kosovo campaign in 1999) or the influence of lobbysts on the EU decision-making.
Latest confrontations of the Czech President with the organs of the Union made me feel like the European Union is a kind of a “yes club”. Is not the Union’s motto: “United in diversity”? I am under the impression that the diversity is not about race, sex or religion only. It could appeal to ideas and opinions as well. Why must everybody agree on everything that the Union suggest? Are not different views a way how to trigger a mutual dialogue and how to make people think?
If there are no other reasons to save this little blue planet, there is still one economic one. A basic theory of economics can teach you that an economist is an egoist. If there are no resources left in the future, there will be no production because there will be nothing to produce from. If there is nothing to produce, there will be no profits. This may be one good reason even for an absolute egoist to save something from this planet.
On one hand, a new style of diplomacy towards Iran is mentioned, on the other hand, it is said that the necessity of the radar consists in the defence against possible attacks of Iran. F. W. Steinmaier praised Russia, that they had drawn down an intention to dislocate short radius rackets from the 
Global economic crisis has fallen on member states of European Union as well. Right now we will see how strong the basis of their cooperation is. European Communities were established as economic communities and the political cooperation followed just afterwards. Even the opponents of deepening of European integration assess the positive impacts the integration process has on state economies. There is an internal market with its well known four liberties (free movement of labour, goods, services and capital) where the old barriers such as customs or quantity restrictions exist never more. All members states had accessed to that project and declared their willingness to support it and obey its rules (see respective chapters of Treaties establishing the Communities and their amendments). All seemed all right and the debates about the temporary measures restricting the liberties mentioned above for some states were always ending by claiming that in few years the last barriers would be down and the whole project would start running. Unfortunately the crisis has come. The first response from the EU was not the declaration that the Union has to be harmonious and the member states have to follow cooperative approach to the crisis. The opposite was true. The first echo which was possible to hear from Europe was the voice of French president Sarkozy that he will cure the French economy by the means of economic nationalism and protectionism. Here it is. If a problem appears, the best solution is to care about you yourself. Regardless to the fact that protectionism has shown itself as a short-sighted solution throughout history. The main aim of the politician is to show the capability to solve current problems as quickly as possible. Or not?
The Czech Republic – as the country presiding currently the Council of the EU – warned the rest of the EU member states against such attitudes and reminded them the observance of basic principles of European Primary Law. One can really hard to understand, how the president of one of the European Communities founding states, the president of country which always presented itself as the engine of European integration, can tend to the old-fashioned principles of economic regulation which are undermining the basis of the so called Temple of Maastricht. It seems like Mr. Sarkozy has not read the classic work of French literature written by Alexander Dumas about the musketeers. Anyway, if he can not remember the slogan One for all, all for one, he has to remember the basic European values to which surely belongs solidarity.
First of all, I agree with Deputy Premier Alexandr Vondra of the Czech Republic, who said cleaning up Guantanamo "is primarily a U.S. responsibility". And it is. I do not think that the United States has ever consulted the establishment of the prison with anybody from Europe as I do not think that anybody from Europe has to do something with 11/09 investigation and as a result I do not think that anybody from Europe should take responsibility for this notorious facility. 
The thing I am afraid of is, that the decision to take one or more of the Guantanamo prisoners could trigger upheavals (riots?) in many places in Europe, especially those where considerable Muslim minorities live. And this is how the European Union could easily become a target of “anti-American sentiment” throughout the globe.
I come from Slovakia and that salami wrapped around by the Hungarian tricolor does not nark me. By the way… why should it nark me? 20 years ago, the author would have been persecuted. This sculpture would have never arisen. Today, it lies in the political heart of Europe. Is it not that what everybody was fighting for? I am convinced, when I have a look on this from a different point of view, that Entropa is a proof of the path that has been already passed by the part of Europe behind the iron curtain…
The third instalment of the British Council 'Ordinary Lives' debate meets eastern Europeans in Prague. The Czech Republic take over the EU presidency from France on 1 January 2009 On 6 November, the Association for the International Affairs (AMO), a Czech NGO, hosted a conference with immigrants from eastern Europe. Originally initiated by the British Council in Northern Ireland, the debate maps the 'ordinary lives' of people from countries such as the Czech Republic, Latvia, Poland, Portugal or Spain, who were in search of a new and better life in Ireland. After tasting success at home, the project concentrated on the pivotal group of the immigrants in Brussels – young people from various countries of the EU working for the EU institutions. Next stop - Prague. 
katarina
ondra
Michal
Vitek