Autor fotografie: redakce|Popisek: Lubomír Metnar, former minister of defence
"I am personally really bothered by the way the government has chosen to communicate and I am not convinced," says Lubomír Metnar, chairman of the Defence Committee and former defence minister, in an interview on the subject of the problematic Excalibur Army contract within the Czech Ammunition Initiative. The topic will be included in the next committee meeting on 24 September.
In your opinion, is the Czech Ammunition Initiative a beneficial and necessary project that has a chance to effectively support Ukraine in its defence against Russian aggression?
The ANO movement has been clear from the very beginning on the unacceptable Russian aggression against Ukraine that we support Ukraine. And in the context of this, we also see the ammunition initiative as one of the important steps that can, if not reverse, at least partially balance the forces on the battlefield, if for some reason an acceptable diplomatic solution cannot be found and the war operations brought to an end. In general, we consider it unacceptable to make unreasonable profits for some intermediaries, as there are always groups in wars that can enrich themselves. The task of the state is to set up aid mechanisms in such a way as to minimise doubts and various suspicions of wastefulness.
The Senate Committee on Defence has already addressed the issue and expressed its support for the Government and its arguments. Is it also a topic for the Lower House committee that you chair?
There is a lot of talk and writing about the ammunition initiative in the public space, and most of my information comes from the media. I have long been critical in general of the way the Department of Defence informs and communicates with MPs. I must say, however, that at the last committee we had a closed session in a certain regime on the subject of the Czech ammunition initiative. This was also in view of the information on allegedly overpriced ammunition that appeared in the public domain, which was raised by Senator Wagenknecht. I have to say that I am very disappointed by the Government's communication on this issue. The way it is approaching the matter and the way it is arguing very generally or very vaguely, because I have not really seen it explain or refute the information that has been made public in any clear and factual way so far. It deflects criticism by claiming that it is not true that the ammunition is overpriced, that the price is appropriate. I find that totally inadequate.
Senator Wagenknecht's information calls into question the contract carried out by Excalibur Army, a CSG company, because of the significant increase in the price of 155mm shells compared with the reference price that Ukraine was paying directly for this ammunition at the time. The higher amount paid means fewer grenades delivered. Do you share the concerns about the economy and efficiency of this contract?
We do not have that information, so it is difficult to assess the issue. However, it strikes me that the good intention and perhaps even the good work is being devalued, above all, by the method of communication chosen by the Government and the Ministry of Defence. If any doubts have been expressed, I am convinced that, even without breaching the Classified Information Act, the problem can be explained unemotionally, calmly, factually and convincingly. And, of course, if there is something wrong in the contract in question, it would be appropriate to investigate it, find out the state of affairs, state how it is and draw consequences if necessary. At the next committee on 24 September, and I should point out that this item will be held, as announced, in closed session, the ammunition initiative will be on the agenda again. We want to know what it looks like. Because so far I have not heard anything from the Department other than what it is saying publicly and what is in the media space.
According to Prime Minister Fiala, everything is in the best of order and this is a media attack on the whole initiative, which is in Russia's interest. Do you have confidence that the control mechanisms set up by the ammunition initiative, as they have been described, worked in the contract that has been criticised?
When I evaluate the information available so far, and as I say, it comes mostly from the media, the particular thing described simply cannot inspire confidence in the citizen. As I said, the Government and the Ministry of Defence do not refute these allegations or doubts. They do not argue factually. And that, in turn, reinforces the doubt that all may not really be well there. I'm sorry. I repeat that not only I, but the entire ANO movement, have always supported aid to Ukraine. We know what the situation is like on the front line, what superiority Russia has in terms of ammunition supplies and artillery shells. Ukraine needs ammunition. The Czech ammunition initiative has an international dimension. Personally, I am really bothered and unconvinced by the Government's chosen method of communication. At the next committee, we will really be asking questions and asking how things really look objectively with this contract.
Does that mean that you will want to know specific numbers?
Yes, we will want to know specific information and specific numbers. Again, I would stress that the negotiations will be in closed mode; this is a regime information. However, the result towards the public will undoubtedly be some kind of communication in the sense that either there is something wrong with the contract and we are still dealing with it, or everything is fine, and the problem is more in the communication of the Government and the Ministry, which is shrouded in a lot of speculation. That is the way we want to approach it. Today, I cannot say for sure what the situation is. We are waiting to see what information we get.
What is missing from the communication of the Government, the Ministry and the Czechoslovak Group is any substantive challenge to the arguments and data that Senator Wagenknecht has raised. In the first place, it is the reference price against which he compares Excalibur Army's bids for AMOS. Surely, even without giving specific amounts, they could say whether the calculated reference price was relevant and then provide evidence of that to deputies or senators in some mode. And whether the price under Excalibur Army's indicative bid was therefore in the end lower, closer to the reference price quoted. I guess one would expect such arguments rather than accusations of pro-Russian attitudes and words of attack against the whole initiative?
Yes, in principle it is like that. If there are any articulated doubts, arguments and questions, and immediately there is a labeling from the coalition. We have certainly gone somewhere in the debate where we should not have gone and we agree that labelling will not dispel doubts. Labelling is not an argument. This is really about principle and about the way in which public money is managed. And it is not just about us, of course. The initiative has a major international dimension, and this communication is, of course, also seen and perceived in some way among our partners. I do not know the details, but the subject has also resonated in the German media, and I have not seen any labelling there, that people who want to know the state of affairs are being labelled as pro-Russian or otherwise dehumanised. Let us wait and see what we find out. I'm concerned about the issue myself. It will be one of the topics of the next committee, and we will be asking for information that we do not currently have.