Tokyo-born Czech nationalist revives Czexit ahead of national election
Okamura has built a political career on hard-line nationalist positions, including proposals to ban the promotion of Islam , a strict anti-immigration agenda , and increasingly vocal criticism of Ukraine and the presence of Ukrainian refugees in Czechia.
He has dismissed the EU's Green Deal as a ' crazy neo-Marxist plan ' and his party, SPD, continues to demand referendums on Czech membership in both the EU and NATO – ideas firmly rejected by mainstream parties.
His position on a potential EU referendum is clear: "I would vote for the Czech Republic to leave the EU," he said .
A recent STEM poll for CNN Prima News places SPD at 13%, third behind the populist ANO (32%) and the centre-right Spolu (21%). The rebound follows SPD's strategic merger with three smaller nationalist groups, forming a more unified anti-EU front.
Okamura's nationalism stands in sharp contrast with his own personal biography . Born to a Czech mother and a Japanese-Korean father, he spent part of his childhood in Tokyo before moving to Prague.
Before entering politics, he ran a series of tourism-related businesses and was a partner in a now-bankrupt travel agency, which let customers send toys abroad to be photographed in popular tourist locations .
He later became vice-president and spokesperson for the Association of Czech Travel Agencies. In 2008, he was even appointed Czech ambassador for the EU's European Year of Intercultural Dialogue.
SPD is his second political project, following a bitter split from his previous party, Dawn of Direct Democracy, in 2015.
Among Okamura's fiercest critics are members of his own family. His older brother, Hayato Okamura, is an MP for the pro-EU Christian Democrats and accuses his brother of 'objectively supporting the Kremlin.'
The youngest sibling, architect Osamu Okamura, ran for the Greens in the 2024 European elections, vowing to 'strengthen active EU membership.'
Although the brothers have refrained from personal attacks in public, their ideological divisions are profound. In 2024, Hayato apologised in parliament for what he described as his brother's 'Ukrainophobia."
Okamura has also been entangled in multiple legal disputes, mainly with media outlets and NGOs over alleged defamation – most of which he has lost.
In early 2025, he was stripped of parliamentary immunity to face potential criminal charges related to an allegedly racially charged campaign in the 2024 European elections.
Okamura is unlikely to achieve his long-held goal of taking Czechia out of the EU anytime soon.
The populist party ANO, the frontrunner, shows no interest in Czexit, and the current centre-right government remains firmly pro-European.
But with several smaller factions hovering near the 5% threshold to enter parliament, the SPD could emerge as ANO's only viable coalition ally, giving Okamura leverage to pull Czech politics further toward the nationalist, anti-EU fringe.
(de, mm)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Euractiv
20 minutes ago
- Euractiv
Macron suggests Geneva hosts Putin-Zelenskyy summit
French President Emmanuel Macron suggested Geneva could play host to a peace summit between Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who look set to meet after separate talks with Donald Trump. Speaking after he and other European leaders joined the Ukrainian president for high-stakes meetings at the White House on Monday, Macron said the announced Zelensky-Putin summit would be held in Europe. "It will be (hosted by) a neutral country, maybe Switzerland – I'm pushing for Geneva – or another country," Macron said in an interview aired Tuesday on French news channel LCI. "The last time there were bilateral talks, they were held in Istanbul," he added, referring to the three rounds of lower-level negotiations between Russia and Ukraine held in Turkey between May and July. Macron said France and Britain would hold a meeting on Tuesday with other Ukrainian allies to "keep them up to date on what was decided" in Washington on providing security guarantees for Ukraine, a key talking point in the meetings with Trump. "Right after that, we'll start concrete work with the Americans. So as of tomorrow (Tuesday), our diplomatic advisers, ministers, and chiefs of staff begin work on seeing who's ready to do what," he said. Addressing whether Zelenskyy would be forced to give up territory to Russia, Macron said it was "up to Ukraine". "Ukraine will make the concessions it deems just and right," he said. But "let's be very careful when we talk about legal recognition", he added. "If countries... can say, 'we can take territory by force', (that) opens a Pandora's box." (mm)
Euractiv
an hour ago
- Euractiv
What European leaders achieved in the White House, and what they didn't
When the six European leaders and Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy trooped into the White House on Monday, they feared the worst: a public dressing-down, perhaps, or a fresh threat to ditch Kyiv altogether. They got neither. But the choreography could not disguise the thinness of the outcome. There is still no clarity on what security guarantees for Ukraine might look like, no sign of a ceasefire, and little confidence that a Putin-Zelenskyy summit will ever happen. The takeaways European leaders had set off for Washington with a sense of unease , haunted by the prospect of another televised bust-up between Trump and Zelenskyy. Instead, their exchange was, by Trumpian standards, almost decorous Likewise, the optics of the three-way meeting in the Oval Office between Trump, Zelenskyy, and the six European leaders, who tagged along to flatter the American president, were reassuring. It looked as if the Europeans had done their homework on the Trump playbook – and played along. On content, Europeans went to Washington with three main objectives: to ensure Zelenskyy's survival, push back on Putin's maximalist demands following Friday's Alaska talks, and determine what Western security guarantees could realistically be offered to Kyiv. Monday's discussion centred mainly on preparations for a possible trilateral summit between Russia, Ukraine and, possibly, Trump, and security guarantees. Ukraine had also been trying to butter up Trump with a promise to buy $100 billion of US-manufactured weapons financed by Europe in a bid to obtain his commitment to US guarantees, according to the Financial Times. Meanwhile, public statements afterwards suggest that territorial concessions, instead, were not discussed. What came up empty Anything solid. While Europeans might have sighed in relief that Trump may have nodded along to the idea of Western security guarantees, their shape remains anyone's guess. Details, say European officials, will be hammered out, likely over the course of the next weeks. It is also uncertain whether Putin would actually meet with Zelenskyy in person. Finland's President Alexander Stubb told CNN that Trump's decision to call Putin during the meeting had been a 'coordinated' move with Europeans and Kyiv and meant to test the ground for such a summit. The two leaders' meeting could take place within two or three weeks, according to some participants of the White House meeting. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio told Fox News that the American side was 'working on that now to try to set that up for them to meet somewhere," while France's Emmanuel Macron floated Geneva as a 'neutral country.' The one point European leaders stressed in the public remarks after the Oval Office exchange was their wish for Trump's help in securing a ceasefire before any next steps. But the US president wasn't sold on the idea: 'I don't think you need a ceasefire,' he repeated on Monday. The request also comes as Moscow has made sudden advances in Ukraine over the past weeks and shown no sign it would stop its assault. Next steps EU leaders will virtually huddle on Tuesday at 1 pm Brussels time to coordinate the next steps on security guarantees for Ukraine after Washington. According to several European officials, a flurry of meetings among the Coalition of the Willing, and national security advisors could follow in the coming days to hash out further details of the European offer to Trump. Another virtual meeting between Europeans and Trump could also happen as early as Tuesday or later this week. (mm)
Euractiv
4 hours ago
- Euractiv
Europeans divided over where to spend their new military budget bonanza
As Europe prepares for a decade-long arms shopping spree to rebuild neglected militaries and narrow the gap with US firepower, its spending choices will shape the continent's industrial base for years to come. In June, NATO countries agreed to spend 3.5% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on defence in order to meet the military capability requirements outlined in the alliance's defence plans. For the 23 EU members of NATO, this means a whopping annual increase of nearly €270 billion, according to calculations from the Bruegel think tank. These funds are expected largely to flow into the defence industry and military recruitment. A central question is now whether European countries will invest in developing their domestic defence industry or continue to rely heavily on US-made equipment. The NATO spending commitments are simple targets, leaving each ally relatively free to decide what exact weapons to buy and from whom. European allies are splitting along a spectrum, from those leaning heavily on US weapons to those insisting on buying European, with each path offering both short-term fixes and longer-term strategic bets. On the spectrum US-made systems have a clear attraction. High-end options such as the F-35 fighter jet or Patriot air-defence batteries carry eye-watering price tags but can help governments hit NATO's spending target quickly. For underfunded militaries, big-ticket purchases have long been the fastest way to show progress after years of neglect. The Patriot is a case in point. One battery costs around $1 billion, and each interceptor missile comes with a roughly $4 million price tag. In August, a small group of European countries agreed to purchase more Patriots, further increasing their defence budgets and reliance on US-made gear. A European alternative to the Patriot, the Franco-Italian SAMP/T battery and Aster 30 missiles, is around a third cheaper. France and Spain in particular have argued that building a robust European defence industry is an essential security priority. To that end, France has long avoided buying US-made weaponry whenever possible. The two countries joined with Germany on the ambitious and expensive Future Combat Air System (FCAS) next-generation fighter jet project, a European alternative to foreign options, particularly those produced in the US. At the other end of the spectrum, Poland has seen its national security priorities centred on quickly acquiring military hardware in large quantities, regardless of the source. Europe's clear defence spending champion, Warsaw has more than doubled its military budget in just five years, hired tens of thousands of additional soldiers and modernised its fleet of F-16 fighters while also buying new fifth-generation F-35 jets. The Polish armed forces also stocked up on rocket launchers, more than 100 new helicopters, scores of heavy tanks and much more. The country has prioritised speed in deals for military equipment, a key motivation behind Warsaw's burgeoning relationship with South Korean arms makers. Poland has been more wary of big-ticket European defence projects while maintaining deep ties to a number of US defence contractors. Is reliance on the US healthy? Most European NATO forces have extensively purchased American gear for years, assuming it would guarantee them a better relationship with Washington, the military alliance's dominant power. But Donald Trump's return to the White House earlier this year, and his administration's reluctance to promise Europeans unambiguous support in case of war, has forced governments to question whether buying American really buys influence or favourable treatment. Critics warn that purchasing further US-made equipment does little to resolve Europe's dependence on American technology or foster the growth of the European defence industry. NATO's spending target also contains no incentives to purchase European-made products to build up local industrial capacity. Instead, the GDP-based target can reward splurging on the priciest gear or enormous quantities of useless gear to show money is being spent, or favour exporters that can deliver fastest – often from the US or South Korea – while many European production lines face backlogs, especially in missile and ammunition production. That spending race has already pushed up prices in the global arms market, where costs have soared since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. The price of NATO-standard 155mm artillery shells has quadrupled, from around €2,000 before the war to about €8,000 recently. However, focusing on budget figures alone risks prioritising optics over efficiency and real war-fighting capacity. That was a criticism voiced by Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez when he rejected NATO's new GDP-based targets, arguing that Spain could deliver the required military capabilities while spending significantly less. But NATO countries signed up to the task at The Hague summit in June, and will spend the next years trying to meet expectations. The alliance grades progress in yearly updates, adding pressure to deliver on their promises. (mm, bts, cp)
