Poland and the EU: Our National Folly

20 November 2003 Editor's Note: Marcin Król is one of Poland's leading liberal commentators. In this column, which was published in the daily newspaper Rzeczpospolita on 11 November, he reacts to the popular conviction that Poland should occupy one of the important positions in the enlarged EU, expressed most recently by fellow political commentator, Zdzislaw Krasnodebski.

For some reason, since Poland regained its freedom, Poles have had not interesting or thorough debates on the issues of the day. This is especially clear when you consider the lack of debate surrounding our country's foreign policy--especially Poland's entrance into the European Union.

Lately, Zdzislaw Krasnodebski has been tossing the ball to God-knows-whom, and for reasons that are unclear. Krasnodebski's opinions are widely published in the Polish press, in Rzeczpospolita, and to a greater extent, in Gazeta Wyborcza. They are presented as accurate and exact, when in fact they are often false and exaggerated.

I do not understand why two of the most serious dailies in Poland decided to try to convince Poles that the EU is trying to fool us, or that we must defend our position and ambition to be one of the six most important countries in the Union. I do not understand why it is has been written that the EU wants to take money away from us "poor things" and give it to the rich; or that the goal of the EU--to speed up technological development--is somehow unfair to Poland. Or that France and Germany (and this is really a joke, for who else would it be?) want to direct the Union.

No, I do not understand it, although I agree that there is room for debate about the vision of the future EU. Poland will play a part in that future and our role will reflect our economic, military, and intellectual potential.

I recently spoke to a well-known political expert, Aleksander Smolar, who knows the issue much better than me. This is what he said: with our economic potential, we shouldn't be fighting for a prominent position in the Union, but rather, for a position that fits us. After all, one should always know their proper place. Arguments voiced by followers of the Treaty of Nice do not take this reality into account at all.

Some have argued that changing the Treaty of Nice would benefit big countries and strong economies, that is does not account for Christian values, and that not everyone is equal in the EU.

The first argument I reject as ridiculous. Though I agree with Krasnodebski that there will always be a representative of France and Germany in the European Central Bank, I cannot understand his resentment about it: those two countries make up nearly half the EU in terms of economic weight. Who else should be in the ECB--Portugal, Poland and Latvia?

Second, Christian values are the subject of a marginal dispute. The majority of EU countries have undergone a major secularization and do not want to merge politics with religion. End of story. Do we have to come back to the discussion that divided Europe a few decades ago and separated us from the rest of Europe? Do we have to be so archaic? Are Poles really such good Catholics?

I do not mean to disrespect Christianity; but except for the size of our population, this seems our sole contribution to the EU. Isn’t it comical that this argument is coming from Leszek Miller? Maybe it’s better to first look at how those Christian values are realized in Poland--and only after that, postulate them to the rest of the world.

Finally, there’s a constant talk about inequality in the EU. Who has ever seen equality? I have not.

Do the EU countries really want to treat us badly? The more we behave as we do and the more we write what we write, the worse our situation would be. Because the EU will always be moderately anti-American; it will always support the development of those who want to be dynamic, not those who only wait for money. And it will always be a place of political trade-offs. For defending the Nice Treaty, for our tight hold on our Christian values, and for our pro-American stance, we will end up paying a price in the form of less money.

A COSTLY U.S. ALLIANCE?

Now, about something that hasn't been talked about lately: how the Nice followers’ camp and the Christian values camp (it’s a stunning left-right coalition) scare us by saying that there will have to be a referendum on those two issues, and that Poles will say no.

But has anyone mentioned how Chancellor Schroeder clearly told Miller that if he can get Poles to calm down, the Germans will push for more money for Poland? And how he said that Germans have a lot of pull on issues like this? Have we given away a few billion euros because our honor would not allow us to be "bribed?" […] Has anyone proposed a referendum on this issue? Is anyone raising an alarm on this? Who’s ready to dismiss Vice Minister Marek Pol for wasting millions on Polish roads? Why isn’t Miller a man of honor about this? Is there anyone who seriously tries to answer the question of how much we've gained and lost, due to our radical alliance with the United States?

I am currently reading a book by a famous commentator who must have gone mad, for he writes that Poland could be sort of an overseas American state. I am not against our privileged relationships with the United States, but I would like to first know our losses and our gains--for I can see fewer and fewer of the latter recently. Was there a referendum on our involvement in Iraq? I agree that the decision may have been right, but it should still be the subject of constant debate.

TO HAVE AND HAVE NOT

It is our job, not the EU's, to close the gap between the rich and poor. The EU only gives a chance. It is a liberal situation: there is an equality of chances--not socialist equality--and everyone gets the same shot. It is up to us whether we take advantage of this equal chance. But as the former chief Polish EU negotiator Jacek Saryusz-Wolski wisely put it, it is doubtful that we have enough good officials and authorities who are prepared to fiercely compete for everything in the EU. But such is the current mode of operation, both before and after Nice.

Three years ago, an eminent French expert who is a former director of the splendid Institute for Strategic Studies--a man who was then about 45 years old--told me in confidence that if it was his generation deciding on EU enlargement, it would never happen. Previous generations remembered the war and communism. [...] His generation is pragmatic, and afraid it would only lose on enlargement issues. Not in the economic sense, but in terms of the ability of the Union to be governed by anyone. Chaos would prevail.

Poland has become the main troublemaker in the EU. Do we want that? Maybe yes, for this has always been our traditional role in Europe. But neither I, nor any of the signatories of the letter criticized by Kransodebski want it.

By Marcin Król, Rzeczpospolita, 11 November, 2003.