Poland calls the bear's bluff!

The deployment of a battery of US Patriot missiles to Poland in May 2010 is the fulfillment of agreements reached under the US/Polish Declaration on Strategic Cooperation signed in August 2008. This was always from the beginning a symbolic act, as one battery is incapable of defending Polish airspace; a fact acknowledged by the announcement Defence Minister Bogdan Klich that the Polish government has started initial supplier selection for the procurement of 10-12 Polish owned batteries costing around $1 billion each. However, the deployment brings US/Polish relations to a new level. A fact not missed by Russia who in Sep 2009 rattled its sabre in Operation West: a large scale exercise with Belarus centred around mock landings on a Polish beach and deployment of nuclear missiles.


While nuclear war may be far from any future reality, Poland treads a dangerous tight rope in its relations with the USA and Russia. The Smolensk air crash which killed the Polish president and many top figures in the country provided a thaw in Polish-Russian relations and many have seen it as a departure point for a new era. However, Poland's continued commitment to plans drawn up with America under the Bush administration may yet prove a stinking point.

While others in central/eastern Europe have trodden more carefully since the region's break with Moscow, Poland built upon its 1999 accession to NATO by staunchly supporting the USA in various cases, from the 2003 Iraq War to the proposed missile defence shield. This, coupled with Poland's vocal support of Georgia in the 2008 Russia-Georgia War has greatly irritated Poland's large eastern neighbour. While not suffering physical attack, Poland has suffered economically with Russia placing a ban on meat imports from Poland; officially for health reasons, although the EU did not feel such a need.

Poland's wish to place itself firmly in the 'western' camp following the end of the Cold War has undoubtedly been achieved, yet Poland continues to pursue policies which further distance itself from Russia. This strategy goes against the geopolitical reality that Poland is faced with, and risks endangering Poland. Although, conflict is not a likely outcome, Poland's economic interests are conceivably at threat. Resource security is paramount in the 21st Century for all countries and Poland receives the majority of its gas (approx 65%) comes form Russia and other ex-Soviet countries. As Ukraine found out, Russia can easily turn the tap off.



It is paramount therefore that as we approach the end of the first decade of the 21st Century, Poland establishes a positive relationship with Russia; one that can foster both economic and military security. This does not mean that Poland must negate its democratic ideals and relinquish its support of countries like Georgia, merely that Poland must find its own middle way: a road that ensures peace and prosperity for Poland and the greater region it resides in.

Constidtutional considerations

On Tuesday The Warsaw Voice published this:

Government and Opposition Parties Argue Over Constitution Changes, January 19, 2010
Poland's leading party PO refuses to consider constitution changes suggested by the main opposition party PiS, which includes strengthening the position of the President, the daily Rzeczpospolita writes.

PiS proposal is being criticized by PO as "a return to a state system where the constitution confirms the centralized and ideological character of the state with the President in the role of the First Secretary", PO parliamentary club spokesperson Andrzej Halicki said.
PiS in turn blames PO for lack of constructive collaboration for the common good and failure to present own project.

Well as if in answer to the lack of a PO proposal, on the following day The Warsaw Voice published this:

Polish PM Proposes Weakening of Presidential Veto, January 20, 2010PM Donald Tusk proposes dampening of presidential veto, according to theses send by the PM's chancellery to the parliamentary Speaker, the daily Dziennik Gazeta Prawna writes.

Tusk wants the presidential veto to be rejected with an absolute majority and not with three-fifth majority, as it is the case at present.
The PM also wants to make an unambiguous provision that it is the PM who is responsible for foreign policy.

Personally I would go with a simple majority rather than an absolute, as the difference between 3/5 (60%) and absolute (51%) is hardly worth the trouble of changing. An absolute majority takes in to account all parliamentarians; even those not present. Whereas the simple just takes into account the ones who can be bothered to turn up and vote (var more sensible).

These two articles illustrate well the chasm that exists between the two sides. They have fundamentally opposing views, which does not bode well for cooperation.

I am of course in favour of the PO option. Being British I am not used to a division of powers between a PM and President. In theory the Queen can veto (refuse to enact) any law in the UK. She can also simply sack the PM and rule directly. For that matter she could install her butler as PM. Luckily she doesn't do any of these things and we seem to get along quite happily. The last occasion she used such powers was appointment of Harold Wilson as Prime Minister in February 1974; following political chaos. The last monarch to veto legislation was Queen Anne, who withheld assent from the Scottish Militia Bill 1708.

Therefore, please could the President simply open Supermarkets and Hospitals, Present hours and medals and have dinner with distinguished visitors?

Lithuanian, Polish and Ukrainian Brigade

The formation of the joint Lithuanian, Polish and Ukrainian brigade ("LITPOLUKRBRIG") was formalised on Nov 14th during a meeting of EU Defence Ministers. The brigade will be based in Lublin, Poland and is scheduled to be operational by 2011. This brigade marks an important moment in Polish-Russian relations as it aims at establishing a physical commitment to Ukrainian security.

Although the final outcome of the brigade’s future rests on the results of the Ukrainian Presidential elections in 2010, this move is significant in the fact that a brigade level unit will be the largest permanent military organisation created between Nato and non-Nato (former Soviet Republic) members. More importantly it will sent a sharp message to Moscow, who still consider the Ukraine to be firmly within it’s sphere of influence.
The working language of the brigade will be English and the brigade will be primarily available for peacekeeping duties within an EU, Nato or UN framework.

Poland is by far the dominant partner within the group and the housing of the brigade at Lublin advertises Poland's status as a military and security player on the global arena.

Poland: A Regional Power

2009 marks the latest of Poland’s many milestones on the road to re-establishing itself as a regional power akin to the status it enjoyed in the mid 17^th century. It has now been 20 years since the dramatic fall of communism and the re-birth of a free Poland. During that time many important steps have been taken in an ever strident effort to secure both political and military integrity. This year also marks the 10^th anniversary of Poland’s entry in to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). In this essay I will discuss the achievements that have been made and look at the direction in which Poland is heading in terms of security and foreign policy.

Establishing an international presence

Polish membership of both NATO and the European Union (EU) were from the offset primary policy goals during the 1990s. These were achieved in 1999 and 2004 respectively. As part of NATO Poland has taken part in the Afghanistan mission, and to secure it status as a dependable ally of the USA (NATO’s paramount power), also in the Iraq mission. The latter finished earlier this year; while the Polish force in Afghanistan successfully carried out its first offensive operation (Op Eagle’s Feather) also this year. The conduction of Op Eagle’s Feather has significance beyond its limited affect upon theatre operations. This was the first time since the end of communism that Polish soldiers deployed offensively.

Modernising the Military

During the Cold War the Polish military was a large conscript based organisation designed to conduct defensive operations of a conventional manner. In 1989 the new Polish state inherited a huge and somewhat overwhelming organisation that was technologically outdated and tactically inefficient for the role in which Poland was to find itself as a member of NATO. Since that time much has been done to re-equip and re-train the Polish military. An inevitable part of that has been the professionalisation of the armed forces with the last group of conscripts being sworn in to the military in Dec 2008. Poland has invested heavily in modern technology with the Leopard tank and Rosmark APC (Armoured Personnel Carrier) significantly improving the land forces capability and manoeuvrability. The most costly and high-profile purchase has been the F-16 Fighter from Lockheed-Martin which replaces Soviet era Mig-29s and Su-22s. These vehicles combined with the general re-structuring of the Polish military along NATO lines have been somewhat controversially paid for by the 22.6 billion Złoty defence budget (2008 figure: 7.4 $ billion). This budget makes Poland one of the biggest European defence spenders proportional to its size (1.95% GDP). Alas Poland still does not have a strategic lift capability nor logistical organisation capable of deploying the military overseas and therefore relies upon its NATO allies, primarily the USA, for missions such as Afghanistan.

Political assertiveness

From a policy perspective Poland has tried to place itself at the heart of both the EU and NATO. During 2009 Poland nominated three individuals to senior NATO/European positions: Radosław Sikorski for NATO Secretary General, Wlodzimersz Cimoszewicz for Council of Europe Secretary General and Jerzy Buzek for European Parliament President. Poland achieved a 1 out of 3 success rate with Jerzy Buzek being elected President in Jul 09. This drive to become a central player within these organisations has been matched by Polish foreign policy within central and Eastern Europe. The high-profile involvement of President Kaczynski during Russian/Georgian hostilities in 2008 and the support of Ukraine’s ‘Orange Revolution’ are just the tip of the iceberg in terms of Poland’s engagement in regional affairs.

Reasons behind Poland's actions

The motivation behind Poland’s assertion of its position has its roots in Poland’s turbulent past. Many Poles still feel a sense of betrayal at the way Poland was dealt with by its allies during and after the Second World War and this, coupled with the cultural memory of Poland’s partition at the end of the 18^th century and the more recent forced membership of the Soviet-bloc, leaves Poland insecure as to its territorial integrity. It is not surprising therefore that successive Polish governments have been so ever-forward in there bid to make Poland a central NATO and European actor.

Tightly connected with this sense of in-security and bid for security reassurances from its allies is the missile defence project first outlined by the US Bush administration. Poland was caught somewhat off-guard by the abrupt cancellation of the project by President Obamma and saw the project along with the stationing of US troops on Polish soil as a way of guaranteeing a US response to aggression by a third party upon Poland. Vice-President Joe Biden during his October visit to Warsaw was therefore doing his utmost to reassure Poland of US military support. This came shortly after the announcement of a new missile project by The Whitehouse. Were Poland to eventually host US troops it would confirm Poland as an important strategic ally for the US. However, it would do little to increase Poland’s own status as a regional power.

Poland's future

The two strung path Poland is trying to tread, one of both military and political dimensions, has both drawbacks and advantages. While expanding its military powers Poland does indeed gain notoriety within the international community. However, the amount of 'hard power' currency that can be gained is at best limited. Poland's economy can not at present maintain the sort of investments that are required of a global actor. Apart from the USA there are only two other NATO members who regularly deploy troops outside of a peacekeeping framework: France and the United Kingdom. These two countries are both members of the economic G8 group and have a GDP far in excess of Poland's. Even on a regional basis, Poland's military would be unable to operate outside of a NATO/coalition setting. This of course does not mean that Poland's efforts are wasted. The modernisation of the Polish military was well over due and the experience gained in foreign operations is invaluable for the men and women of the armed services. It should just be recognised that today's 'strategic partner' can be tomorrow's 'friendly nation'. Were an example of how situations can change easily, the Polish government should look no further than the 'special relationship' between the USA and UK. In 1982 the Falklands Crisis and War highlighted that there are limits to the amount of help that can be given and many in Britain were left aghast at the apparent cold treatment the UK received from its special ally.

Unanswered questions

Politically, a resurgent Poland is able to gain certain advantages such as the op-out clause in the Lisburn Treaty regarding the Human Rights Charter. The question is of course whether such a path can be maintained over the foreseeable future. At present the Polish economy is strong in relative terms and both the governing and opposition parties in the Polish parliament generally support such moves. Poland may not be able to regain the heights of 17^th Century Europe, but it can undoubtedly become a mainstay of both NATO and EU power politics. Poland recognises that to succeed in today's world it must be part of strong organisations. However, that does not mean that it can not put forward its own objectives once in a while.

I have spoken to various Polish soldiers about the subject of Iraq. The majority feel it is not their war. However, Poles remain. When questioned further many respond that Poland is fulfilling their NATO responsibilities, however this gets a bit cloudy when I point out France's refusual to be involved. Many feel that Poland has to some how proove its reliablity and faithfullnes to the US. The question is had this been don to the US's satsifaction? Britain has just announced a significant downscaling of its operations in Iraq. Will this spell the end for Poland too?

Only in America!!

One of the biggest indicators of why diaspora voting should be eliminated comes from our American cousins. Of the 27,000 people registered to vote in the US, 67% of them would choose PiS. As I recently mentioned on Beatroot’s blog, I do not vote in Britain as I feel that to influence the lives of others while not being there is a misuse of the vote. The American’s results I think show that I have a point as they are voting without having experienced the last two years of fear mongering.

A Cristian Europe versus An Open Europe

President Kaczynski - Christianity is the EU foundation

Poland's President Lech Kaczynski, in an article for the tabloid 'Fakt' that: 'The Union cannot build its future with no reference to the centuries old history of Europe and European roots. This is why it is so difficult for us to accept opposition to a reference to Christian values in the preamble to the future Constitutional Treaty.'

The Berlin Declaration is to be signed in the capital city of Germany, as part of events marking the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome and the birth of the EU.

The declaration is to play a key role in drafting the preamble to the bloc's new Constitutional Treaty.

President Kaczynski said that the Union must continue to expand.

"For Poland it is obvious that the European Union, if it wants to retain its dynamics and to count on a global scale – it must be an open union".

On behalf of the bloc's 27 member states, the Berlin Declaration will be signed tomorrow by the German Chancellor, the European Parliament and the European Commission leaders.

Poland's foreign minister Anna Fotyga is on leave and will not take part in the ceremony.

Above taken from www.poland.pl

Are the two points raised by the President of Poland not a little conflicting? If we make Cristianity a fundamental part of the Constitution, then to which countries are we supposed to expand. Is it a good message to send to Turkey, Bosnia and Albania, that yes you can come in, but please remember that we are Christian and we were here first!

Religion, is and has always been a private matter. Jesus himself made this crystal clear when remarking that what is ceasar, render unto ceasar and what is God's render under God.

This mix of politics and religion is the most frightening aspect of the current PiS government in Poland.