For Poles independence is a given. It is increasingly rare for it to be referred to as a separate and a very valuable quality. Accession to the UE and NATO were to be its ultimate guarantee. Is anyone undermining it?
The 100th anniversary of Poland regaining independence will be celebrated vigorously. We will remember those, through whose efforts - both military and civil - we were once again able to govern ourselves. My grandfather told me, how his parents, when Prussia still ruled over Powiśle, kept repeating these words: "Poland will be once more. Without a doubt." And it was determination such as that which led to our country regaining its identity. Dreams of not bowing down to foreign symbolism. To not swear fealty to foreign authorities, sing alien anthems, attend schools which use somebody else's textbooks, have to travel to Berlin, Saint Petersburg or Vienna instead of Warsaw in order to attend to the most important matters.
For my generation, lack of independence came in a different, less challenging guise. However, at times foreign domination could be seen behind the national façade. We had to watch Edward Gierek award Poland's highest decoration, the Virtuti Militari Grand Cross, to Leonid Brezhnev. A man who stood at the head of a country, which had the blood of tens of thousands of Polish patriots on its hands. That act was so terrifyingly shocking, that all the surviving Second Polish Republic generals laid down their Virtuti crosses as a votive offering on the altar of the Miraculous Image of the Mother of God in Jasna Góra. The 1976 inclusion of the USSR friendship clause in the Polish constitution was a clear sign that independence was virtual. An order from the Kremiln, prohibiting Poland from participating in the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics was also a bitter blow. Bringing back the crown to the Polish eagle, the first free elections and then ousting the Red Army from Poland were all symbolic of Poland clawing back its independence after 1989.
Accession to the European Union and NATO were to be the ultimate guarantee of independence, acting to annul Yalta and signalling a return to Europe. Once we were part of both these organisations, a feeling of satisfaction and fulfilment ensued. We have been admitted to the zone of abundance. One where there is no threat of an invasion from the East.
Obvious independence
Not much was said about independence as a separate, valuable quality anymore. For some, this was obvious, others would play the wise guy and try to conjure up scientific proofs that in today's world no one is truly independent, as the free market transcends borders establishing a world system of interdependencies.
There were no trade barriers in this new world of the West. The UE was a single territory for exchanging goods and services. EU standards were praised. People were looking forward to a better Polish state. With such a mood prevailing, foreign firms entering the Polish media market or the gradually deteriorating condition of the Polish army raised few concerns. Russia enveloped in Yeltsin's alcoholic fumes seemed benign. Then, during the Tusk era, a belief arose that the relations with the East have been reset. The 2008 Georgia episode was ignored. The Erasmus programme, placements within European institutions and grants to study at German universities were welcomed with similar enthusiasm. The older generation, for whom travelling to the West suddenly became possible, saw hope in all of this. In their eyes a new generation was being born, free from complexes caused by Poland's provincialism, one which will introduce an understanding for Polish sensitivity and traditions to the European community.
The EU was referred to as a centralising factor for the lives of its member states predominantly by those publishing in "Najwyższy Czas!" (High Time!). Conservative Catholics, such as Marek Jurek, were another group which was ringing alarm bells. They were arguing that building a "common European home" leads to the imposition of a top-down enforcement of uniformity.
Nevertheless, the were numerous conflicts in international relations. Foreign policy was either in the hands of the Freedom Union or the brighter of the post-communists from Kwaśniewski's camp. And these avoided any controversies with major EU players.
When did the first signs appear that all is not as it seems in the Poland - EU relationship? For me it was the letter from former Ministry of Foreign Affairs' heads in response to the 2006 Weimar Summit cancellation.
I was astounded that when faced with a certain discord in the Polish - German relations, a group of former heads of diplomacy humiliated President Lech Kaczyński, with a public scolding. They were not privy to all the details of the situation at hand, yet they still took sides. That was the first time when it occurred to me that there was a group of politicians, who, when facing a conflict situation, would always side with the EU, scorning all loyalty to the current Polish government.
Foreign oracle
12 years have gone by since my unpleasant surprise in 2006. Any semblance of restraint when it comes to elevating internal Polish disagreements to the international forum have long gone. Grzegorz Schetyna's famous words of January 2016 were the beginning of an obvious attempt to involve Brussels as a side in the fight against the government: "If this pace of conflict continues, then it will certainly spill over onto the streets. And into Europe".
All moderation was thrown out the window. People have appeared in Polish politics, and in particular associated with the opposition, who behave as if though every decision or direction adopted by the European Commission was, at least for them, of overriding importance to the Polish national interests. And it was no accident that Donald Tusk was behind this approach. An individual, who had no qualms when it came to subordinating his second term in office as the Prime Minister to his aspirations associated with European Council Presidency.
In light of this, no one was surprised when Grzegorz Schetyna and other opposition leaders met Angela Merkel at the German embassy. This was reminiscent of the communist era, when dissidents were only able to meet guests from the West within ex-territorial sites occupied by diplomatic facilities of countries from the West. However, the diplomatic efforts of the European Commission, targeted to further the cause of only one party to an internal conflict, was part of a much bigger problem. Suddenly it transpired, that in the event of disobedience with the prevailing EU interpretation, various penal procedures could be triggered, which limit the sovereignty of a member state. Ones which work in favour of one of the sides come elections. That is just what the CJEU ruling, announced hurriedly on the day before the Polish local elections seemed to be. Numerous strings began appearing in the EU system, not seen before, which could be used to painfully reduce the independence of a given country.
Hungarians experienced this, so did Poland, and now Italy is being subjected this painful experience.
Ever since the Northern League and the Five Star Movement have come to power in Italy, the authorities in Rome have been painted as another unruly pupil deserving a detention. Recently the Politico website was wondering how Matteo Salvini, the League's leader, is able to accuse the EU of a hostile attitude to his country, despite a plethora of Italians in top EU posts - Antonio Tajani is the President of the European Parliament, Federica Mogherini is the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Mario Draghi is the President of the European Central Bank. The paradox is only apparent. The entire trio - Tajani, Mogherini, Draghi - is head over heels in the world of Eurocracy and is looking without sympathy at the emancipation efforts made by the incumbent Italian government. It does not matter that Tajani's roots can be traced back to the right wing Forza Italia, as he obediently follows the extremely one-sided treatment of Poland, Hungary and Italy at the hands of Brussels.
The UE has changed into an institution, which behind a façade of joint decision making by representatives of 25 EU member states, almost always sides with Germany, France and the counterculture lobby. This impression of uneven chances is reinvigorating the ever more powerful drive for everything to be decided in Brussels, and thus a systematic curtailment of independence. The fortunate or unfortunate - depending on who you ask - story told by President Duda in Berlin about light bulbs, was the starting point to making people aware of this growing problem, regardless of the noblest justifications various resolutions.
And his question: "So if it is so good in the EU, why did the British opt out" was spot on. After the shocking decision of the British Isles, the EU did not even reflect on the "democracy deficit" process within the community. Rather, a view prevailed, in line with which member states are to be disciplined even more harshly.
Róża - a unfortunate name
Jerzy Giedroyc, during a period when his understanding of what was happening in Poland following the collapse of communism was deteriorating even further, put forward a thesis that two coffins are governing Poland - that of Józef Piłsudski and Roman Dmowski. And that slogan is used repeatedly. Meanwhile the "Prince of Maisons-Laffitte" failed to notice Róża Luksemburg's "ruling coffin". Perhaps he thought that the Marxism which she proclaimed was laid to rest for good. However he failed to notice the power of another train of thought of the revolutionary from Zamość - her disdain for the idea of separate nation states and belief in immense supra-national structures.
Who knows, perhaps if she was not assassinated by Prussian officers, perhaps, over time she would have rescinded from the Marxist ideas in favour of a united Europe based on lay values? With the same disdain for the specific nature of given countries. Many veterans of the 1968 revolt, such as Joschka Fischer and Daniel Cohn-Bendit, as well as their ideological followers, such as José Barroso or Federica Mogherini, have severed their ties with the hammer and sickle but still nurture collectivist values when it comes to Europe.
The alleged counterweight in the form of Christian democrats from the EPP were no counterweight at all over the last three decades. They continued to yield to progressive ideas, at most slightly delaying changes. At that time two simultaneous processes were underway in the EU - an increasing ideologization and enforcement of uniformity within the EU, in line with left wing agenda and a growing, albeit veiled German and French hegemony. Countries which are finding it difficult to conform are either leaving (like Great Britain) or are penalised using instruments available to EU institutions. And all that has little to do with the objectives of the community of European countries, which was established in 1957 under the name of EEC. Now, it is becoming increasingly more obvious that the unification of Germany acted as a caesura. Once again it became apparent that Germany is too small to effectively dominate the continent, but large enough to be in actual control of most EU member states. After two military attempts, Germany has settled to share this role with France. And both countries enjoy the support of progressive forces on account of them adopting the logic of civilizational and moral progress. This inclines progressivists to see Germany as the leading progressive country, just as the USSR was seen in that role in the past. It was the Christian democrat, Angela Merkel, who legalised homosexual marriages and mass migration in 2015. Her merits in terms of maintaining sanctions against Russia do little to change this state of affairs.
And thus today, it is the coffin of Róża Luksemburg which triumphs within the opposition camp and comparing the present conflict to the disputes between Piłsudski's Socialists and Dmowski's National Democrats is entirely unsubstantiated. Neither of those reverted to seeking help in foreign capitals to further their causes during the inter-war period.
And why is it that Poles, despite Euro-pressure both from the inside and the outside, support Law and Justice (PiS) sufficiently for it to be ahead in the opinion polls? Because, as a result of their history, they have been endowed with some kind of seventh sense for detecting attempts to limit their freedom, even if done under the most noble banners. The Hungarians have it, the Brits have it and so do the Italians. Whereas the Dutch, the Belgians or the Portuguese are pretending that this is still a community, where, according to the delusory narrative of the 1980s - "the tiny Luxembourg has as much say as the rich Germany". No one says that anymore.
Four responses to the crisis
What is the response of the Polish elites to this growing independence crisis of EU member states? Broadly speaking there are four responses. The first is the good old Euro-enthusiasm. Civic Platform (PO) politicians are pursuing this in their belief that this is their way back to power. They accept the situation, where the UE is becoming an ever more powerful player on the Polish political scene, as this falls in line with their career paths. They are practically dreaming for political power in Poland to be interchangeably in the hands of a derivation of PO or some leftist force and the Polish People's Party (PSL), which changes with the wind. The recent success in large towns and cities has assured them that they are on the right track. They will head for the next elections under the: "Us or Polexit" slogan.
The second camp are the realists - these mainly operate within the sphere of experts. They are not blind to the growing EU crisis, but are calling for patience and for an acceptance of the balance of power. They are pointing to - and rightly so - the Russian threat as a factor dictating a conciliatory attitude towards Germany and France. They are warning that "Berlin is losing its patience". They are weary of putting all the eggs in USA's basket so to speak, asking what would happen when the Yanks get bored with acting as the policeman on the eastern outskirts of our country. "There is no Union other than the one we have today" - is their motto. Their tactic for the immigration crisis was that of a cunning player - do not say that we will not accept immigrants, but take as few as possible and wait until they run away to Germany, seduced by higher social benefits.
The problem is that their policy fails to take heed of two factors. France is pushing the eastern countries out of the EU on the basis of ideological arguments (growing Fascism, etc.). On the other hand Germany has use for the eastern countries, but do not accept independent governments therein. And that is why they are biding their time until the familiar and easy to control politicians, from Tusk to Schetyna - return to power in Poland. And that is unacceptable for PiS.
And whilst on the subject of PiS, its situation is the most difficult. Pounded with accusations of setting the stage for Polexit, it is doing all it can to demonstrate that it is pro-European. It is not only doing that in light of the opinion polls which show strong support for the EU, but also due its deep rooted conviction. However, the EU it wants is one without a veiled two state hegemony and without an ideological rabidness. And we are not the only ones where this phenomenon is present. Dariusz Kowalczyk recently wrote from Rome: "I had a look through one of the Italian dailies, which is surprised that the majority of Italians are pro-European, but at the same time most support - in its opinion an »anti-European government«. Is it so hard to understand that it is possible to desire a different EU that one tun by Juncker and Timmermans?".
That quote reflects Jarosław Kaczyński's thinking. He had a good reason for distancing himself from the National Front or the AfD - as those are ill-disposed to the EU. PiS may count on one thing - after the elections for the European Parliament, the balance of power in the EU may change and the witch-hunts for the "insubordinate" will be less severe. However, if that does not come to pass, then proponents of an EU exit, such as far-right movements, will receive a major boost. They are already beginning to suggest that PiS is "sucking up" to Brussels. And in return it is being humiliated.
Orbán and Kaczyński, in their defiance towards the Commission, are portrayed as enemies of European integration. It is hard to be more wrong. They are pointing out EU pathologies and absurdities, as they are well aware that brawlers such as Frans Timmermans, Martin Schulz or Guy Verhofstadt are taking the EU towards a stale-mate.
In a 2007 extended interview, Leszek Kołakowski accurately predicted the worrying tendencies of EU's left-wingers. "I think that most people are attached to their national ethnic traditions and would appreciate not having to depart from their national cultures. Resistance to the European Union has been and will be appearing due to fears of losing national sovereignty, and also because of irritation in the face of restrictions and rules imposed on nations by the Brussels bureaucracy. It is with a certain sadness that I look upon the erosion of the idea of sovereignty itself, as it is becoming obvious, that it's downfall is on the horizon. I took the trouble to look through various European agreements. I think I only encountered the word »sovereignty« once, and that was in the context of limiting the sovereignty of EU member states.
This was nine years ago. And our independence is not fairing any better. In actual fact, it is doing worse.
Piotr Semka
source: DoRzeczy