Poland Watch

President of Poland signed Lisbon Treaty

Gambling affair: the great triumph of Donald Tusk

The recent scandal involving top politicians from the ruling party, Civic Platform, had a potential to uproot its popular support and grant victory in the next elections to its opponents. But a way of defusing the affair may be shown as an textbook example of solving political crises.

Let us start from the beginning. After the 2005 elections the triumphant Law and Justice established a new governmental agency – Central Anticorruption Bureau (Centralne Biuro Korupcyjne – CBA) – in order to pursue one of the most explicit goals of party agenda. As the PiS chairman and mastermind Jaroslaw Kaczynski proclaimed, Polish politics and economy has been dominated by the so-called uklad (“deal”) – vast network of informal and illegal connections with mafia and corrupt security agencies which hindered the national development. CBA, led by staunch anti-Communist Mariusz Kaminski, started to fight with that ephemeral notion, gaining controversial and rather mixed results.  Nonetheless, after the new elections in 2007 and victory of more liberal Civic Platform the new prime minister Donald Tusk decided to retain Kaminski at his post, feeling his zeal would discipline other politicians from his party, who could potentially hinder Tusk’s support and dream about the presidency. The Bureau kept a rather low profile in the last years, being occupied mainly with arresting fraudulent football players and referees.

Logo of CBA

The dubious activities of CBA under the Law and Justice government  came however under judicial scrutiny as one of local prosecutor offices decided to file charges against Kaminski for his actions regarding minor coalition parties of that time. Just when the Bureau’s director was to be charged with misuse of powers and interrogated by the prosecutor, the right-wing paper Rzeczpospolita which has been sympathizing with Kaczynski for several years printed recordings from another CBA’s operation, this time related with the so-called gambling bill. The proposed novelization of the law regulating gambling business in Poland, lobbied for by entrepreneurs from that industry, could, according to the Bureau, seriously hurt Polish public finances. And the published records proved without a shadow of doubt those businessmen convinced to lobby in their name some politicians from the core of ruling party: chairman of the Civic Platform parliamentary caucus Zbigniew Chlebowski and minister of sport Miroslaw Drzewiecki.

What is more, conversation between them suggested that eminence grise of the government, the immensely powerful deputy PM Grzegorz Schetyna might also be involved. The media and the opposition had a feast unknown in years. The first for a long time scandal involving top ruling policymakers encouraged their political opponents and pundits to cast serious doubts on the future of the government and the ruling party itself. Tusk and Schetyna disappeared from the public view. Chlebowski and Drzewiecki tried to defend themselves on their own but those attempts were disastrous. Both the left- and the right-wing opposition called for formation of special parliamentary committee which would clarify the matter and bash Civiv Platform from all its might. Civic Platform was initially seen as unable to react quickly. But the time has proven that approach was right.

Donald Tusk, the prime minister of Poland. Author: Sebastian Zwez. Lic. Creative Commons Attribution Deutschland 3.0

After some time taken for reflection Tusk did not hesitate to act decisively and cut big names from his surroundings. Chlebowski and Drzewiecki, still reassuring about their clean intentions, submitted their resignations. As the situation progressed, the PM reacted accordingly. Deputy minister of economy Adam Szejnfeld, who was most likely also interested in changing the bill, was as well asked to leave, despite attempts of his superior Waldemar Pawlak. The same fate met minister of justice Andrzej Czuma whose unconditional support for Drzewiecki and Chlebowski cast doubts about the impartiality of judicial system in solving the case. Last but not least, Tusk decided to finally fire Kaminski who, while being interrogated by the prosecutor, in his uncompromising stance publicly accused the prime minister of paralyzing the Bureau’s activities.

By these decisions Tusk  achieved everything he could. Firstly, he placated the public by giving what it demanded – punishment for those involved. Secondly, quick pace of decisions reinforced the image of a man who is not afraid of taking dramatic decisions if necessary and protected him from all the stain that can come out in the next weeks or months. Thirdly, by simultaneously dismissing Kaminski, Tusk could present him as the source of all evil, which promptly he did.

But the true example of political mastery is resolving the situation of Schetyna. Tusk’s closest accomplice was indeed removed from government but under completely different conditions than that of Chlebowski or Czuma. Schetyna, officially proclaimed by Tusk to be clean, is to replace Chlebowski as the chief of caucus and supervise the establishment of special committee, which is for now also supported by Civic Platform. This solution does not diminish Schetyna’s status (after all he is a man who does not need formal position to have power) and allows the party to gain control of a tool which otherwise would be used against it. The committee won’t be able to force Tusk or Schetyna to testify when the latter will be its chairman and its activities will most likely end with the conclusion Drzewiecki and Chlebowski acted alone.

Changes in government also require new names to replace the old ones and also in this context Tusk showed real political cleverness, considering Wlodzimierz Cimoszewicz as the replacement for Czuma. Inclusion of Cimoszewicz, well-known, very experienced  and popular left-wing politician in the government would boost its ratings and in the same time helped the PM to pacify perhaps his most serious rival in the 2010 presidential elections. If this affair did not stop Tusk on his way to the Presidential Palace, nothing will.

Maciej Jozefowicz  

Under the new Polish law Polanski would be castrated

Both Polish and abroad media are still abuzz with Roman Polanski's case. The famous Polish director, citizen of France, was arrested last Saturday in Switzerland in connection with sex charge.

"The Academy Award-winning director pleaded guilty in 1977 to a single count of having unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, acknowledging he had sex with a 13-year-old girl, but fled the United States before he could be sentenced. U.S. authorities issued a warrant for his arrest in 1978." (CNN).

Roman Polanski (source: Guardian.co.uk)

Many Polish politicians and artists decided to speak up for Polanski:

Lech Walesa, former president, refers the case using catholic discourse: Polanski is a great person, he has done much for Poland and world. He might have sinned. If he had, then forgive him this one sin (Gazeta.pl).

Radoslaw Sikorski, Minister of Foreign Affairs also calls Polanski's crime a sin: I think that everyone who admires his films just like I do, shares my opinion that when you sin you might get a free pardon (Gazeta.pl). 

Krzysztof Zanussi, filmmaker, was interviewed by journalist Monika Olejnik and blamed the 13-year-old, outraging many people: 

Krzysztof Zanussi: If Polanski wasn't famous, then the fact, that over thirty years ago in Los Angeles, which is the city of particularly easy virtues, he decided to have services of the underage prostitute, cause that might be what had really happened...

Monika Olejnik: No! She was a 13-year-old girl who wasn't a prostitute. Money wasn't concerned, so it wasn't a prostitution.

Krzysztof Zanussi: In this world a whole lot of things is done not for money, but to get famous, to make a career. I think Polanski made a mistake (...) I don't believe in innocence of the victim. She didn't seem to be there accidentally (Gazeta.pl).

Bogdan Zdrojewski, Minister of Culture points out that Polanski didn't have a fair trial: We can't forget that the victim has forgiven Polanski and stated clearly: it wasn't a rape. At the beginning of eighties I was very interested in philosophy of law and American law, and even then it was a common opinion, that Polanski avoided the legal lynch in court: the jugde wasn't acting fair (Gazeta.pl).

Donald Tusk, Prime Minister seems to be more distanced: None of us would like to see Roman Polanski going to prison, this is obvious. But I don't think we should perceive the things that are going on as a particular tragedy or harm. A serious crime had been commited and it was well known that in these matters Americans are consequent and pretty ruthless (Gazeta.pl).

The Polanski's case is by no means simple. It raises a lot of questions of political, moral and legal nature. Opinions in Poland are much more polarized and divided than mainstream media discourse might show. Some people admit Polanski did wrong but want him to be immediately released. Some argue that nobody should be above the law. The polarization is clearly visible in the internet. There is a Polish petition on Facebook demanding release of Polanski, signed by Oscar winner Andrzej Wajda and other known Polish artists. The opinions of Polish Facebook users are divided: almost four hundred declared to support the petition, still over three hundred declared to be against it.

But there is one thing most of them could probably agree with: over thirty years ago Polanski did wrong, but he deserves a fair trial. Yes, Polanski have had sex with 13-year old girl (and admitted it), but yet he didn't have a fair trial as even Superior Court Judge Peter Espinoza in Los Angeles says there was "substantial misconduct" in the handling of the original cast (Associated Press).

The biggest irony of the moment of Polanski's arrest is the fact, that a few days earlier the lower house of Polish parliament approved legislation that would make it obligatory to chemically castrate offenders who rape children under 15 (Taiwan News). The bill still needs approval from the upper house and president, but if it was in force and Polanski would have commited the crime in Poland, he would have been castrated. Now, some of the members of the government which proposed the bill want Polanski to be forgiven for committing the very same crime. Apparently life isn't as simple as preparing the bill.

Anna Dryjanska 

It's 3 AM and Obama calls Tusk

Do you remember Hillary Clinton "3 AM" tv ad? President Obama was trying to inform Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk about cancellation of the missile interceptor using his very own “3 AM” call.

One of the most iconic and memorable moments of the primary battle between Barack Obamaand Hillary Clinton, which was fought in the first half of 2008 was the unleashing of the so-called 3 AM tv ad by Clinton campaign. 

In this ad, Clinton campaign indirectly accused Obama of being too inexperienced to defend America in the time of international crisis. Clinton was the “tested” candidate with enough skill and knowledge to make the right call (no pun intended) in the middle of the night. Some commentators said that the ad was the reason why Clinton prevailed in Texas and Ohio primiaries.

The ad was spoofed multiple times by You Tube users and professional comedians. But perhaps the biggest irony of the cancellation of the missile interceptor base in Poland, which was announced on 17^th Septembers was the fact, that President Obama was trying to inform Tusk of his decision using his very own “3 AM” call to Polish Prime Minister. 

Barack Obama (source: Black Christian News)

The call from Obama was placed but Donald Tusk declined to take it. He also did not want to talk with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton rejecting the call on “protocol grounds.”

It’s hard to say why these calls were attempted at that particular hour. After all, there was no true crisis involved with missile shield. Rumors of the cancellation were circulating weeks before president Obama announced it formally. There was no rush to call Prime Minister in the middle of the night. But nevertheless the calls were placed. Another theory explaining the odd behaviour of American diplomacy is focused on leaks in US press – it is possible that White House officials have learned that on the next day press will carry the story of the cancellation and decided to pre-empt the news. 

Regardless of the true reason of the late night timing, Polish PM and his advisers decided that it will be best not to take it. Possibly they were thinking that accepting this call would be a sign of weakness and subservience to US interests and needs. Possibly Tusk wanted just more time to prepare his negotiating position – if there was any position at all.

But the news on that Thursday morning regarding the call and mixed signals coming from the Tusk advisers signaled that, in fact, presidents have take into account that their 3 AM  calls are not only tests of their ability to manage crisis and confusion. They also signal the fact that US can still very easily create disarray even among their own allies, and after years of missile shield indecision and negotiations in it is in the best  interest of both Poland and the US to avoid it at all cost. 

Michal Kolanko

Poland might not see NATO as a workable guarantee of its security

Barack Obama’s announcement of scrapping down anti-missile shield system elements from Czech Republic and Poland was no surprise. It was just not an appropriate date for such a decision, as September 17^th is known in Poland as a blow in the back from the Soviet Union during Poland’s fight against Nazi Germany in what happened to be a start of WW2. America’s message came precisely at the 70^th anniversary of Soviet assault. However, it could be of no significance, if the general perception of Washington’s decision was not the one that Russia has achieved a great victory.

Russians criticized anti-missile shield from the very start and this project helped in deteriorating relations between United States and Russia under Bush administration. Moscow’s arguments were mostly of military nature, as the missile shield was supposedly a threat to Russia’s security and directed against strategic missiles it possess. Moreover, American project was advanced unilaterally, after withdrawal of United States from Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (or ABM) of 1972. Russia could not accept missile defense also because of two reasons. Firstly, America ignored Russian concerns, and it is worth reminding that Moscow is very wary of being treated with due respect, as it views itself as a great power. Secondly, although it was not claimed publicly, Russia viewed locating elements of the anti-missile system in Czech Republic and Poland as an incursion into its sphere of influence.

Extra security ties

According to the latter, governments in Prague and Warsaw in fact wanted American presence on their soil, rather than being enthusiasts of the anti-missile project. Why Czechs and Poles, members of EU and, more importantly, NATO, felt the need of extra security ties with world’s sole superpower? Probably they do not see the Transatlantic Alliance as workable guarantee of their security and sovereignty. Although ten years since their accession to NATO has passed, no plans of defending these countries, as other new members of the alliance, were prepared. If we add the perception of weakness of NATO and its soft attitude towards Russia, we have almost complete view of the situation. A lacking puzzle is the happiness at the Kremlin after president Obama announced his decision concerning anti-missile shield.

Well, it would be very easy to call a spade a spade and say that America traded missile shield with Russia. Some commentators argue that president Medvedev’s denial of such a ‘primitive trade’, as he described it to the media, is a de facto admission that abovementioned deal was done. Such thesis got support from Obama’s own strategy of ‘resetting’ relations with Russia and securing its cooperation in dealing with issues such as Iran and North Korea’s nuclear programs, Afghanistan and war on terror and strategic arms reductions. Resigning from still virtual anti-missile shield for defrosting relations with Russia should be viewed as a good deal, notwithstanding that United States alone cannot achieve a success on all these fronts.

American trouble, European fear

What is troubling in American withdrawal from anti-missile shield is fear in Central and Eastern Europe that Washington is showing a desinteresment in the region, selling it as a whole to Russia. If United States agreed to recognize Russian sphere of influence in its former satellite states, it would be very damaging. Acceptance of Russia’s balance-of-power rhetoric and strategic thinking would mean weakening NATO and newly-independent nations formed after collapse of the Soviet Union. Moreover, Eastern Europeans could lose confidence in the United States and feel obliged to surrender to future Russian demands or influence.

In my personal view, Poland and Czech Republic in particular, and the region in general, shall not believe in the worst scenario pictured above. Obama’s decision, although announced in a very bad moment, was made after months of analysis and rethinking of American anti-missile strategy. In fact, Washington changes, not resigns from anti-missile defense. United States wants to deploy other system, based on Aegis warships and designed to intercept short and medium-range ballistic missiles. US Secretary of Defense Mr. Robert Gates said that previous intercontinental missile system would also be developed as a back-up for primary one. However, it should be viewed as an important change in American grand strategy as both systems combat different kinds of threats. Obama gives a hand to Russia and cuts costs at the same time.

Declaration of interest

Before any applause could be heard, American president should seriously consider his attitude towards a region his administration has so far neglected, Central and Eastern Europe. Although I do not believe in any trade offs and giving Russia a free hand in its so-called ‘near neighborhood’, there is a need for a clear signal confirming Washington’s interest in the region. It cannot be treated as a buffer-zone between Germany and Russia, as the Kremlin would like it to be.

Commenting Obama’s decision Polish prime minister Donald Tusk said that he sees a chance for Poland obtaining an ‘exclusive position’ in relations with America. Such optimism is rather exaggerated as Poland would not become an Israel upon Vistula. However, it would be a mistake of Washington to ignore major pro-American country in a generally anti-American Europe. Not only shall Obama make a gesture towards US allies in the region, he should also reinvigorate NATO and allay our concerns about security and certainty of commitments under Article V of treaty establishing the Alliance. It doesn’t seem too much, but would be very helpful.

Piotr Wolejko