Choosing the rock, not the hard place
Marek Matraszek is the Warsaw director of CEC Government Relations. He can be e-mailed at director@cec.com.pl.
It always feels good to be part of the winning team. And that is undoubtedly how most Polish politicians view their newfound role at the top table of politics in the global order that is rapidly emerging to replace the one formed not only by the post-war environment, but also by what is now increasingly seen as a transitional period in the post-1989 years. For the foreseeable future at least, there is only one show in town: the United States of America. And Poland has decided to be foursquare at her side.
Until the attacks by Al-Qaeda on New York and Washington in 2001, and certainly until the commencement of operations of the U.S. and her allies in the broadly understood war on terror, most Polish politicians - indeed, most politicians anywhere - were settling comfortably into what they perceived to be the New World Order after the collapse of communism. Under this worldview, shared by President Clinton and to a large extent his predecessor, the issue was not so much of leadership but management. Management, that is, of the collapse of communism and the need to bring new democracies into the orbit of global institutions. This was the era of "peacekeeping," humanitarian assistance and multilateralism, of working with international institutions such as the United Nations, OSCE and the European Union. The goal was little more than to ensure a comfortable status quo where the largest problem on the horizon seemed to be a few localized conflicts where the foe was "nationalism," and ethnically inspired insurrections the norm. In other words, containable, and in a way where all democracies could work harmoniously together.
In this purported New World Order, Polish politicians, too, felt comfortable. After all, 1989 had been all about achieving an "End of History" and overcoming the bipolarity of the Cold War. No more nasty, difficult choices. The cozy salons of Brussels beckoned, where the most serious problems were to be those of accession funds and dealing with the occasional populist troublemaker. At the same time, the goal was to gain entry to and strengthen the two key institutions that were perceived as being the guarantors of this trouble-free world: NATO and the European Union, which themselves were to be expanded to take in new members as they "matured" to the not-very-demanding standards of a pain-free international order.
As a British prime minister once sagely pointed out, however, the problem with politics is "events." They can never be predicted, and they have a habit of transforming reality in ways that politicians take time to adjust to. The winners are those politicians who sense this turn of the historical tide and lead their countries and allies into a truly New World Order. That is precisely what has now happened with President Bush, and it is to Poland's credit that it has chosen to follow his lead.
The new American hegemony is a fact of international life, driven by the twin forces of the personal reaction of George W. Bush to the unprecedented attack on America, and the dominance in Washington of advisers and thinkers who have long recognized that the security of the U.S. depends not on multilateralism but on the exercise of military strength to defend America's vital interests. In his influential book "Of Paradise and Power," Robert Kagan describes how Europe has traditionally placed greater emphasis on diplomacy, taken a much longer view of history and problem solving, and has greater faith in international law and cooperation. But when the enemy is terrorism, driven not by a national interest but by an irrational hatred of western civilization, that recipe for exercising influence fails. The strengths that have traditionally been those of the U.S. - the exercise of unilateral force and uncompromising belief in the superiority of the values of western civilization - are now those which are required to reestablish international order.
In choosing to side with the U.S. at this crucial turn in global history, Poland has drawn from its own historical experience as well as a reading of its national interest. That historical experience is precisely that of understanding the failure of international guarantees - whether those of 1939 or 1945 - when faced with an enemy driven by a destructive and totalitarian passion. And it also reflects an understanding that the price for not siding with America means marginalization from global politics, not only in the sense of being isolated from the U.S., but also of becoming a stooge to the self-interests of its so-called partners in Europe, such as France and Germany, because of the growing dominance in Europe of the Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis.
Poland has done well to stand up to the fury of Paris and Berlin at its newfound self-confidence. That anger is driven not so much by annoyance at Poland specifically, but an increasing sense in the capitals of Old Europe that not only is the previous international order dying, their ability to shape the real New World Order is also fast diminishing. Inevitably, coming to terms with that new reality is not easy, and even now there are signs of Polish politicians, especially on the left, having twinges of sentimentality for the vision of consensual, Eurocentric diplomacy.
But like the old order that is rapidly being left behind, they are mere death throes. Poland has made its choice. It has chosen the rock of freedom and security that is the United States, not the hard place of muddle, compromise and failure of utopian European dreams.
Chris Mularczyk will return next week.
