Chinese premier Zhou Enlai (or, if you prefer, Chou En-Lai), when asked what how he thought the French Revolution had affected world history, famously replied "it's too soon to tell".
This was my first thought when David Cameron (Britain's first prime minister to be younger than me) pulled out of the EU's stability pact last Friday. Since then, I've been on Polish TV and radio half a dozen times explaining Britain's semi-detached relationship with the European Union.
Was it a historical moment, akin to Chamberlain's return from Munich? Or will it all blow over? Too early to say. Was Cameron right to walk away from an EU-wide deal? Depends. Will Britain survive economically whilst the eurozone founders? Don't know. Will the eurozone survive whilst Britain flounders? Haven't a clue. For an answer - be prepared to wait a long time.
We really don't know. Too soon to tell.
Let's look at the reality. From the outset, the eurozone project was extremely naive to couple so many disparate economies in a currency union without any thought to fiscal and budgetary convergence. MAYBE it was a German plot to stop the deutchmark from becoming uncompetitively strong, by shackling it to deadbeat currencies like the drachma and the lira. Set the Greeks and other chronic debtors adrift and the northern European remnants of the eurozone will see their currency soar in value like another Swiss franc.
So if the Germans (until very recently the world's No. 1 exporter) want to go on selling their BMWs to America and their machine tools to China, maintaining the easy-living South within the eurozone makes some kind of sense - as long as the cost of doing so doesn't outweigh the advantage of an artificially weaker currency.
So where does Britain fit in all this? Some voices critical of Cameron says he's pandering to the City. OK - it provides employment for a million people and brings in £40 billion in tax revenues. Now, any meaningful pact to shore up the euro should, logically, involve steps to converge the eurozone's taxes. And this is more than likely to involve a Financial Transaction Tax (FTT). Which the City of London fears dreadfully. Given that 75% of all financial transactions in the EU take place in the UK, a tax on them would have the effect of shifting much of the footloose global business to New York or Singapore.
I must say, personally I'm in favour of a FTT. It would introduce a measure of stability to the markets; dealers would have to think twice (shock!) before pressing the 'sell' or 'buy' buttons. And the software behind automated dealing would also have consider this tax in its algorithms. This would moderate the wild swings that affects the global markets from time to time.
An FTT, then, would both smooth out wild vicissitudes and bring in much-needed tax revenues to national exchequers. (As long as they could be trusted to spend them wisely!)
An FTT is one of those Good Ideas In Theory - good in practice only if were to be adopted by the USA and every other market on this planet as well. A level playing field indeed.
The City of London, yes, it's a million jobs - but the UK's manufacturing sector is two and half million jobs (and for the knockers - the UK is still the world's sixth largest manufacturing nation). With around 45% of the UK's exports going to to the eurozone, it's critical to the survival of UK manufacturing that the eurozone does not collapse (or else only the Germans and Dutch will be able to afford things Made in England).
So - anyway, on Cameron, the EU and the eurozone - too soon to tell.
But what about Martial Law, imposed upon Poland 30 years ago today? Too soon to tell?
Well, yes. There are two schools of thought on the day Polish army tanks put an end to the dreams of Solidarity.
1) Had General Jaruzelski not imposed Martial Law, Mr Brezhnev from over the way would have inflicted something far nastier upon Poland (think Hungary 1956 or Czechoslovakia 1968).
2) Brezhnev was washed-up (he'd be dead in 11 months anyway) and his system would implode. One shove - the Polish communist party going for wide-sweeping economic and political reforms - and the Soviet bloc would have crumbled a whole eight years sooner than it did.
I've heard cogent arguments in favour of both scenarios. Intercepts of Soviet signals by NSA purportedly suggesting that a) the Red Army was ready to move in and b) it was not. That the People's United Workers' Party could have a) introduced market liberalisation a la Balcerowicz - and b) that it couldn't. The truth is a messy amalgam of strands of so many factors that it will indeed take 200 years before historians can reach a consensus as to the słuszność (rightness, justness, legitimacy) of General Wojciech Jaruzelski's coup d'etat.
Fewer Poles today believe that Martial Law was 'necessary' to spare Poland from a Soviet invasion than was the case several years ago; as time goes by the spectre of that threat diminishes. Generations who experienced Martial Law - and indeed their children and grandchildren - will have to pass before a clear-headed appraisal can finally be made. My take on Martial Law - Jaruzelski was first and foremost a soldier, conditioned to carry out orders. He had not an inkling of the power that could be unleashed from a society once the shackles of central planning were removed. He had not the vision to do anything other than send in the tanks. He could have done nothing, of course. That would have been an interesting variant - but do please recall that Poland in 1981 was in the throes of the fifth deepest economic depression experienced by any country in the 20th Century.
In the meanwhile, yesterday and today, supporters of Jarosław Kaczyński together with assorted neo-fascists will march up and down chanting "Byłeś w ZOMO, byłeś w ORMO, dzisiaj stoisz za Platformą." In English, so you can appreciate the infantile crassness of this slogan: "You, [Jaruzelski and your communist buddies] were in the Motorised Reserves of the People's Militia, you were in the Voluntary Reserves of the People's Militia, today you stand behind Civic Platform (the majority partner in the ruling government coalition)".
Civic Platform can be accused of lack of boldness when it comes to enacting necessary reforms of public finances, but the party is certainly not the creature of Wojciech Jaruzelski and his cronies. That would in fact be SLD ('Stalin Lenin Dno') - the successor party to PZPR; however it polled but 8% in this autumn's parliamentary elections. Poland today and Poland 30 years ago - what a difference. Let's be thankful for it.
This time last year:
Life without a computer
This time two years ago:
Cheaper by taxi
This time three years ago:
The closest we'll get to the moon for nine years
This time four years ago:
Going underground
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
I was waiting for you to weigh in on the subject (sorry I missed all the tv interviews). I girl can't live on The Economist alone.
Trust all is well.
Basia
@Michael Dembiński
I would have never expected that you would ever choose to use the term of 'fascists' in this context. This is just like myself speaking about the Jews. You don't realize that, do you? Schade!
@ Toyah - Hmmm... you caught me using the word "Fascists" to describe ONR. I must change that immediately. I check. Ah! I wrote neo-fascists. That stands. Nothing to edit there.
There is a version of events surrounding martial law that the pressure actually came from Honneckers East Germany. Under the Soviet "divide and rule" policy no single Comecon country was self sufficient. In particular East German industry was reliant on sub assemblies and parts manufactured in Poland. In addition Poland supplied the Soviet army stationed in East Germany with vast ammounts of food. With Solidarity threatening further strikes the East Germans faced the spectre of their industry grinding to a halt and hungry Soviet soldiers requisitioning food from Germans. There is evidence of the pressure which East Germany and the Czechs (retaliation for Zaolzie in 1938 and for 1968) put on Jaruzleski.
@Michael
Fascists... neo-fascists? Whatever. Both terms, being totally mistified by the langage of today's propaganda, have now become totally meaningless. Like 'love', 'hatred', or 'peace', to mention just a few. There is no point in using them in political debate. You've read Orwell, haven't you?
Some bedtime reading? :) http://mises.org/books/bagus_tragedy_of_euro.pdf
I read an article recently quoting an apparently well known SLD party spokesman saying that "Martial law was not the best decision. But then "S" (Solidarity) was not a troop of angels. It was like today's PiS."
I for one wonder how some people who should know better insist on maintaining a blind spot when it comes to the previous 'status quo', and are impervious to the fact, that not only SLD but many other parties including PO were, and continue to be, 'yes' men. I read recently that a conservative estimate for the number of Russian secret agents in Poland is 1000. How many in other European countries? Put yourself in the shoes of the disenfranchised. Now, I can totally empathise with the revulsion brought on by those who have the temerity to distrust the present PO sponsored 'reality TV-show' (literally given the correct-speak used by most of the press). I can also appreciate that 'The Opposition' is not particularly gifted with finesse in some of its politic, but it should not surprise anyone that having shouted 'Wolf' for so long, PiS are a, ignored and b, still trying to get their message across. Crass chants? Perhaps. Wrong or immaterial? Perhaps not? Certainly, a far right wing element has identified itself with pro sovereignty and anti PO sentiment, but it is, in my humble opinion, perfunctory, disingenuous, and disqualifying to smear PiS with a fascist epithet.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, from what I read, the cost of saving the Euro is small when compared with the losses that would be incurred with it's downfall. I wish them luck if that's true but I'm a bit concerned at the voting parities and the precedent set in terms of 'losses and gains' of national democracy'. Summing up, i don't trust the bastards :)
p.s. shouldn't Poland be trying to invest in LFTR reactors? Shouldn't everyone?
Well what would you call other than neo fascist a party whose members openly support football hooligans, breaking of the law, dividing citizens into true Poles and non Poles use every opportunity to denigrate achievements which are numerous and whose answer to any oposition within its ranks is expulsion and not dialogue. WAKE UP
@Andrzej K
I don't know much about parties who, as you say, openly support football hooliganism, but I think I would call them Football Hooligans Party.
As far as breaking the law and dividing citizens is concerned, I would call such a party Platforma Obywatelska.
And one more thing: if "denigrating numerous achievements" of the ruling party is fascism, taking into consideration what PO did between 2005 and 2007, I would call it Platforma Faszystowska.
I wake up every single day. How about you?
A word to my readers - please note that AdTheLad, Andrzej K and I were all in Błękitna Trójka Polish scout troop in West London in the 1970s. We went to Polish school and Polish church there - and despite the similarity of backgrounds - such different views once we've settled here in Poland!
@AndrzejK - "Well what would you call other than neo fascist a party whose members openly support football hooligans, breaking of the law, dividing citizens into true Poles and non Poles use every opportunity to denigrate achievements which are numerous and whose answer to any oposition within its ranks is expulsion and not dialogue." - Complete and utter rubbish - but you do the leg work in order to find the truth, because I can assure that, if you're bothered, you will find it.
I will add though that it might be difficult to find it though if one is not prepared to be analytical. Take for example the question of who is a real Pole. Is he one who helped Jews or resisted the Ruskies for example or the one who collaborated? Well obviously they're both real Poles - trouble is, some might use the former to caricature the Polish nation and some might use the latter.
The whole premise of Pis dividing Poles is political PR 'New Speak' - distorted quotes, to divide Poles and accuse of fascism. Fair game some might imagine but, whatever you thinks of the means don't confuse it with the truth.
When considering Jaruzelski's choice, look back on his past - during WWII he worked in labour camp in Siberia, lost his father and injured his eyes there. He knew the empite of evil inside out, knew what it was capable of and knew that Poles, unlike Czechoslovakians in 1968, would put up resistance. And this would result in huge bloodshed.
The case is, whether Brezhnev-run Soviet Union would let Poland leave the Warsaw Pact and reject dependence from the Soviet Union. If the answer is that Soviets would let us go, as Gorbachev did, Martial law was a crackdown on sparks of freedom. But if Soviets were to run out of patience if counterrevolution had spun out of control, we should be grateful that Solidarity was wiped out with Polish, not Soviet hands.
Post a Comment