Commonwealth War Graves

Commonwealth War Graves at Poznań Old Cemetery

It was, I amid, with some surprise that I noticed a sign to Poznan Old Garrison Cemetery with the subscipt : British Commonwealth Section (1), while driving through Poznan a year or two back. Alas, as with many things in life, my initial intrigue was overtaken by other things and it was only when I noticed a similar sign on the road to Gdansk the other day that I decided to check it out on-line.

(1) Yes I know this is an outdated name and politicly incorrect, but then again most people in Poland are still strugling with the Bombay/Mumbai thing.

When you go on the Commonwealth War Graves Commission webiste you are told this about the Poznan cemetery:

Grave of Lithuanian RAF Pilot

After the First World War, the graves of Commonwealth servicemen who had died in Poland as prisoners of war were gathered together in this cemetery. There are now 174 Commonwealth servicemen of the First World War buried or commemorated in the cemetery. One of the burials is unidentified. Special memorials commemorate one casualty known to have been buried in Czersk Prisoners of War Cemetery, 29 known to have been buried at Szczypiorno Prisoners of War Cemetery and 18 known to have been buried at Pila (formerly Schneidemuhl) Prisoners of War Cemetery, all of whose graves could not be identified. The majority of the 283 Second World War burials in the cemetery are those of airmen, many of whom died in bombing operations on Stettin (now Szeczin). Also buried here are those involved in the mass escape from Stalag Luft 3, Sagan (now Zagan), in March 1944, and others who died while prisoners of war during the German occupation, at Stalag VIIIC, Sagan, Stalag XXID at Poznan, Oflag XXIB (also known as Oflag 64) and Stalag XXIB, both at Schubin (now Szubin). There are also 19 war graves of other nationalities in the cemetery, most of them Polish. The cemetery also contains the POZNAN MEMORIAL commemorating five RNAS armoured car ratings who died near Brezazany in July 1917 and whose graves were never located.

To be honest, until coming to Poland and in fact living here, I did not know much about Poland's First or Second World War history. Everyone of course knows the big stuff such as the Sept. '39 invasion and Britain and France's declaration of war etc... But beyond that most west European's knowledge of Poland's war is limited to the odd character in an otherwise overly British/American war film.

Perhaps its know different, with more east European influnce on the film indusry. But that was definetly the case for anyone who grew up watching repeats of sixties war films :)

This faliure of west Europeans to understand the wars in east Europe is of course indicative of the post-war devide. It is a cruel irony that the so called 'free' west knew actually far less about their European brethren than their eastern counterparts. Growing up in Communist Poland, often meant a thirst for all things western, while those in the west had little interest in all things eastern.

In many ways this was of course encouraged by official government policy: after the war the government wanted to make sure awkward issues of Polish occupation and betrayal were kept out of the general public's attention. It is only in recent years that this subject has been revisted, as illustrated by the resent visit of Polish Foriegn Minister, Radosław Sikorski to the RAF Museum's new exhibit on foreign fighter pilots in the Battle of Britain.

systeMY / systemUS

This is just a short pre-posting in way of a form of advertising. On Friday 20th at 18.00 in Lódź is the grand opening of the much awaited systeMY / systemUS exhibition at Lódź Culture House's 'Galeria Imaginarium' (ul. Traugutta 18).

The exhibition is curated by Mariusz Sołtysik and features four American artists, one Irish artist and one Polish artist. Importantly for me, the Polish one is me wife Ela Wysakowsk-Walters (see Pocket Dictator) hence my pre-posting.

I will of course post a full report after the opening. The exhibition will be open for a further month and so please take the time out to take a look :)

Review of Radosław Sikorski's Speech to Parliament

The Minister of Foreign Affairs 

on 

Polish Foreign Policy for 2011

 I know I've been a bit slow with this one, and generally several English language articles have been already written on the subject, but I though I'd give my own opinion on Minister Sikorski's ideas.

On 16^th March 2011 Foriegn Minister Radosław Sirkorski addressed the combined houses of the Polish parliament. His speech was significant, as he himself remarked upon, in that he is the first post-communist politician to hold the position for a full term of office. Therefore, the address represents a rare continuity in Polish foreign policy, at least in terms of the politicians directing it. I will therefore analyse the speech in order to see whether the official program for 2011 indeed lives up to such a momentous occasions :)

It is important to note that although technically the minister's address, it was undoubtedly both the position of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Government. Not only is Minister Sikorski the only post-communist politician to hold office throughout a whole term, but Civic Platform (PO) are also the only party who has held government for a whole term. This indeed, as remarked upon by Sikorski, is a unique event for Poland and as such his address bears scrutiny.

It is also worth noting that the speech was given just one day before the UN Security Council vote on intervention in the Libyan conflict and three days before airstrikes began. This was a point highlighted by a journalist on the Economist blog where they remarked how there was:

 Almost nothing on the question of whether to intervene in North Africa--surely the most pressing issue of the day. Does Poland agree with Germany and the non-interventionists? Or with Britain and France and the "no-fly zone"? It would be nice to know. Polish diplomacy has indeed never been more solid or more effective. But those are means, not ends.

During the speech Sikorski was conscious of the importance of representing a continuum in Polish policy and made reference to various predecessors of his. To that end he talked of the fact that Poland has rebuilt its state (since 1989) and “made it part of the global democratic architecture.” This reference to a global democratic architecture echoes sentiments by such people as ex-President Aleksander Kwasniewski when he referred to a European Family after the 2003 referendum on EU membership. 

A large part of Sikorski's speech dealt with Poland's image and position in the world. Sikorski stated how the parliament “wants Poland to become a secure and prosperous country, but also one with influence. A serious country. So that we, like Spain or Turkey before us, will be able to regain our bygone prestige.” This is in fact a recurring theme in Polish politics; as Foreign Minister Bronislaw Geremek stated in 1999:

We want and we have to gain among the Allied states a position that will enable us to co-define de facto the Allied strategy and policies in a way that corresponds with our interests, particularly in Central and Eastern Europe. We have the potential to develop our human and economic resources and our pivotal strategic geographic location over the coming years into a position that will rank Poland among NATO's principal member states.

This has an obvious self-esteem motivation. Sikorski clearly states in the following paragraph that the concept involves a country able to fight for the interests of the region and be in a position to give development and humanitarian aide. This ties in well with the idea of “for their freedom and ours”, an ongoing theme in Polish mentality, and allows for the feeling that Poland is a country that stands up for its ideals. 

Both the concepts of community and security are again touched on with reference to the Middle East, where Sikorski illustrates how the situation there “is a test for the common foreign policy that is currently in the making. The European Union must speak with one voice, and all must be heard throughout its neighbourhood.” Sikorski, although speaking at times from a European perspective, does not fail to show the broader community aspect of his policy when stating how Polish experiences of transitions can help others currently undergoing transition. This sense of a dual community is perhaps a common theme; where both the euro-transatlantic and the wider world are seen in communal terms.

Sikorski concludes his address with reference to three key ideas that have guided him during his term in office; those of: reliability, solidarity, and modernisation. 
 

Beginning with the concept of reliability, Poland has made a conscious effort to ensure that it is a reliable security partner for NATO and the EU. Sikorski mentions how Poland has maintained a 1.95% GDP defence budget and this ties in with the sense of being reliable, and again reinforces a postitve of image of self.

Moving on, solidarity is an obvious synonym for community. Sikorski reffers to that fact that solidarity holds a special place with in the Polish psyche and thus it is important to support especially Belarus in its struggles.

Finally, modernisation is perhaps the simplest and most easily discernible. After the period of communism following World War Two Poland was in a poor state compared to its European neighbours. Modernisation is a practical necessity which affects primarily the core desire of security but also self-esteem. While the argument for why modernisation affects security is perhaps redundant, self-esteem need a little more clarification. As part of Sikorski's image of a 'serious country' the minister defines how this includes the concept of a country “whose youth does not emigrate to find work, and whose opportunities attract at least its own diaspora.” At first this looks like a purely economics-related statement, yet in fact it has more to do with self-esteem. Economically a diaspora can be greatly beneficial to any country, further there is no inherent benefit in attracting the diapsora back per se. Any manpower gaps could just as well be filled by other workers (eastern European etc). However, it is a matter of pride that people do not need to emigrate for financial reasons. Thus modernisation will in turn improve living standards and help to keep the youth of Poland and possibly attract returnees.

Overall, the speech of Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski shows a positive side of Polish politics, so greatly missing from the mainstream press. Sikorski took the opportunity to speak of the fact that the present Poland is the best anyone has ever known and people should not be so quick to criticise it, a point I happen to agree with.

 

Poland and Humanitarianism

Recently an old university colleague put on Facebook the statement: "Asylum is a human right". I was very temped to put a sarcastic or ironic comment, but luckily stopped myself from doings so as I'm sure it would just be viewed as cruel and unnecessary.  Why unnecessary? Well her intentions were no doubt good and she has always been a humanitarian and in that I admire her. Yet, her comment displayed a naive view of both International Relations and Philosophy (N.B. we studied International Relations together at university).

The problem which she aptly displayed is that asylum involves the crossing of a political border and the shelter within a third party state. These very terms indicate the constructed nature of each and hence their in-congruent relationship with human nature. Not in-congruent in that humans cannot live with such concepts but rather that from a philosophical perspective these terms: state, asylum, etc, do not match the accepted terms of human nature. We understand human nature as something inherent and innate to humans. Therefore how can an obvious construct such as a state be at the same time instrumental in a human right, that is, Asylum? If a human right is to exist it must pre-date any man-made construct.

This inevitably begs the question as to what extent human rights are universal. To understand this we must first discuss what are human rights. Does a right exist prior to it being legislated upon? My instinct and empathy says yes of course it does. I want to believe that regardless of any written law, there is a basic truth that exists separate to society and legal procedures. Yet philosophically speaking this is very difficult to prove. A very good summary of the problem exists here: 

I am interested in any views as to how this effects the UN's Responsibility to Protect resolution. In order to declare war we must be sure in our minds that such a right exists or else we risk being imperialistic in our actions.To bring this all back into some vague relationship with Poland and the main theme of this blog. Poland entered into two wars in the last decade and in many ways got its fingers burnt. In the future it may be temped to stop interacting on a grand scale altogether; yet if it does this it risks slipping back into the international isolation that existed during the communist era. More concretely though, by not being able to define its humanitarian credentials it risks its domestic ethical ideals. Only through a strong and robust demonstration of beliefs can a country affirm its defining concepts.

 Therefore the extent to which Poland is truly an ethical state will be shown by its foreign policy. So far as proven on the Belarus front, all is looking good :)

Consternation and its casues: the 1997 Constitution?

Recently whenever I have switched on either the radio or TV various "experts" seem to be endlessly discussing the dates of the looming elections in Poland. Is it me or is this just an excuse to fill air-time with drivel?

The Warsaw Voice announced on 2nd March that The PM and President would consult the leaders of the main parties. The phrase: too many chefs spoil the broth, springs to mind. I know that the British system is inherently unfair and the Polish Constitution no doubt allows for a pluralist electoral system etc etc, but I for one am in favour of the Prime Ministrial prerogative that exists in the UK. None of this continuous debate: The PM says May 15th (for example) and the country prepares. Is it so difficult?

 Alas, a lot of the problem lies with the 1997 Polish Constitution which has this to say on the matter:

Elections to the Sejm and the Senate shall be ordered by the President of the Republic no later than 90 days before the expiry of the 4 year period beginning with the commencement of the Sejm's and Senate's term of office, and he shall order such elections to be held on a non-working day which shall be within the 30 day period before the expiry of the 4 year period beginning from the commencement of the Sejm's and Senate's term of office.

Such a strict guideline is bound to create unforeseen problems. A lot of the current debate has been centred around the falling of All Saints Day, which is traditionally a long weekend. People are afraid that many voters will simply not bother turning up to vote.

This is not the first time I have blogged on the matter of problems with the constitution (See Constitutional Crisis?). I am not sure what the prestigious leaders were doing between 1992 and 1997 when the current constitution took affect; but to be honest, my dog could probably have come up with a constitution with less chance of confusion and overlapping competencies.

I am of course not the only one who sees problems in the 1997 constitution as I wrote here. Although I am generally reluctant to side with any codified constitution as it tends to lend itself to dogmatism and entrenched beliefs in outdated ideas (see here), I can see the need in a post-revolution period to have a fresh start. Therefore the 1992 and 1997 constitutions were necessary for the rebirth of Poland; shame the constitution makers did not envision the possible points of clash within their "little baby".

Oh well, perhaps the next revolution will bring a brighter future :) .......

Robbing Peter to pay Paul

The EU has recently put pressure of Poland to ammend its deficit situation and most resonable people would agree that the pension and health insurance system in Poland is a mess. Take the health payments for example. I have a full time job where my employer pays full health and pension contributions. As part of this I am entitled to use any public hospital or doctor in the country. However, I recently opened a private company in order to take a few private students in the evenings. To do this I have to pay 237 złoty to ZUS (the health insurance office) for health insurance. Need I point out the bizzare nature of this? I can have one job and pay once, but if I choose to take more work, I must pay again. My private students do not bring much money and so most months most of my money goes to ZUS.

On the opposite side of the coin are farmers where one farmer pays 300 złoty every three months for everything: health insurance and pension. So I pay for a second unusable bed in hospital nearly the same amount as a farmer pays in three months for all his social care. If this meant that I had superior treatment by the health service, then all very well. Alas, I don't!

The obvious affect is that small businessmen like me are dissuaded from starring a business. Why should I operate legally if most of my money will disappear? This is a serious reason to stay in the grey economy. While PM Tusk argues with PIS about Smolensk (which of course is a serious issue) the economy is going down the toilet.

Polish Beliefs - Język Polskiego - General

If you are a Polish reader of this blog then please take five minutes to complete a short questionnaire about Poland and the world. You can find it here.

Thank You :)

Poland’s Minsk Policy

As Minsk edges further away from the European fold, can Poland entice it back?
Since Belarus’s disputed Presidential elections in December 2010 Poland has dramatically increased its focus on its eastern neighbour. In recent days Poland, along with Lithuania, has dropped the charge for entry visas for Belarussian citizens as well as made it easier for students to study in Poland. These efforts are coupled with cultural support such as BELSAT, a Belorussian language TV station which broadcasts in Belarus.

(Full text avilable on the Baltic Review)

The Latvian Gambit

The following introduction comes from an article I wrote on the Baltic Review

The British politician Harold Wilson once said that “A week is a long time in politics”. For Polish politicians, never has this been truer. At the beginning of the week Poland hosted the Russian first couple with the Polish President meeting the Russian President, Dmitry Medvedev on Tuesday. Bronislaw Komorowski, then went to the USA and met with US President Barack Obama at the White House on Wednesday. In the midst of these two important meetings came new releases from the Wikileaks website concerning NATO contingency plans, which had the potential to embarrass all three presidents.

Click here for more.

The news that never was

Wikileaks has to my mind made a thing of creating expectation prior to the release of the mundane. In its recent batch of releases we learn that Nato has "drawn up classified plans to defend Poland and the Baltic states from Russian attack" and this has led President Dmitry Medvedev to be a bit perturbed in his recent visit to Warsaw.
Yet forgive me for being a bit slow, but is this really news and are the Russians really shocked or just spinning the story for political advantage? Since the Baltic states inclusion in NATO in 2004 a contingency plan has been lacking, for fear of upsetting the Russians. However, this is like the fire brigade not perceiving of the possibility of there being a fire. The fact that a contingency plan is written does not automatically return everyone to their Cold War positions and were they not to write such a plan then they would be failing in their duty as a defence alliance (as in deed they have done since 2004; it could be argued).
The inclusion of the Baltic States in 'Eastern Guardian' is normal pragmatic military planning.

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.