R
eading the European and American press it’s hard to belive we were all at the same NATO summit in Strasbourg/Kehl/Baden Baden/wherever.
The British and American press are sceptical about the summit’s results, particularly on Afghanistan.
”With protesters raging outside, NATO leaders on Saturday gave a tepid troop commitment to President Obama’s escalating campaign in Afghanistan, mostly committing soldiers only to a temporary security duty”, writes the ”New York Times”. The British press seconded it. ”The Independent” was perhaps the most entousiastic among UK papers and even it said: ”Yesterday’s deal temporarily to supply up to 4,000 non-US/UK troops was welcome, but hardly enough”.
This is in contrast with the French press, which went on and on about NATO unity as France is rejoining the military structures of the Alliance. I half went along that line in my story on Friday in ”Gazeta Wyborcza” saying that the Alliance put on a great show of unity.
This is not the first time I am writing about the Anglo-Saxon press being much more sceptical about the results of summits (EU, NATO or others) than the continental papers. Could it be that we continentals regularly get fooled by all the talk, while the Brits and Americans count the soldiers or euro (depending what kind of summit it is)?
In addition to this, some of us saw a different story altogether. The Turks are going on about what they got or didn’t get in exchange for finally supporting Rasmussen for NATO secretary general.
From what I hear the Italian papers are full of descriptions of how Berlusconi postponed Merkel. He talked on the phone with the Turkish prime minister, instead of greeting the chancellor and walking across the bridge with her.
And the Poles? Well, it’s so shameful I am tempted NOT to tell you. But here goes the ugly secret:
We had another spat between the president and prime minister. President Kaczyński was at the summit and he supported Rasmussen’s candidacy from the outset. Prime minister Tusk claimed Kaczyński didn’t fulfill the governments instructions, because the government wanted to support ”another candidate” (but who??). Kaczyński shot back that there were no instructions, only two sentences from the foreign minister on the plane to Strasburg ”between jokes”, and anyway that he is the president, so the word ”instructions” was highly inapropriate.
The government finally produced something like instructions. The idea was to postpone our agreement in hope of negotiating some senior NATO posts or something, and to show Poland was not happy that it was not even consulted before the big guys announced they support Rasmussen.
The Polish journalists were the object of furious anti-Kaczyński spin by the government since the early hours of Saturday (yes, although I am not a fan of Kaczyński I think the government overdid it this time; even if they had a different negotiating strategy what was the point of revealing it AFTERWARDS?).
Both sides suggested not so subtely that the other side (that is the president and one of the ministers present at the summit) were drunk on Friday evening. Kaczyński suggested Tusk should not show up at their meeting with Obama on Sunday. But finally it looked like they made it through the 35-minute conversation with the American president in peace.
What a great achievement of Polish diplomacy.
#1 by Andrew Rettman on April 13th, 2009 - 3:20 pm
Much as I dislike Mr Kaczynski – especially his soporific, condescending way of speaking – I think he was in the right this time. What could Poland have gained from pretending to veto in favour of a non- candidate. Was this spat not just a case of Mr Sikorski trying to use any opportunity to settle old scores?
It’s a bit worrying though that Russia has effectively been given a veto over Nato expansion and appointments. Surely there are better ways to improve relations with Moscow. At this rate, I don’t see any of the old Communist countries getting a top job in Europe – a situation that could help perpetuate old tensions and Cold War-type politics.
#2 by Kazimierz on April 13th, 2009 - 11:56 pm
Andrew Rettman wrote: “It’s a bit worrying though that Russia has effectively been given a veto over Nato expansion and appointments.”
In what sense? Any specifics so we can comprehend it better?
#3 by andrew rettman on April 14th, 2009 - 10:14 am
hi kazimierz. nice to see you again. i was thinking of french defence minister herve morin’s comment last month that georgia and ukraine MAPs “cannot be decided without speaking to our Russian neighbour.”
i also picked up on the newswires that france and germany ruled out sikorski because a post-communist appointment would antagonise russia.
#4 by Kazimierz on April 14th, 2009 - 4:35 pm
hi andrew,
so talking to Russia, or taking its opinions into account, is equivalent to “effectively giving Russia a veto power”.
thanks for such a clear description of your subconscious attitude to Russia. and for implying that it was Russia that blocked the appointment of sikorski. that powerful Russia ruling nato.
#5 by gianfranco on April 16th, 2009 - 1:56 pm
un ugly article by a journalist of an ugly paper (gazeta wyborcza) known in Poland as pro-general Jaruzelski and communist secret police chief general Kiszczak, both known as the perpetrators of the martial law crimes and both declared by the paper’s director Adam Michnik “men of honour”, and generally pro-former communists and secret agents, and histerically anti-Kaczynski and anti-”lustration” (the process of liberating the Polish public life of the influence of the communist secret police agents).
no more comments needed.
#6 by Jay on April 20th, 2009 - 2:22 pm
Gianfranco, are you implying that many thousand Poles who regularly buy the newspaper and/or read it online, effectively making it the most widely read non-tabloid newspaper in Poland, are all traitors and have no sense of decency? Please do not offend us. We are simply tired of the never ending feuds and fighting over the past – it’s time to go forward, forgive and forget. Younger generations (and fortunately many representatives of the older ones too) no longer see the need for vengeance on people who are now very old (average age 83 as I found out today) and feeble. We do not want to be cruel. Do you? Are you a sort of a person who would kick a dog or a person who’s already lying down on the ground, as the Polish saying goes? I hope not! Everybody has a right to their own convictions, if you want to read Rzeczpospolita or Nasz Dziennik, enjoy, and we are not going to comment on that either.
#7 by Adam on April 24th, 2009 - 4:35 pm
I think it is good our candidate Sikorski has not been chosen. It would make Polish Government to “slide” more into US than now and they would take everything America tell them to take and do. (missile defense system). The funniest thing is that our Government always count on Visa Waver Program for us. This is good they try, and good luck. Hungarians don`t do anything and have visa free travel to US, the same with Slovakia, Slovenia. So stop doing what big brother ask and we may be finally in the program.
#8 by Irish on June 23rd, 2009 - 12:41 am
I do not like much as Mr Kaczynski – especially its soporific, condescending way of speaking – I think he was right this time. What can you claim to have benefited from Poland to veto a non-candidate. This argument was not only a case of Mr. Sikorski trying to use every opportunity to settle old scores?