Referat prof. Kazmierskiego . Wersja MS Word na stronie http://groups.yahoo.com/group/kwp/files/ Poland's concerns in the wake of joining the European Union Tomasz J Kazmierski, August 2002 Negative balance - what happened to 'europaradise'? The Vienna Institute for International and Economic Studies predicted early this year that the impoverished Poland, after joining the EU, would be a net payer into the Community budget. The Vienna Institute's finding was confirmed by the Government Centre for Strategic Studies in Poland, which estimates that Poland during her first year of membership would be at best 300mln euros out of pocket. In this context, the recent announcement of the EU Budget Commissioner, Ms Michaele Schreyer, sounds particularly worrying. She stated that the size of Poland's contribution to the EU budget must be no less than 2.5 to 3 bln euros per annum. In the simplest terms, if such a sum, which represents some 7-8% of the national revenue, was diverted into the vast treasure chests of the European Commission, Poland's strangulated economy would have to die. How could this be? Where are the scores of cheerful 'experts' and 'economical specialists', both in Poland and elsewhere in Europe, who in the early 90s were painting the glorified and rosy vision of a 'europaradise'? Billions of deutschmarks, francs and pounds were to flow into the Polish economy. The EU was to help Poland build roads, factories, educate the youth and create a global communication infrastructure. The open markets and free trade were to bring enormous profits. Everybody would be able to work anywhere in Europe and earn enormous salaries. Where are the advocates of those blissful prophecies now? In the 1980s Poland enjoyed a surplus trade balance with the European Community, which in the 1990, the first transition year, was equal to approximately 1 bln euros. However, the Treaty of Association with the European Union signed by Poland in 1991 had exposed Polish markets to an uncontrolled influx of heavily subsidised EU goods and services. The trade balance went immediately into the red. In 1992 Poland acquired a 1 bln euro deficit, which grew in 1993 to 2 bln euros and in 1996 reached 7 bln euros. The Polish government remained totally subservient to Brussels' will. Not only it did not counter grossly unfair measures such as the prize dumping policies, but kept agreeing to further relaxation of the asymmetrical trade barriers to help the EU imports. Similar tendencies occurred in other Associate Member countries. Hungary went from a small trade deficit of 370 mln euros in 1992 to a large deficit of 2.2 bln euros in 1998. The Czech and Slovakian 49 mln euro deficit in 1990 grew to 4.8bln euros in 1996. The trade deficit is directly related to the number of jobs lost. According to the Parliamentary Office For Studies and Expertises in the Sejm (Lower House of Polish Parliament), Poland's unemployment increased in 1997 by 355,000, in 1998 - by 403,000 and in 1999 by 357,000. The total loss of Polish jobs due to the 'liberalization' of trade with the EU exceeded, by the end of 2002, the staggering figure of 1.5mln. The total trade deficit with EU for the period 1990-2002 has exceeded 65 bln euros. Polish industry turns out to be a threat The trendiest term, that seems to be omnipresent in the Polish political and economic speak, is "restructurization", a new word hitherto absent from dictionaries. Restructurization, in the wake of joining the EU, is supposed to make the Polish economy 'compatible' with that of the more established members of the Community. It is not difficult to imagine how such 'compatibility' should be achieved according to Brussels' minds. As a direct result of EU pressure, the very competitive Polish coal mining industry only in one year of 2002 has reduced its output by 36mln tonnes, which represents a third of its total production. The number of jobs lost this year in Polish coal mines will exceed 48,000. Brussels also does not seem to like very much the Polish steel industry. According to the EU programme of "Restructurization of the Polish Steel Industry" agreed with the Polish government in 1999, the Polish steel works, another potential competitor for the heavily subsidised EU steel corporations, will, by the end of 2003, reduce its crude steel output from the current level of 7.7mln tonnes per annum to 1,8mln tonnes with a loss of 50,000 jobs. However, the scale of destruction planned for the Polish farming industry exceeds everything that is being done to coal mines, steel works and chemical factories. In November 1998, "The Independent" estimated that 50% to 70% of all farms in Poland will disappear. Polish national press more and more frequently reports disaffected views of the owners of efficient, large production farms equipped with modern hi-tech infrastructure. They are afraid more that small, subsistence farmers, because they cannot operate without bank loans and large, long term government contracts. It is now officially known that farmers in the new member countries will receive in the first year no more than 25% of what their EU colleagues get. The Agriculture, Rural Development and Fisheries Commission run by Mr Franz Fischler also insists that Poland should adopt food production quotas so severe, that the total output of food industry would become less than the country's internal demand. Not surprisingly, Brussels' concept that Poland should become a net importer of food appears to be quite novel and rather less than appealing to any Polish farmer, large or small. Mr Marian Brzoska, the vice-director of the European Bureau of FAO and a secretary to the European Agriculture Commission, said in an interview for Gazeta Wyborcza published on 7 February 2002, that Poland "by degrading her own agricultural industry over the past 12 years, gave the EU a present; Poland has reduced its agricultural land by more than 2 mln hectares, the cattle stock - by about 3 mln cows, and sheep stock - twelve fold. The EU countries transfer from Poland annually 4 bln euros of financial profit while the size of EU help does not exceed several hundred million euros a year." In June 2002, M. Smith i J. Reed stated in a Financial Times article that farming subsidies help Western European farmers to undercut the competition on the Polish food market. As a result Poland suffers a $500mln annual deficit in the agricultural trade. Prof. Elzbieta Kawecka-Wyrzykowska, an economist, estimates in her book that the combined loss due to the EU-enforced reduction of coal, steel and farming industries will reach 2 mln jobs. She also estimates that, should Poland join the EU, unemployment will continue growing at rate of 1.6% per annum. On 16 June 2001, Frankfurter Allgemaine Zeitung published the following words of Michael Ludwig "The EU surplus in the trade with Poland, and specifically the surplus of Germany, is big. This means that Germany has been able to secure dozens of thousands of jobs due to its trade with the East. The eastern markets are already open for Germany, while the EU markets remain shut for Poland." As if that was not enough, Poland has been forced to agree to a 7-year moratorium on free movement of Polish labour force. This means that while EU citizens will be able to freely undertake employment in Poland from the day Poland joins in, Polish workers will not have an equal right to apply for jobs in the EU. Concern over land The myth of alleged Polish-German reconciliation after the collapse of the Berlin Wall was very short lived. Polish weekly Wprost reported on 12 April 1992, that Mr Heinrich Weiss, leader of German Industrial Union, shared candidly his idea of future relations with Poland in these words: "Poland must start paying her debt interests, which Poland is not doing; Poland must also implement austerity measures and keep her prices and wages low. Only then Poland will become attractive to German investors." According to this stunning announcement by a prominent German industrialist, Poland would have to remain forever a slave of developed countries. Two years ago, when Polish several building and transport companies operating in Germany lodged complaints against unfair business practices, Prime Minister Mr Jerzy Buzek wrote a personal letter to Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder asking the Chancellor to look into the matter. Mr Buzek's letter remains unanswered to this day, In this context, the border revision and property ownership claims against Poland and Czech Republic voiced with a growing force in Germany must be treated with the utmost seriousness. Jaroslaw Kaczynski, a former minister and prominent political figure, has admitted in a recent interview that the status of land ownership in Western Poland has not been cleared with the EU. He was worried that, when Poland joins then EU, European courts might be used to forward German property claims against Polish citizens and the Polish state. The voices of concern have been fuelled by the fact that the present government of Leszek Miller has recently backed down on the previously agreed transition periods after which foreigners will be able to freely buy agricultural land. According to the new formula, there will be no transition period for sale of non-agricultural land to foreigners. To understand the Polish concern over land, it is important to fully realize the size of contested land and Poland's unique situation after the II World War. The Allied Powers agreed at the Potsdam conference that more than a third of the Polish territory would be lost to the Soviet Union and Poland would be compensated by about 100,000 km square acquired from Germany. The maps in figure 1 show the Polish borders in 1939 and 1945 respectively. Figure 1. What should Poles do? Much of the criticism expressed here about the EU policies, should really be directed against the Polish political elite. After all, nobody has forced the consecutive Polish governments to succumb to the EU pressure and accept terms leading directly to a economic and cultural catastrophe on a scale unparalleled in the entire history of Poland. The crucial question therefore is: how can the Polish population regain its political rights and,. more specifically, what should the Poles do, to control their political class. Poland continues to pay a heavy price for the lack of truly competent and tough professionals in the EU negotiations. Many prominent ministers and former communist apparatchiks, such as Mesrs Slawomir Wiatr or Wlodzimierz Cimoszewicz, seem to care much more about interests of their own party than the reason d'etre of the whole country. Ministers like Jerzy Kropiewnicki, who dared to complain publicly about the lack of symmetry in the negotiations and grossly unfair agreements that favoured the EU side, have lost their jobs long ago. Mr Marek Cichocki, director of the Centre for International Relations, quite aptly pointed out in his article published by daily Rzeczpospolita on 20 February 2002: "Unfortunately, the methods employed to recruit Polish representatives for the EU institutions are deplorable (..) The criterion of party loyalty will dominate, not criteria based on professionalism and the state interest". The experience of the G-7 countries which modified their constitutional systems and electoral laws after the II World War, namely Italy, France, and Japan, clearly shows that the key to a democratically accountable government is the electoral system. Poland's public opinion must be able to bring the corrupt politicians to account and practice a system of positive selection of elites. Many intellectuals and specialists in law and sociology have repeatedly pointed out that the country's electoral system based on party lists is the main factor fostering corruption and creating irresponsible governments. Therefore, before a question whether the nation should join the EU is put forward to the electorate in e referendum, before any specific deals are agreed with the European commission. Poland must reform her constitutional system. Out of all the necessary reforms, the programme to abolish the party list system and adopt an electoral law in which representatives are elected in single seat constituencies, like it is done in the G-7 countries, must be treated as the most fundamental and most urgent postulate for change.