«

»

May 11

Survey of Poland: Chapter One

Categories:

Archive

by Edward Lucas

Cheer up

May 11th 2006
From The Economist print edition

Reuters
Reuters

Poles and outsiders alike are too gloomy. Despite the country’s fractious politics, its prospects are bright and its problems solvable, writes Edward Lucas

WARSAW airport immediately strikes the visitor as oddly cramped for something that seems so modern. That is because travel, like so many other things in Poland, is booming. A new airport building opened in 1992, replacing the ghastly concrete slum built by the communist central planners who ran Poland until 1989. The new building was designed to handle an ambitious 3.5m passengers a year. Last year it handled 7m, and this summer a new $225m terminal will open, raising capacity to 10m. Other Polish airports too are expanding at a cracking pace. The one at Katowice had just 16 passengers in 1991. In 1995 it had 15,000 and last year 1m.

Poland has become modern and prosperous on a scale that some still find surprising. Warsaw bristles with skyscrapers, and most of Poland is online. At the airport, three wireless internet networks compete for travellers’ laptops. Across the road is a Marriott hotel, bustling with young, middle-class Poles in-between flights and business meetings, fiddling with their BlackBerries and chatting on their mobile phones.

But foreign travel is not a pastime only for Poland’s rich. In another part of the airport, a large concrete barn known as the “Etudia” terminal is packed with Poles going to and from work abroad. Some are in suits; for Polish companies, low-cost travel is a boon, enabling them to do business abroad much more cheaply. But many of these passengers are the sort of people that you would not find in the Marriott. The older and more tired-looking ones are probably heading abroad for casual jobs in agriculture, construction or domestic service. At least such work brings in more money than similar drudgery at home.

The numbers working abroad are huge, even for a country with nearly 40m people. Since 2004, some 200,000 Poles have gone to Ireland, and probably over half a million to Britain. The main reason is that there are few jobs at home, especially for the young and the unskilled. General unemployment is running at 18% and youth unemployment at a shameful 40%, partly because of a demographic bulge, but also because Poland’s hefty pension and social charges make its labour expensive. For a couple with two children, this tax “wedge” is 42%, the third-highest in the industrialised world. Only half the working-age population is active in the labour market (see chart 1).

Migration and unemployment are big topics in the Polish media, which are by far the best of any post-communist country. Three heavyweight dailies, a zingy tabloid and three serious colour newsweeklies are on sale at every news-stand. But some news-stands are better than others. The state-owned chain, Ruch, offers cluttered layout, dim lighting and languid, even snarling service. Its main competitor, Relay, is much more user-friendly. That is because its smiling staff are the owners and employees of tiny businesses that rent the premises from the owner of the brand and use family labour—teenage children, spouses and parents—to avoid the job-killing tax and social charges. The Polish business environment may be full of obstacles, but the country’s entrepreneurs are amazingly good at circumventing them.

Travel from the airport is revealing too. Rich Poles are met in limos; slightly poorer ones collect their cars from the hotel car park; the unwary take overpriced taxis, having failed to find the regular sort on offer round the corner. The poorest travel in the draughty, slow, old, dirty and pickpocket-infested bus that grinds its way to the city centre.

The best bits of Poland are now indistinguishable from their counterparts anywhere else in the world; the worst bits, including public services such as transport, are egregiously bad. Politicians, so far, have done little to dent that. “The Polish emerging market works much better than the Polish emerging democracy,” says Grzegorz Kolodko, a former finance minister now based at one of Warsaw’s top business schools.

As you inch into town, cast an eye on the concrete-panelled fences to right and left, and the vast tracts of former military land behind them. Those on the right have been sold off cheaply in murky circumstances under past governments: a good example of how bad public administration in the past has cheated the taxpayer, disillusioned voters and perhaps enriched crooks. On the left, behind a display of decaying tanks and rusty fighter planes, is the huge 60-hectare Zwirki site, centred on a shabby 1970s concrete conference building where the Warsaw Pact’s generals once deliberated. That would be worth perhaps $100m if the government were to sell it simply as land. But the defence ministry is looking for a different, more lucrative sort of deal in which it would share in the profits from any development. That sort of deal would have been unthinkable when Poland’s military property agency was run by bureaucrats. But now the agency is headed by a forceful retired Anglo-Polish investment banker, Maciej Olex-Szczytowski, who has moved to Warsaw to work, pro bono, for the new government, to help it live up to its motto: “Cheap and efficient”.

“European quality, Polish prices, Czech VAT.” The sign captures Polish capitalism in a nutshell. Marek Glinkowski’s doors and windows business is based in Poland, but as close to its customers in the Czech Republic as is physically possible, in the last building before
the bridge over the river Olza that links the Polish city of Cieszyn with its suburb of Tesin in the Czech Republic. Mr Glinkowski’s firm epitomises the way Polish businesses are now attacking the newly opened markets of neighbouring countries—which is one reason for the leap in Poland’s exports from $61 billion in 2003 to $95 billion last year.

Until Poland joined the European Union in May 2004, Cieszyn, known in Habsburg days as “Little Vienna”, was a pretty but rather depressed town on Poland’s periphery, isolated from the rest of the country by bad roads and from the rest of Europe by the border. Getting goods across the bridge was difficult because of complicated paperwork and unpredictable queues. Mr Glinkowski says his business, founded in August 2004, simply would not have been possible before entry into the EU. Thanks to Poland’s big domestic market, doors and windows there are 10-15% cheaper than in the neighbouring Czech Republic. Mr Glinkowski now has a sales force of four based in the Czech Republic, and 12 Polish craftsmen who drive over the border to install the windows.

For small firms such as Mr Glinkowski’s, Poland’s entry into the EU has transformed the business environment. Instead of being isolated behind customs barriers, they can sell their wares anywhere. Mr Glinkowski’s biggest problem now is Poland’s own bureaucracy, particularly as regards taxes. The tax rates are not much higher than those of its post-communist neighbours, but their administration is hugely more bureaucratic. Whereas the Czech tax authorities deal with his value-added tax in just 60 days, in Poland getting VAT refunded on exports takes around six months. And tax is only one of myriad administrative problems.

These are not just the usual entrepreneur’s whinges. In the World Bank’s latest comparison of the business environment in different countries, Poland comes 54th, behind such places as Kuwait, Tonga and Armenia. It is beaten by all its post-communist competitors in central Europe, except stodgy Slovenia. The cost of setting up a firm, for example, equals 22% of GDP per person, against an average of 13% in the post-communist region as a whole. In Poland an everyday business project—building a warehouse—involves 25 bureaucratic procedures and takes 322 days, compared with 21 procedures taking 252 days elsewhere in the region (and a lightning 70 days in America).

A half-hour drive to the north it is the same story, of success and frustration, but on a larger scale. Mokate, a privately held company with 1,000 employees and sales of 300m zloty, is Poland’s best-known producer of prepared drinks. Some are strikingly, even piratically, similar to international brands of coffee; others are inventive to the point of oddness. The main product line is foil-packed cappuccino powder (flavours include vanilla and almond). Then there are teabags, regular, flavoured and even one spiked with a patented form of powdered alcohol to produce a mulled wine of sorts. Post-communist consumers are lively experimenters.

Mokate is a third-generation family firm. When its pre-war restaurants and shops were nationalised under communism, the Mokrysz family started up a private building-supplies firm, which survived even though the company claims it suffered from “persecution”. Certainly Mokate has done remarkably well since 1990, increasing its sales more than fiftyfold in 15 years after moving from cement in sacks to coffee-creamer in sachets. EU membership has greatly boosted its exports and the firm now sells to 55 countries.

Whereas Mr Glinkowski’s success is based on a low-cost, low-tech product, Mokate’s edge is in high technology and know-how. Its ultra-modern powder tower rises like a skyscraper over a gleaming white R&D; facility, looking slightly out of place in the impoverished countryside around it, where a decrepit coal mine, now closed, used to be the main employer. Food scientists produce a stream of new consumer products.

But even though the ingredients of the two firms’ success are different, Mokate’s spokesman, Jerzy Chrystowski, is just as frustrated with the government as is Mr Glinkowski. “We just want the rules to stay the same,” he moans. “They are always changing: VAT, corporation tax, excise duty. One day all our vendors, even tiny roadside stalls, had to buy cash registers. Now they are told it’s not necessary after all. And everything is overformalised and slow. The procedures are too rigid.”

That is the big challenge facing Poland, and the central subject of this survey. The country’s private sector is increasingly able to compete with the rest of the world, whereas the public sector, wasteful, expensive and bloody-minded, is not. That is one reason why up to a million Poles are now working abroad. But this migration, symptomatic of Poland’s problems, also holds the key to their solution.



Subscribe with Bloglines

Tags:

142 comments

  1. Kagan

    June 2, 2006 at 7:10 am (UTC 0)

    Just for closing the discussion. A poll made in September 2005 by authoritative broadsheet “Rzeczpospolita” gave such results:
    1) Most of Poles are critical about “Solidarity” and its legendary leader Lech Walesa.
    2) Only 50% Poles are happy because of Polish membership in the EU.
    3) Only 50% Poles see freedom of speech as something important for them, and a real achievement of post-1990 Poland.
    4) Only 1/3 (around 33%) Poles say that “regaining independence” after 1989 was important for them.
    5) Only ¼ (around 25%) of Poles is positive about Mr. Balcerowicz and his free market “reforms”.
    6) Only 14% Poles think that stable and convertible zlotowka (Polish currency) was a real achievement of post-1989 Poland.
    7) The great majority of Poles blame “Solidarity” for high unemployment and widespread poverty.
    8) Less than ¼ of Poles (24%) thinks that their life has improved in years 1990-2005.

  2. Kagan

    June 2, 2006 at 9:45 am (UTC 0)

    And I understand that in Lithuania the majority of pupulation, due to high unemployment and widespread poverty regrets EU membership and is for closer links with Russia. Similar situation is in Ukraine, especially in the (mostly Russian) east and in Georgia. West-controlled elites in those post-Soviet republics are very unpopular, and are very bad adverts for Western-style democracy. Current leaders of Lithuania, Georgia and Ukraine gained power by making promisses, that were impossible to fulfill, so they are just ordinary cheats. I hope that they will lose power peacefully, not in another revolution…

  3. Kagan

    June 2, 2006 at 2:31 pm (UTC 0)

    URGENT!
    Mr. Mark Doyle, Letters Editor of The Economist HAS COMPLETELY CHANGED SENSE OF MY LETTER.
    Here is his email:

    Dear Mr Keller-Krawcyzk,
    Thank you for your letter on Poland. I intend to publish an edited version (below) in our next issue, dated June 10th. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any queries.

    Yours sincerely,
    Mark Doyle
    Letters Editor
    The Economist
    25 St James’s St
    London
    SW1A 1HG
    United Kingdom
    E-mail: markdoyle@economist.com
    Tel: +44 (0)20 7576 1066

    SIR * Your superficial survey of Poland is full of inaccuracies (May 13th). It was because it uncritically followed Western advice that Poland lost approximately ten years due to a severe recession and is even today, after more than 15 years of free market reforms, plagued by mass structural unemployment, poverty, and very unequal distribution of wealth and income (you neglected to mention that in “communist” Poland there was no unemployment or widespread poverty). The survey’s author knows next to nothing about Poland and the Poles, yet feels free to make authoritative judgments. He assumes that Anglo-Saxon, and thus Germanic-Calvinist, culture is superior and judges other cultures by only one criterion: how closely it resembles his own. I do not know how good his Polish is, but I’m sure it is rather poor. I have never met a Briton or American without Slavic roots who could speak even basic Polish. A much better quality analysis could have been made by “bloody Poles”, such as myself or fellow countrymen and women.
    Lech Keller-Krawcyzk
    Nicosia, Cyprus

    Here is my response:
    Dear Mr. Doyle,
    Thank you for your email and promise to publish my letter. But I am generally very unhappy happy with the edited version, so please fix not only spelling of my surname, that should be KRAWCZYK. Although this misspelling of my surname supports my argument that no Britton can speak proper Polish, I do not like my surname to be misspelled…

    And please also make some important changes in the text, as your editing has not only changed the meaning of my text and made it, in some parts rather illogical, but also introduced some words, that I have never written, such as about “:bloody Poles”. I put the changes in CAPITAL LETTERS. Otherwise, better do not publish it, as the text you have presented to me is not my text, but a compilation of my text and Mr. Lucas’ words, so it can lead to a litigation.

    SIR – Your superficial survey of Poland (May 13th) is full of inaccuracies. It was because it uncritically followed Western advice that WAS A MAIN REASON WHY Poland lost approximately ten years due to a severe recession and is even today, after more than 15 years of free market reforms, plagued by mass structural unemployment, poverty, and very unequal distribution of wealth and income (you neglected to mention that in “communist” Poland there was no unemployment or widespread poverty). IN MY OPINION the survey’s author knows VIRTUALLY next to nothing about Poland and the Poles, yet feels free to make authoritative judgments. He assumes that Anglo-Saxon, and thus Germanic-Calvinist, culture is superior and judges other cultures by only one criterion: how closely it resembles his own. I do not know how good his Polish is, but I’m sure it is rather poor, as I have never met a Briton or American without Slavic roots who could speak even basic Polish. A much better quality analysis could have been made by A SOMEONE WITH TRUE COMMAND OF POLISH LANGUAGE AND APPRECIATION FOR POLAND: ITS PEOPLE AND CULTURE.
    Lech Keller-KRAWCZYK
    Nicosia, Cyprus

    Please do something about this!

  4. Kagan

    June 2, 2006 at 2:53 pm (UTC 0)

    And now:
    Dear Mr Keller-Krawczyk,
    My apologies for the typo when spelling your name. We will not now be publishing your letter, but thank you for your interest in The Economist.

    Best wishes,

    Mark Doyle
    Letters Editor

    So my response was:
    Now I have a true reason to sue The Economist, as you intended to publish only such a version of my letter, that would make readers think that I am an idiot. But when I send you a corrected text, you refuse to publish it. I consider this a very arrogant, racist attitude…

  5. Edward Lucas

    June 2, 2006 at 3:04 pm (UTC 0)

    I really think Kagan is reacting absurdly here.

    Follow the chronology: I invite him to write a letter. I explain it needs to be short. He writes a very long one. I shorten it, combining various texts he has posted here. I make, incidentally, a special point of selecting the letter for publication out of the dozens that we have received. To be sure that we have expressed his views correctly in the edited form, we send it to him for checking.

    At this stage he could politely request some changes in the wording. Instead he responds with a threat of litigation! Our letters editor,a very senior Economist journalist of great patience and courtesy, is rather insulted by this, and decides (despite my pleas) not to publish the letter. Kagan then threatens to sue again.

    He also claims that we have deliberately distorted his letter, a charge not supported by the rather minor changes that he wants.

    I am increasingly convinced that Kagan is a mischievously conceived fictional character, designed to stoke the stereotype of the absurdly paranoid and prickly Pole.

    I invite the readers of this blog to vote online. Please post your verdict: do you think the Economist (and I) have behaved politely and professionally, or do you think Kagan is right?

    Regards
    Edward

  6. Kagan

    June 2, 2006 at 3:04 pm (UTC 0)

    Dear Mr. Lucas,
    He should first to check spelling of my name (why not to use “cut and paste” technique). When I read that letter, I found, that he has TOTALLY changed its sense and in some places the text, due to poor (or deliberately poor) editing simply did not make any sense. It was unacceptable manipulation. He should tell me clearly, that it is only his proposal, not a version to print, as I understood from his email. And he should not allow his personal prejudicies to cloud his professional judgement. What else could I do, if I saw my text edited in such a way, that I’d be looking in the eyes of the readers as an idiot? I see that I waste my time discussing with arrogant Britons.
    LK

  7. Edward Lucas

    June 2, 2006 at 3:08 pm (UTC 0)

    what do you mean “totally” changed the sense of what you wrote?

    You have made minor suggestions which we would have been glad to incorporate into the text if you had shown even minimum politeness, instead of which you prefer to spray your insulting and defamatory comments. How dare you accuse someone that you have never met of being racist, simply because he left out one letter in an unfamiliar surname?

  8. Kagan

    June 2, 2006 at 3:14 pm (UTC 0)

    EL: I really think Kagan is reacting absurdly here.
    Follow the chronology: I invite him to write a letter. I explain it needs to be short. He writes a very long one. I shorten it, combining various texts he has posted here. I make, incidentally, a special point of selecting the letter for publication out of the dozens that we have received. To be sure that we have expressed his views correctly in the edited form, we send it to him for checking.
    At this stage he could politely request some changes in the wording. Instead he responds with a threat of litigation! Our letters editor,a very senior Economist journalist of great patience and courtesy, is rather insulted by this, and decides (despite my pleas) not to publish the letter. Kagan then threatens to sue again.
    He also claims that we have deliberately distorted his letter, a charge not supported by the rather minor changes that he wants.
    I am increasingly convinced that Kagan is a mischievously conceived fictional character, designed to stoke the stereotype of the absurdly paranoid and prickly Pole.
    I invite the readers of this blog to vote online. Please post your verdict: do you think the Economist (and I) have behaved politely and professionally, or do you think Kagan is right?
    1. Majority, especially its not representative selection, as in any such polls, is usually never right.
    2. Changes to my letter were deliberately done in such a way, to make me look as an idiot.
    3. Mr Lucas selected text of my first, really long letter, instead of a much shorter last version of my letter, that I sent to the editor.
    4. When I saw my text, it was an absurd: no logic, total chaos etc. I introduced a minimal number of changes in order to reintroduce any sense to it. I lost my temper when I saw such a manipulation together with mispelling my, rather common, Polish surname, that only supports my argument that Britons are arrogant and with no ability to even spell a typical Polish surname…

  9. pricklypole

    June 2, 2006 at 6:15 pm (UTC 0)

    Helo,

    substance, anybody? Here you are: lengthy, but worth reading. If you’re impatient, skip to the near end – on libel suit…(of course the letter to the editor will be much shorter.)

    The Trouble with Edward Lucas
    Sir,
    The survey of Poland by Mr Edward Lucas published in “The Economist” of May 13th with all certainty is not what it claims to be – its relation to reality is rather complex instead of being simply truthful. On the one hand, it is hard to shed the impression that it follows a pattern of writing about post-communist countries of successful transition:From the very beginning to the very end It is a continuous flow of an array of fallacies ranging from minor factual mistakes (Ruch/Relay;public transport) and ubiquitous banalities, through dubious assertions, false judgements, ungrounded insinuations, hear-say, innuendo, manipulation of facts to libel. Poor knowledge of facts, bad research and shallowness of thought are, however, not crimes and I would not be writing this letter if it were not for the two last categories. Even the superficiality along judgmental cocksureness of Mr Lucas would probably pass. As it is not the right place, I will refrain from elaborating on every failure of this text – it would have to be as long. I am prepared to do that, should anyone ask for it. However, one instance needs to be looked at more closely as it is an example of particularly outrageous manipulation.
    In the chapter on politics “The accidental government” the following passages can be found:
    “Law and Justice (…) delight in picking fights with gays, feminists, secularists, liberals, the media, ex-communists, uppity foreigners (…) and anyone else who crosses their path” – there are two levels on which this statement is questionable;
    1.as far as its relation with reality is concerned – its an exact reversal of truth; anyone who has spent a week in Poland recently and seen a random pick of TV political news plus read any selection of press articles relating anything in connection with LaJ (PIS). That’s for media. As to other alleged Law and Justice’s ‘victims’; ex-communists and orthodox liberals – its equivalent of saying that Labour love to pick fights with Conservatists, making it an element of characteristic is beside the point, if the point were about providing information – it isn’t. Gays and feminists – please, give me ONE example of LaJ actually picking a fight with any of those groups…and, mind you, even if you came up with an example, which you cannot, because there isn’t any, it takes much more than one to say that they ‘delight’ in this. Secularists and uppity foreigners – beats the hell out of me what you had in mind…
    2. secondly, the language – ‘delight’, ‘pick fights’ ‘anyone who crosses their path’ – this is vocabulary and phrasing of describing individual – not group relations, not to mention political. What the author is really imputing is: J&L.Kaczynski; (…) delight in picking fights (…)and the LaJ(PIS)is really nothing more than a conveyor belt of their angry frustrations – (such interpretation is suggested earlier, for example in repeated adjectives ‘eccentric’, ‘backwardness’, ‘weird’ and further augmented later, by a comparison between ‘tetchy and prickly with their grotty wives and in grotty cars vs. mistresses, benzes and the like of others – it doesn’t matter what specific context they appear in – in the end, a reader will not remember it, but the overall tone of depiction)
    This kind of extraverbal manipulation alongside specific vocabulary with absolute lack of substance or evidence other than anonymous sources providing gossip and figurative descriptions instead of facts is the methodological principle of this text; its aim, or at least result – to avoid futile discussion of intention – is that no valuable/verifiable information is left once this strange brew is boiled away. The whole effort seems to have gone on suggesting rather than informing; hints feeding on hear-say rather than well grounded analysis. Let us look further at the next passage of this make-belief characteristic. “the party chief” of the first sentence is Jaroslaw Kaczynski – another subtle indication to the imputed neo-fascism. And one more thing, before I move on to the nitty-gritty – nobody I asked, including declared opponents of PIS and J.K personally, could figure out what could have possibly been the real foundation of the “vehement and frequent interventions in the media” – even the most fanatic haters of the man concede that he is conspicuously absent in media (directlyas a conscious participant, that is – being filmed is hardly “making an appearance”)as for the leader of the parliamentary majority – that, however, as the rest of queer operations performed on facts, remains beyond the knowledge of, say, a reader from Minnesota or Hong Kong. The account of events beneath is therefore likely to be absorbed easily as well :
    “The party chief makes frequent, vehement interventions in both parliament and the media. He has denounced the head of the central bank, Leszek Balcerowicz, demanding an investigation into his record, and is setting up a powerful new body to oversee the banking system. That has shocked those who see Mr Balcerowicz as a heroic figure in the country’s recent economic history. As finance minister in the early 1990s, he pioneered the monetary stringency and free prices that, his fans say, kick-started Polish capitalism. The central bank is a bastion of economic orthodoxy and has run a tight monetary policy to make up for what it sees as the spendthrift habits of the politicians.”
    Of course, a statistical reader of “The Economist” IS Mr Balcerowicz’s fan (provided that he/she knows anything at all about Poland) and he/she DOES see him as a hero (just check comments on Mr. Lucas’ blog – for well over a 100 there is just one critical of him and ridiculous at that), whereas probability of him/her knowing who Mrs. Kaczynski are, apart from the precious information obtained from the survey, is rather low; and in vain might one look for it – it is nowhere to be found, not even half the space devoted by Mr. Lucas to the rite of rubbing the lamp to summon the gin of Mr Balcerowicz. Just indifferent phrases like those already mentioned plus comparison to Lukashenka (quoted, but not dismissed), reference to their alleged authoritarian strife, quarrelsome nature, backward views, notion of foreign policy dangling between ‘loathing’ and ‘sentimental attachment’. They are also tetchy, prickly, righteous (!) and unpredictable at the same time (property comparable only to that of the Heisenberg’s particle). Just for those who do not know: K. bros have been for fifteen years in official politics and about the same in anti-communist opposition, were key figures in the KOR (the Comitee for Workers’ Defence), then in the leadership of Solidarity, heading sections on trade unions at the Round Table, J. was the head of the National Security Council, his brother – the head of the Supreme Chamber of Control, minister of justice and attorney general (he is a professor of law), mayor of Warsaw (in general elections – unlike his predecessors). Hardly unpredictable and not very different (not in a sense imputed in the survey, anyway). Now, let us present the whole story, or rather three different stories that were so creatively amalgamated by Mr. Lucas:
    1. perhaps it is best to start with the case of UniCredito. The Italian bank entered into conflict with the Polish government over the Italians’ plans to expand in breach of the previously signed privatisation deals, which had obliged UniCredito to refrain from further acquisitions for a certain amount of time. Details are unimportant; it was the kind of case that from time to time pops up in every (not absolutely) free market economy –nothing unusual. Eventually, agreement was outlined
    – all legally and in civilized manner. The credit for it goes to the Polish government, by the way – of course no mention of it in the survey – otherwise Italians would become monopolist. What is important is that
    a.) Mr. Balcerowicz is NOT an element of the real conflict, not even a crucial factor
    b.) none of the above is present in the survey;
    b.) the actual conflict in every aspect transgresses personal level imputed in the survey;
    - its time span begins way before it could have been used for any personal ends
    - its subject matter was in the national interest and was constitutionally handled by the democratically elected representatives.
    c.) K. brothers were NOT involved IN ANY OTHER WAY than legitimate: – one as the HEAD OF STATE, the other as the LEADER OF THE BIGGEST PARTY – NOT AS INDIVIDUALS driven by grudge or angry dolls out the black box, as playfully suggested by Mr Lucas.
    These are the facts versus fanciful surmises of behind-the scenes workings worthy of a provincial barber shop.
    2. second sequence of facts visible in the Economist’s version in the form of the phrase “the powerful body to oversee the banking system”. “The body” was as a concept and is in fact a PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSION to REVIEW – NOT OVERSEE – the situation in the banking sector: therefore, IT WAS DEMOCRATIC AND WITHIN THE CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK. Further; it has been a part of the LaJ program from the start and got unfortunately contextualised to the Unicredito row – maybe a mistake from the PR point of view. However, at no point was it even close to getting out of the legal system. And one more thing: IT HAD NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO PERSONALLY WITH Mr Balcerowicz !
    The cause-and-effect sequence into which elements of the above have been forged cannot be accounted for other then with the slanderous and malevolent intention and defies comment. But it demands a libel case. For now, however, let us get back to the third act of the actual events. Enter Mr. Balcerowicz. Things get unexpectedly farcical:
    3. the governor of the central bank has staged the following self-designed appearance: as the chairman of the Commission for Banking Supervision – the true “powerful body overseeing the banking system”as its responsibilities are rather vague and influence on the banking sector is potentially great (its head is the governor of the central bank so in practice Mr Balcerowicz is reporting to himself and only then to the parliament while its relations with the government are ambiguous – formally independent, the governor of the central bank is obliged to report his activities to the council of ministers who in a vote may reject it not to mention the obligation to support the governments economic policy “while pursuing its statutory goals”) – during the examination of the Unicredito case, Mr. Balcerowicz literally threw outdoors one of this body’s legitimate members – a government representative, deputy finance minister Mr. Mech – claiming he had not been objective. At the same time, he had no qualms to keep Mr. Kwasniak in, – his wife actually WORKED for the UniCredito.
    Only THEN, he was CASUALLY criticised by mr J.Kaczynski, although nobody’s record was ever to be investigated in terms of reprisal – the only context, in which I can imagine the word ‘record’ pronounced in reference to Mr. B is that J.K might have wondered if Mr.B ‘s odd behaviour had nothing too with the charming powers of Unicredito – as indeed, explanations given by Mr.B for his fit were rather weak. Whatever propelled him, it must be once again said that his heroic figure had little to do either with projects of parliamentary banking commission or directly in the Unicredito case; simply for this reason he is just one of many ministers of finance since 1989 and one of three Central Bank governors, not to mention the rest of the crowd of potential witnesses. Anyway, HE WOULD NOT HAVE FEATURED IN THIS DRAMA AT ALL AT THIS STAGE, HAD HE NOT CHOSEN TO THROW HIMSELF INTO THE SPOTLIGHT, rather grotesquely at that.

    As a post scriptum let me add that I have contacted lawyers in the UK via e-mail (their identity shall remain undisclosed at this stage) and presented the case for their evaluation as to the possible liability to litigation under the libel laws – as your periodical is published in the UK, it remains within the Crown’s jurisdiction. In return, I have obtained their statement of readiness to undertake it, provided of course the will in this respect of the compliant Mr. J.Kaczynski

    As a food for thought, let me quote some basic definitions and directions courtesy of the BBC:

    A person is libelled if a publication:
    • Exposes them to hatred, ridicule or contempt
    • Causes them to be shunned or avoided
    • Discredits them in their trade, business or profession
    • Generally lowers them in the eyes of right thinking members of society

    ________________________________________

    2. Get your facts right

    The most important point is to make absolutely sure that what you are printing or writing is true. Do not make claims or accusations that you cannot prove. Even if you think you can do this, be cautious. Proving things in court can be very difficult.

    And the test of what the words mean is what a reasonable reader is likely to take as their natural and ordinary meaning, in their full context – what you intended as the author or publisher is irrelevant.

    If you write something that cannot be substantiated the credibility of your site, organisation or cause may be questioned. It can also land you with an expensive lawsuit and there is no legal aid for libel cases.

    The burden of proof lies with the defendant
    Almost uniquely in English law, in libel cases the burden of proof lies with the author / publisher and not the complainant. In other words, you have to prove that what you write is true. The person you’ve targeted does not have to prove that you’re wrong.

    Don’t rely on the literal meaning
    You cannot solely rely on proving that your statements were literally true if, when they’re taken as a whole, they have an extended, more damaging meaning. Also, for example, if somebody was guilty of fraud once, calling him a fraudster in a way which might suggest he’s still doing the same may well give rise to a libel which can’t be defended. Be especially wary when referring to events in the past.
    Don’t exaggerate in your claims or language
    For example, a company may run a factory which produces certain chemicals. For you to suggest that babies will be born deformed as a result may get you into libel trouble.

    Innuendo can catch you out
    Your comments may not appear particularly defamatory taken at face value, but greater knowledge of a person or situation may make it problematic because of the innuendo. To say Mr Jones doesn’t recycle his waste paper may sound harmless enough. But to people who know that Mr Jones is a Green Party activist, the innuendo of the statement is that he is hypocritical in his politics.
    Repeating rumours
    It is inadvisable to repeat a defamatory rumour unless you are in a position to prove it’s true. Even if you are contradicting the rumour you should not repeat it. And adding ‘allegedly’ is not enough to get you out of libel difficulties.

    Quoting others
    If you publish defamatory remarks about people or organisations made by other people you will be just as liable to be sued as they are. So if you can’t prove the truth of their statements, don’t repeat them.

    Drawing unprovable conclusions
    It is a common mistake to draw unverifiable conclusions from the basic facts. For example, if Mr Brown is seen going into a hotel room with a call-girl, this does not necessarily mean he enjoyed a ‘night of passion’, and will certainly not prove that he did.

    Irresponsible adjectives
    Be very careful abou
    t the adjectives you use. A misplaced word can result in costly action.

    Yours sincerely,
    Jakub Chmielewski.

    ________________________________________

  10. pricklypole

    June 2, 2006 at 6:41 pm (UTC 0)

    Helo again,
    posting my lenghthy mail, I did not know about The Kagan-affair! That bloke is something else! haha! …
    as to your vote- I, as your critic, must say this clearly and loudly: Your conduct within the hospitable frames of this blog was impeccable, full stop. I have nothing but admiration for your patience in handling that basket case, too! I also share your suspicion as to his fiendish nature all the more that his litigation threat – absurd as it is – comes almost simultaneously with my request for your (re-)consideration of matters of rather graver nature, which I am truely sad to have delivered above and even sadder to sustain them as they are…in waiting for your reaction.
    best regards,
    Jakub Chmielewski

  11. Edward Lucas

    June 2, 2006 at 8:23 pm (UTC 0)

    Dear Mr Chmielewski

    Thank you for your posting. I still think you have misunderstood my point about PiS and the Kaczynskis. Much of what you are referring to is cast as the view of “the critics”. Then I ask, rhetorically, whether the critics have got it right, and go on to say that in large measure the criticism is unjust. I am no big fan of either J or L Kaczynski, but I think my survey treats them pretty fairly. Incidentally, Adam Bielan, who is very close to both of them, was a guest panellist at the launch of the survey and was most complimentary about it, saying that it was “balanced” and “objective”. So I would be cautious about assuming that the Kaczynskis are ready to join in your libel suit against the Economist.

    Thank you for your kind comments about the short-tempered Mr Kagan. Several people have written to me saying that they believe he does not in fact exist, and is a “troll”. This is apparently internet slang for someone who assumes an identity in order to post abusive comments. This seems to me to be more plausible than the idea that he is really an economics professor at an American university in Cyprus! However I have not ruled out the hypothesis that he is actually the creation of my colleagues, who are playing an elaborate practical joke on me!

    regards

    Edward

  12. pricklypole

    June 2, 2006 at 10:43 pm (UTC 0)

    Helo,
    legal implications do appear and even a squad of Adam Bielan’s cannot change that fact. His positive reaction is probably born somewhere between his politeness, ignorance and bliss he must have felt reading ANYTHING that sounds like a balanced opinion after the avalanches of mistreatment in Polish media. It does not surprise me – the entourage of K. bros. is their big handicap and it deserves lot of criticism, which unfortunately is totally misfired in your case. I knew you would claim that it was ‘the criticis’ way of seeing things and in my first post, I think I even tried to forestall this argument from being used, because it doesn’t matter in view of my primary and in fact only objection: it isn’t about being a fan or not, its not about liking. Its politics. Politics can be criticised through facts – countable, measurable etc. Facts are absent in your survey. I am not criticising you personally – I do not know you and only analyse your product and I find it faulty not because I like this or that politician, but because I see you have not touched any important issues that may be, and for the benefit of this country, should be tackled. Instead, there is reproduction of a smear campaign along the lines of col.Lesiak, anonymous sources, half-truths and worse. You are obviously an inteligent man and yet almost no independent analytical effort is visible. One big big issue you overlooked, just by way of example, is the phenomenon, now tragically wasted, of young urban people who started to rediscover their country’s history and develop the ability to derive pride thereof. The anniversary of the Warsaw Uprising two years ago saw hundreds of thousands of people younger than me (I’m 33), there were even rap groups rhyming about that time’s events – the museum is graetly popular to this day and is totally different from the latter day museums. I saw in it the real bud of the IV RP and because L. Kaczynski was to the large extent inspiring this, that new group voted for PIS and now sees this potential thawing away for many reasons – presidential performance being one of them. This fresh and vulnerable identity of the generation which is neither backwardly catholic with a sense of loss nor considers history of its nation “water under the bridge” is badly hit by that kind of ridicule or pressure you embedded in your conclusion and I am not exagerrating. This phenomenon is moreover not at all Euro-sceptic. It is in my view, the only prospect of this continent to unite as the administrative imposing of some premeditated creation called into being against the very notion of national state came apart like a tattered rag. In this context, you might have chosen to mention to the President’s credit, the debate on foreign policy and future of Europe triggered in “Dziennik”; Presidential statement in it was about the notion of solidarity as the most important binding factor of the uniting Europe. It was a very well designed and apt thing to write and defies your words on sentimental pro Americanism and loathing for Germany – You might have – instead you chose to spread gossip about Kohl from some anonymous source, which even if true is ages old and then you write about the french journalist and the despect he suffered from the President of 40 million of Europeans topping it off with conclusion that it proves that not much has changed. Examples may go on. If you would ever be interested in hearing what a humble 33year old koleżka has to suggest, I’d be honoured to share it with you, as unlike Kagan (if he’s real – spooky that thing is, ooh!) i have been keen and devoted reader of your periodical and hence my exasperation. As to libel; it is you who should be cautious! I didn’t expect your reaction to be so, forgive me, childish – I was not threatening you as I tried to emphasise, i counted on your reconsideration; the fact is indisputable – it is libel crystal clear and I could tell you that convincing complainant might not be that hard for me as you think; I could present this personaly to Mr. J. Kaczynski as a brilliant idea for the PR counteroffensive (or counterdefensive – isn’t it some thought?) with an international bang; just think – the case is a 100% winnable; it doesn’t take a sophisticated lawyer to see that. Now, winning the case off libel with “The Sun” would be nothing, but “The Economist is quite another story and could hardly go unnoticed. How many libel suits your magazine has had over the last 50 years? what would people think? If The E. lied, everybody else lied at least twice as bad… it would disarm the whole lot of media mud because the example I dissect is only one and you were prolific enough to reproduce many more. Prolific but not cautious…well that is is not the point however – I say this only so that you have that awareness. I was hoping that making you aware of this will have positive outcome in the future. Cheer up!
    Jakub Chmielewski

  13. Kagan

    June 3, 2006 at 5:20 am (UTC 0)

    To Jakub Chmielewski (pricklypole)
    Although I generally agree with you (with few, rather minor exceptions), I was simply lost reading your very long essay. Could you provide here an executive brief, bo longer than, say, a half of standard A4 page (Times New Roman, 11-12 points) please?
    Kagan

  14. Kagan

    June 3, 2006 at 5:36 am (UTC 0)

    And closing my argument: I have sent several letters to the editor of THE ECONOMIST, every one shorter and more temperate. But he (or Mr. Lucas, or both) selected the first, rough (draft) version of my letter, and changed (“edited”) it in a very peculiar way, so that I’d be looking as an idiot in the eyes of the readers. You know well, that it takes only to change few words (3-4% maximum) to totally change the sense (meaning) of a given text. I know it well, as in secondary school we played such silly games with classics of Polish and world literature (of course, in translation to the Polish language in the latter case). Also the editor has misspelled my very simple surname (KrawZCyk instead of KrawCZyk). That has substantiated my arguments about not only inability of the Britons to properly learn any foreign language, but also about inherent racism of the Britons, caused by decades of British rule over numerous colonies and (as a result) their contempt for any one who is of non-British stock (the editor should simply “cut and paste” foreign names to avoid such silly and offensive mistakes). All than “kagan affair” only strengthened my general negative opinion I already had on the British…

  15. Kagan

    June 3, 2006 at 5:39 am (UTC 0)

    Actually he mispelled it TWICE as “Krawcyzk”. Mea culpa!
    Lech KRAWCZYK (Kagan)

  16. Kagan

    June 3, 2006 at 2:43 pm (UTC 0)

    Brief summary of ‘Kagan affair’. Editors and journalists from THE ECONOMIST wanted to make an idiot from me, because I represent a total different point of view than THE ECONOMIST. Thus they edited my letters in sch a way, that it would be clear that a person who wrote them was rather stupid, with extremist views and poor command of English. They created a man of straw, rougly resembling me, and then tried to demolish him by trying to publish a letter, that would clearly prove my general stupidity. When I asked them to re-edit this letter, they flatly refused, citing as a pretext my strong indignation because of misspeling of my name…

  17. Edward Lucas

    June 3, 2006 at 2:49 pm (UTC 0)

    If The Economist, or I, were trying to stitch Kagan up, why would we bother to send him the edited draft of his letter for approval?

    I am sorry that our letters editor misspelled his name but I should say that people with English names like Feathestonehaugh have on occasion found that not every Pole gets it right first time. I’m not defending ignorance or carelessness, but it seems to me that a very minor and unpublished error doesn’t merit Kagan’s furious reaction. All he had to do was to say “No I don’t like this edited draft, please do it this way”. And then he would have had the great pleasure of seeing his name and his views in The Economist.

    To Pricklypole: I am sorry that I didn’t include the “modern-patriotic” revival among Poles of his generation which is indeed an interesting phenonomenon. I agree that LK is becoming more statesmanlike as the months go by and his recent international meetings seem to have gone quite well.

    I am surprised that you don’t agree with me about gays, feminists, secularists and uppity foreigners. By the latter, for example, I mean the European Commission, about which both LK and JK have spoken publicly and critically.

    You seem to be arguing that my survey is a lapse, “fact free” and so forth. Could I ask you to compare my survey with any other one written by the Economist (for example, the recent one about Italy). Tell me if you really see a big difference.

    Finally, I must apologise to Kagan for saying (albeit tongue-in-cheek) that he might be a fictional creation. Several people have written to me with internet links showing that he is indeed a real person. It is still a mystery to me that someone of such obvious intelligence and education should find it necessary to express himself in such an undignified way.

  18. Edward Lucas

    June 6, 2006 at 1:00 pm (UTC 0)

    just a coda to this story

    I wrote to Mr Keller on Saturday asking him to resubmit, by Monday, a short letter which I would try to have published.

    So far, no reply

    E

  19. pricklypole

    June 7, 2006 at 1:47 pm (UTC 0)

    Helo, do you think it would be possible to publish the letter below?…
    Sir,
    I would like to express my utter criticism in relation to the survey of Poland. As a keen reader of The Economist I am sorry to see this periodical allow itself to descend so low. Superficiality of analysis which does not go any deeper than stating that economy is good and government bad and poor research are there enhanced by the authoritative voice expressing assertions colourful in phrasing but of black and white content, banalities (private sector is better than the public one)and shaky conclusions (Poland’s media are said to be by far the best in the region…bacause there are three heavyweight dailies, two newsweeklies and a robust tabloid). The political reality of a country, regardless of one’s views, cannot be defined by means of quoting slander and unfounded gossip from anonymous sources. In his survey, Mr. E.Lucas fails to provide a single piece of substantial evidence to support any of the ‘black image’ claims he refers to the current Polish administration – as far as informative value is concerned it is at least pointless. The language Mr. Lucas employs in his survey is reducing social and political phenomena to the level of individual quarrels: “loathing”, “seething”,”visceral”, “sentimental”, “delight”, “pick fights” much in the manner of reflection common for provincial barber shop rather than prestigious weekly. Worse still, his account of events betrays outright manipulation amounting to libel under British law (see the passage on “the powerful body to oversee the banking system” and my analysis of it on Mr. Lucas’ blogsite http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=24528000&postID;=114737131728727586).
    Sicerely,
    Jakub Chmielewski.
    ul. Chełmońskiego 9m102/o2-495/Warsaw/Poland.

  20. Edward Lucas

    June 8, 2006 at 9:52 am (UTC 0)

    Dear Mr Chmielewski

    Sadly your letter arrived too late for publication–the deadline was really last week, with Monday morning the very latest.

    A selection of letters about the survey will be in this evening’s edition of The Economist.

    Regards

    Edward Lucas

  21. Michael Dembinski

    June 8, 2006 at 10:12 am (UTC 0)

    I’d be interested to know what response Jakub got to his letter to British lawyers…

    [pricklypole wrote: I have contacted lawyers in the UK via e-mail ... and presented the case for their evaluation as to the possible liability to litigation under the libel laws ]

    Did he hear, I wonder, about former Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder’s action against the Mail on Sunday being thrown out of court in the space of 30 seconds?

  22. Kagan

    June 9, 2006 at 9:42 am (UTC 0)

    This is a copy of email sent by me to Mr. Lucas:
    Mr. Lucas,
    I am afraid that I have nothing to apologise for. It was Mr. Doyle, who should send me apologies for his racist attitude, bad temper and lack of linguistic skills. Unfortunately, “The Economist” is not much more than a propaganda medium for British upper classes and big business, so I was rather silly expecting from such a propaganda medium to be objective and accurate. Your unfair treatment of persons with other opinions is just a consequence of your strong political and ideological bias. I regret time wasted on correspondence with such unreliable and plainly dishonest people like you and Mr. Doyle.
    Lech Krawczyk

  23. Kagan

    June 9, 2006 at 10:00 am (UTC 0)

    I am afraid that I have not much more to add. You prefer to not notice that it was not only misspelling of my name (which could be easily avoided by using simple CUT & PASTE technique), but what editors of THE ECONOMIST did with my text. It was highly unprofessional and based on your racist prejudices. I think that I have very good grounds to launch legal action against you and your colleagues for unfair, racially based treatment of my person. However, at this stage I will accept an official apology printed in the “letters” part of THE ECONOMIST.
    Lech Krawczyk

  24. Edward Lucas

    June 10, 2006 at 8:43 pm (UTC 0)

    what does everyone else think? Should I be apologising to Mr Keller, or vice versa?

  25. Kagan

    June 11, 2006 at 12:01 pm (UTC 0)

    I do not follow your twisted logic. I accused you for racism not because you did not publish my letter, but because what you did to it. You tried to make me look as an idiot, and this is my main argument…

  26. Kagan

    June 12, 2006 at 7:18 am (UTC 0)

    I am sorry, but I must say again that If you published the ‘edited’ (i.e. distorted’) text without consulting me, you would be providing me with an evidence of your race and class based prejudices. Anyway, I have never experienced such a case: many of my letters to various editors were edited, but never in such a way as THE ECONOMIST did, i.e. to make me look as an idiot. And please understand that it is sufficient to change less than 5% of a given text to completely distort its meaning. And only publishing of critical letters make sense – otherwise it looks like you are just printing crypto-advertisements. And finally, I dare say that over 90% of Britons are racists – look at the latest terrorist action by Scotland Yard (agents of British “Ministry of Love”) in a Muslim district of London. Such heavy handed police brutality, and even state terror, would be unthinkable in an upper or even middle class suburb inhabited by the white Anglo-Saxons.
    Anyway, I wait for the official apologies from the Editor of THE ECONOMIST.

  27. Kagan

    June 12, 2006 at 8:22 am (UTC 0)

    As I wrote before: your editing was below any civilised standards. It was the main reason I was so upset. And your reaction to criticism was paranoiac. I will never read THE ECONOMIST myself, and will discourage my students and friends from reading it. If this was what you want, you can congratulate themselves…

  28. Edward Lucas

    June 12, 2006 at 11:19 am (UTC 0)

    I am reluctant to post further. But here are my responses to Mr Keller. I doubt anybody is still reading, but if they are, I’d be grateful for their views.

    If I was trying to make you an idiot, why would I send you the text for review? And why did you make such minor changes to a text that was supposedly making you an idiot. And why did you not take up my offer to write a new text?
    I can assure you that no other journalist on the Economist would dream of making this effort to secure publication of a critical letter. My colleagues think I am completely mad for even bothering to debate with you. I may be eccentric. But I am not racist. And I am not unfair. It seems to me that this is what annoys you most

    I admit to mistakes everywhere. There were factual errors in my survey, and I am glad to have them corrected. There are many different interpretations of Polish politics and history, and I am certainly not claiming that mine is the only correct one. I will happily admit that my editing of your letter was not a perfect reflection of your thoughts.

    But that is why I had it sent to you for comments.

    The difference is that I admit my fallibility and seek to correct it. Do you?

  29. Kagan

    June 13, 2006 at 8:45 am (UTC 0)

    I hope that this will be my last post here: I am sorry, but I must say again that if you published the ‘edited’ (i.e. distorted’) text without consulting me, you would be providing me with an evidence of your race and class based prejudices. Anyway, I have never experienced such a case: many of my letters to various editors were edited, but never in such a way as THE ECONOMIST did, i.e. to make me look as an idiot. And please understand that it is sufficient to change less than 5% of a given text to completely distort its meaning. And only publishing of critical letters make sense – otherwise it looks like you are just printing crypto-advertisements. And finally, I dare say that over 90% of Britons are racists – look at the latest terrorist action by Scotland Yard (agents of British “Ministry of Love”) in a Muslim district of London. Such heavy handed police brutality, and even state terror, would be unthinkable in an upper or even middle class suburb inhabited by the white Anglo-Saxons.
    Anyway, I wait for the official apologies from the Editor of THE ECONOMIST.

  30. pricklypole

    June 13, 2006 at 5:16 pm (UTC 0)

    hi, FlyingOko!? ‘you there?
    I know we’re in the archives now, but I couldn’t let your questions remain unanswered. I also posted this in the latest comments ‘on the surface’, cause I was not sure if anybody comes in here any more. You were curious about the response from lawyers in reference to the possibility of a libel suit and if I heard of Schroeder’s lawsuit having been dismissed in blitz 30sec. (wow!). Well, lady, or whoever you are, I don’t know what fuels your defensive zeal but it certainly has a sideeffect of making you skip large portions of text you venture to question; the answer was right below the fragment you were kind enough to paste in your post and especially, just for you, here it is again: “In return, I have obtained their statement of readiness to undertake it, provided of course the will in this respect of the possible complainant Mr. J.Kaczynski”.
    As to the second question: No, I haven’t. Now, let me ask you mine: So what? – that and, please, the second, so that we are even: Have you taken your time reading my post (I admit it was lengthy)? …well, please do with special attention on the part devoted to Mr.Lucas’ account of the Balcerowicz/banking commission events and the last part with the BBC guidelines for avoiding libel suits. Then we can go on.
    Jakub Chmielewski

    5:12 PM

  31. Edward Lucas

    June 13, 2006 at 7:45 pm (UTC 0)

    just to say that yes I am still monitoring this amazing discussion. Mr Keller-Krawczyk wants to take me to the Commission for Racial Equality for anti-Polish prejudice. If at the end of this I am fired by the Economist, it will show what I always suspected, that there is much downside, and little upside, to this blogging business.

  32. pricklypole

    June 13, 2006 at 11:14 pm (UTC 0)

    It is unimaginable absurd that you ponder consequences of being fired as a result of actions of a maniac and a clown while remaining unselfconsciously cool with the fact that your journalistic practice, at least in the survey of Poland, is manipulation, distortion and disinformation and strict libel and I am not talking about a mistake here or an error there but deliberately proliferated slander concerning politicians governing one of the bigger countries on this continent and you feed your mood about it not refuting arguments I have put forward but with quoting ignorant individuals praising your ‘objectivity’ or with comparing yourself to worse cases. It is still unbelievable to me that I have really obtained such answers as I have from you – the correspondent of a prestigious international magazine: ‘I think that the ex-commie govt was quite strong under Miller. But it was bad.’ -no comment
    ‘I would not say that I mindlessly copy the PiS opponents’ charges. Compared to any other foreign journalists, I think I have been remarkably fair-minded, perhaps too much so.
    ‘(…) it is a fact that they [ec-commies] were technically very competent at foreign policy. Look at the way Belka nearly became sec gen of the OECD, and Kwasniewski was in the running at the UN. I don’t like them but I have to concede they were good at this bit of their job.’ – your notion of foreign policy is clearly looking after one’s carrier in the international organisations,mhm. its patehtic to me, given the fact that in no place of your survey do you reach any further than sentimental pro-Americanism and visceral loathing of R. and G.
    and the most bizzare:’Most journalists are not great experts in the subjects they write about. Even on the countries they survey. It may be a pity, but it’s true’ you say but elsewhere you have no qualms stating that it is your “job to make judgements and characterisations’. Well, I sincerely think that if you don’t find it inappropriate to go on passing judgements in writing on things about which you know next to nothing, you most definitely should be fired if The Economiast likes to be considered seriously.

  33. Kagan

    June 14, 2006 at 1:30 pm (UTC 0)

    And now I was called on this blog “maniac and a clown”. Why not go for “full Monthy” and call me “bloody Polish idiot”? Or even better (sorry, but for well know reasons I cannot post here any stronger statement).
    Kagan

  34. Kagan

    June 14, 2006 at 1:30 pm (UTC 0)

    And now I was called on this blog “maniac and a clown”. Why not go for “full Monthy” and call me “bloody Polish idiot”? Or even better (sorry, but for well know reasons I cannot post here any stronger statement).
    Kagan

  35. Edward Lucas

    June 14, 2006 at 4:40 pm (UTC 0)

    Dear Mr Chmielewski

    Please don’t call Kagan a maniac and a clown. He only called you verbose, which doesn’t deserve such a vitriolic reply.

    As far as I can see, you are arguing that the international media should just give up, as necessarily most of the articles cannot be written by experts on the subjects involved.

    I also fail to understand why you take such exception to my remarks. I think that the last ex-commie govt was quite good at foreign policy. Kwasniewski did well in Ukraine. I may not like them as people, but even their harshest critics admit that they got things done.

    Where on earth do you get the idea that I have a visceral loathing of Germany? (or for that matter Russia)? I speak German like a native, lived there for years, married a German, go there on holiday, read German literature. I also like Russia very much, especially literature, painting, poetry, music, although my Russian is not as good as my German.

    Please try to be a) polite and b) rational in your postings.

    EL

  36. pricklypole

    June 18, 2006 at 10:53 pm (UTC 0)

    1. What is the right word for someone who thinks Cuba is prosperous under Castro, Mrs Thatcher should be tried for manslaughter of innocent people ran over by malfunctioning privatised railway and takes legal action under the banner of anti-racism because his name was misspellt? Please, tell me – I’ll start using it. Meanwile, I’ll stick by the m. and c. words. By the way, I am no longer 4 so it really does not matter that he called me verbose (I was not even aware that he did) – I call what I see
    2. There has been a misunderstanding – Visceral loathing was a quotation from your survey where it pertained K. bros. Ok. Ukraine is a better example than running for a UN post, but then again – why did you not put it in your answer in the first place! I wouldn’t have picked on you for that – as simple as that!

  37. pricklypole

    June 19, 2006 at 2:38 pm (UTC 0)

    To clarify – and par example:

    - the phrase “visceral loathing for Germany and Russia” is verbatim from your survey where it is a pole of a ‘binary’ label you gave the K. brothers’ foreign policy – the other pole would be their “ardent pro- American views” (elsewhere also referred to as “sentimental pro- Americanism”).
    Given Poland’s geopolitics and history, it is a rather serious charge.
    To support it, you quote two anecdotes:

    - one is about the German Chancellor’s Kohl having once thrown J.K outdoors in exasperation at an unspecified ‘anti-German’ utterance of the latter. It is roughly 15 years old.
    Then, you go on to prove that “things haven’t changed much” with another spicy gossip:
    - it is a story about L.K., the Polish President, on his official visit to France a showcase of his arrogance – he has kept a French journalist seeking to interview him waiting for 4 hrs and then spolit the party by staring at the man’s feet (sic!) – and ridiculous pomposity – during the interview the President’s decided to call it a day in reaction to the famous journalist’s ‘snapping at his [the President's] aide who was hasting the interview forward!
    Here, for that matter, it is perhaps relevant to mention that the ‘aide’ was in fact the presidential Chief of Protocol, whose very responsibility is to make sure everything is on time during official visits – the fact you must have known.

    And that is all there is to support your assessment that “the Kaczynski brothers share visceral loathing for both Germany and Russia”! …
    There is NOT:
    - a single reference to any specific foreign policy move;
    - nor any published text of any sort by either of them;
    - or either’s any public utterance, argument or opinion;
    - no one with authority in the field or at least a name is quoted in support thereof!
    All your sources are, of course , anonymous.
    In fact, , there is only one reference in the whole text to a fact of importance in the area of recent Polish foreign policy – to ‘energy-NATO’ –
    …you needed no more than a sentence to cover that. Other than that, there are more anonymous anecdote sources.

    1. Do you really mean to tell me that you don’t know what gravity resides in this (and other – as poorly documented) assertions?

    2. Do you really wish to maintain that it is enough to support it with two anecdotes: one out of date and the other clearly irrelevant(regardless of anything else)?…

    3. Where on earth did you get the idea that they loath G. or R. viscerally?

    or otherwise:

    Please, stop pretending that you don’t know what is wrong in your practice – it is absolutely impossible that you are unaware of implications of what you write and I doubt if there is anyone as naive as to believe that you are…

  38. Edward Lucas

    June 21, 2006 at 8:14 am (UTC 0)

    yes but don’t forget that I talked to dozens of diplomats (polish and foreign), wonks, and other foreign-policy observers. The Economist, unlike say the NYT, doesn’t provide a sourced quote or fact for every observation. The reader just has to take it on trust. And everyone I spoke to about the Kaczynskis agree that they are pro-American and anti-Russian/German in their “gut” orientation. So I put that in. Of the hundreds of letters I have had in response to the survey, this is one observation that nobody apart from you has queried.

    Incidentally, the Lech Kaczynski roadshow remains as chaotic as ever. He has just cancelled, at very short notice and in a very abrupt way, his speech at Chatham House, which is the main foreign-policy institute here in London. And I believe he has cancelled his whole visit too. That is very unusual behaviour, to put it mildly.

    The anecdotes you object to seem to me to be quite revealing. JK doesn’t realise, even 15 years later, that his behaviour at Kohl’s office was odd. And LK didn’t realise that doing a television interview while staring at your shoes is unlikely to come across well!

  39. pricklypole

    June 23, 2006 at 1:41 pm (UTC 0)

    Isn’t this ironic..as it turns out, it’s the British that called off the whole thing and L.K who has (out-of-the-ordinarily) not been invited to the Queen’s birthday celebrations. This, to top it off, has with no delay been trumpeted by the opposition (R.Kalisz) as a national affront – whatever twisted motives may have driven them.
    The irony of that – as I see it – lies in the fact that it illustrates quite well what I suspect is your underlying problem – if I may (not too seriously). You’re a flash addict! You are after the effect and seem to me to be just too hasty in your approach to facts. It is as if you were just too impatient to allow them to subside, so that they can be analysed without their momentary context and you do that in pursuit of the glitter of a witty conclusion, bon mote, a pun. Forgive my daring – I only write this with a smile as a sort of a friendly teaser; after all, who am I to say such things – I do not know you personally, neither am I a native speaker nor a journalist. The only excuse for me is that you have (although, perhaps, rather rhetorically) invited this venture with your desperate questions (It has crossed my mind that if this had been possible, you would have had me kept at a gunshot – Kohl-style…- I am joking, of course). Another thing that I am asking you to take note of is that I do not consider this bad in itself, although it may be deleterious in the kind of writing you do at The Economist. It seems to me that you have a temperament of a reporter and your gift of being light with words would be a blessing if you were to relate things as they happen before your eyes. The base for the ‘survey-kind’ of writing, however, is analytical input and a constant critical distance towards anything that has not been dissected and put back together again in your mind. That quality would make you want to question anything people tell you and only allow you to agree once you yourself have processed it and certified. This has a nasty side-effect of people getting tired of you conspicuously quickly. In my humble opinion, a survey (of Poland or Trinidad and Tobago) – benefits from such criticism and prevents one form traps, which you seem to have let yourself get caught in, like labelling, seeing revelations where there is only petty gossip and turning a blind eye on things important; your astounding adherence to the logic of a the binary and the linear; constant reduction to the level of conflicts between individuals betraying its roots in a historical fallacy of “heroes” and “great men” – influential personages propelling history forward – tight focussing on the personae dramatis is a result thereof as well as of your proneness to see the reality as an unfolding plot, a series of re-occuring instantiations of a myth-like structure with one beginning and a guessable end; furthermore, your failure to discriminate between shades in your judgements and apparent lack of the ability to define processes in statu nascendi which is most valuable when it comes to describing the living reality of a such complex nature as that of a human society.
    That is what – as I see it – may be underlying what I see as your failures: not any prejudice (not any that you might be aware, although that reproduced – very much so), or malice or any other emotional factor.
    To put it shortly; your order of operation is rather identification than cognition.
    As one of the characters in “Rejs” (a film you must know, if you are so well acquainted with the Polish reality), an engineer by the name of Mamoń, once said when asked if he liked the song he had just heard for the first time: “…I regret from the bottom of my heart, but I just cannot say – I only like the tunes I heard before.”

    I will later post the second part following the ‘constructive’ part of your proposition.

  40. Michael Dembinski

    June 27, 2006 at 9:18 am (UTC 0)

    L.K. was not at the Queen’s Birthday Celebrations… but he did address a meeting of foreign investors organised (strangely) for the very same evening. Who was snubbing whom?

  41. Michael Dembinski

    June 27, 2006 at 10:21 am (UTC 0)

    Question for PricklyPole:

    You seem very defensive of the current government. Can you summarise what it stands for? I can’t see an overarching ethos behind it all. What’s it about? What’s it leading to? So unlike the Thatcher revolution, or what’s happening in China, or even Ireland or Estonia.

    The Kaczynski brothers (rightly) don’t like communists. Rightly they want to stamp out corruption. But other than that – what are they about?

    Poland needs to change dramatically. Attitudes need to change. Trust needs to be be built in Polish society. Communism effectively destroyed any sense of trust between human beings. It’s not being rebuilt. Barriers between urzednicy and citizens persist. Young Poles are fleeing in their droves. Yesterday’s reportage in Gazeta Wyborcza’s magazine section about the Brit who’s had enough after 13 years in Poland had many telling observations.

    My fear about this government is that time is flying and reform isn’t happening. Zyta Gilowska’s departure is symptomatic of the sick state we’re in.

  42. pricklypole

    July 20, 2006 at 4:34 pm (UTC 0)

    I have just come across your question, FlyingOko, which probably has been hanging in the air for a while as I took a break out of civilisation. Risking that you won’t come by any more, I’ll nevertheless answer:
    - I was not defensive of the Marcinkiewicz cabinet. My stance was against the character of argumentation used here against it; instead of substantial, serious inquiry into the policies of the government, I found tabloid-like personifications and distorted facts – seriously distorted and potentially dangerous to Poland as a whole: imagine an investor who hears about weird twins delighting in picking fights and tormenting Balcerowicz with “powerful body to oversee the banking system” for the sake of it. period…
    As to your doubts as to the current administrations overarching ethos – it is a little early for a raelity-check of this particular aspect, but even so – you are the first critic that charges Pis with the lack of ethos, of all things…

    43. 1 2 3 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CAPTCHA Image

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>