Lech Kaczyński was a great European, he just wasn't a European at any cost. A few weeks have now passed since the tragic events in Smolensk that wiped out the lives of Poland's political elite, and it is time to consider the European testament of the late president.
Perhaps not the greatest public relations wonder, Lech Kaczyński was a statesman in his own particular way, and an intellectual with a clear vision for his country, who tried to stand above party politics and who sought justice for those who held privileged positions during the communist era and kept their influence after the transition of the early 90s. The latter brought him many enemies in his homeland.
Poland's late president was the kind of European that Brussels doesn't seem to like. He was disagreeable and uncomfortable, which did not suit most of his counterparts and indeed his domestic political rivals. He did not want to accept impunity for decades of communist terrorism and could not imagine how one can build a strong united Europe without justice and fair punishment. He warned us that we can and should not blindly trust the dogmatic multilateralism that is deified by so many in Brussels. He was so much more realistic than most about Poland's position in Europe, and Europe's role on the world scene. Uncomfortably realistic.
Lech Kaczyński reminded us of our dependence on the United States, and on the value of maintaining strong relations with the most stable democracy in the world. Often criticized for his trust and confidence in America, he recognized that Poland and Europe, not ultimately capable of self-defense, need the US - and no-one else - as their strongest partner.
He recognized the need for a prudent strategy on Russia, and rightfully pointed to the stranglehold the powerful empire in the Levant still has on parts of Central and Eastern Europe. He was one of the few to remind us of the ruthlessness with which Russia continues to treat its much less powerful neighbors, and of Russia's long-term strategy to increase its power reach.
With the death of Lech Kaczyński and of so many, too many, who really cared about Poland and put the interests of the country above their own political interests, the country has undoubtedly changed. We can only hope that their memory be kept alive and their legacy be carried on by a new generation with real political courage. Sadly these are, so far, nowhere to be seen on the political landscape.
The European Council Summit that is currently going on in Brussels is one of the more ambitious of its kind, with its main objective being the development of a “common” EU negotiating position for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Copenhagen, a little over a month away.
The draft conclusions, which I was able to consult and which are being discussed by the EU’s heads of state and government as I write this, speak of an envisaged reduction of carbon emissions of up to 95 percent by 2050 (when compared to 1990 levels), at least by developed nations. The EU has already committed to a 30 percent reduction by 2020, but one may ask whether 95 percent isn’t overly ambitious. What is certain is that the “old” EU member states are likely to be asked to make more significant efforts than the “new” member states, and rightfully so. We saw the same scenario emerging from the discussions on targets for 2020, earlier this year.
What is equally interesting to see are the astonishing amounts of money the EU believes will be required to reduce the carbon footprint of the developing world. By 2020, developing countries alone will require €100 billion per year to finance so-called mitigation and adaptation efforts. These efforts are to be funded in part from the budgets of these nations themselves, but largely through the international carbon market and international public finance. The level of international public support, i.e. development aid, is estimated at €22-50 billion per year by 2020.
A number of reflections: At the EU level we are looking at a significant effort. And there is a lot of work that must, or rather can, be done by the “new” member states to catch up. Derogation is likely, and rightfully so, and the burden on Poland and the likes will presumably be lower. Nevertheless, significant public funding will be required (and must be assigned), in particular to bring the Polish energy sector up to speed with international standards, and to achieve real improvements. Poland has the right cards and can become a leader of renewable energy, if it wants to and if the government is ready to create the right framework and provide the right means.
What the above-mentioned figures show is the potential size of the so-called “green” economy. Whereas one can waste a lot of time in dispute over the seriousness of certain climate change arguments, it sometimes simply makes more sense to look at things in a pragmatic way. It is now clearer than ever that there is a very strong political commitment to assign unseen amounts of money to changing the way we produce energy. And this commitment presents visionary entrepreneurs with opportunities to become part of that growing “green” economy. Let’s reminisce for a moment about the gold rushes in the 19th-century Wild West: it was not the gold diggers that made the biggest fortunes, it was those that sold them their spades. More than ever, stay tuned.
