Bens Latkovskis on the Polish and Hungarian opposition to Brussels

If Europe was not so preoccupied with the problems caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, the issue of the difficult relationship between the EU and Poland, Hungary would most likely dominate the headlines. This issue has become particularly acute since Poland and Hungary vetoed the EU budget on 16 November.

The conflict between Brussels, on the one hand, and Poland and Hungary, on the other, has been long time coming. In both countries, the EU sees authoritarian, right-wing conservative regimes pursuing a course that goes beyond the limits acceptable by democracy. Although the Brussels' dislike is on a wide range of issues, formal allegations are made against the influenceability of the judiciary. For so-called non-compliance with the rule of law. It is mentioned that both countries have laws that make the judiciary dependent on political decisions. In accordance with the practice adopted by the EU, these allegations have always been made in a very rough, fuzzy form, which allowed everyone to interpret them as they see fit. As a result, Poland and Hungary did not specifically address these allegations.

The situation changed after the European Parliament election on 25 May 2019, when the left liberal wing (green and yellow parties) significantly increased its influence. Intolerance of the Hungarian and Polish conservative governments also increased within the group of the People's Party (centre). As Roberts Zīle, a Member of the European Parliament, said in an interview with Neatkarīgā (November 23, 2020): "There are many new MEPs who would like to punish Poland and Hungary."

In July this year, after four days of negotiations, the European Council (leaders of 27 EU countries) adopted the EU's seven-year (2021-2027) budget of € 1.8 trillion, including a € 750 billion loan from the Recovery Fund. This decision already contained a provision linking the availability of EU funding to "rule of law" requirements. However, in the final document, which was so voluminous and important for everyone, the wording of the request was so vague that Poland and Hungary saw it as another finger-wagging without financial consequences.

When the EU budget reached the European Parliament, the same MEPs mentioned by Zīle, who "would like to punish Poland and Hungary", had already turned this vague wording into a strict requirement to link the availability of EU funding to certain legal provisions in national law. In the final document to be approved by the European Parliament, this link was clear. Poland and Hungary were not at peace with this development and vetoed the EU budget bill on 16 November.

Most watchers, including the aforementioned Roberts Zīle, predict that the experienced EU politicians and officials will be able to find a compromise in which both the wolf will be fed and the sheep will stay alive. In the end, some decision will be made, the only question is - what will it be? At the moment, it seems that the compromise decision may not be very favorable to both rebellious countries. It is determined by the isolation of both countries. They have no support from other countries and political groups. Slovenian Prime Minister Janez Janša, who is in friendly relations with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, is ready to give them a small, symbolic support, but they have no other serious supporters. His hasty congratulations to Donald Trump on winning the US presidential election on the morning of November 4 this year sayy a lot about Janša himself.

Latvia's position in this situation is traditional - we will follow the majority, the "big guys." On the one hand, this position can be understood. After all, we are not a great power that can show off with its special, different position. However, even when implementing a pragmatic, rationally balanced policy, a certain balance of interests can be observed.

Latvia, like other Baltic states, should take into account that Poland (this is less the case in Hungary) is our main strategic cooperation country in the region. First and foremost, it is about security, but not only. From the point of view of national security, Poland is the second (perhaps even the first) most important country after the United States, on which our security depends. Canada, as the main country of the NATO battalion deployed in Latvia, has a separate status.

According to the war game modeled by RAND Corporation in 2015, the actions of Polish troops can be decisive for the Baltic States in the event of a direct Russian attack. Despite NATO battalions in the Baltic States, only Poland has a sufficiently strong armed forces in our region that could show serious resistance to Russia's military superiority.

We have a lot in common with Poland, not only in the field of defense, so it would only be in our own interest to show solidarity with this country when someone tries to force them on their knees. All the more so because we ourselves could one day find ourselves in a similar situation when the EU imposes something on us. You don't have to look far to see what it could be. Article 110 of the Latvian Constitution, which stipulates that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, is like a thorn in the eyes of those who would like to radically review the current norms of everyday life and “build a new world for themselves.” Therefore, a demand from Brussels to change the Constitution is only a matter of time.

Here, of course, the question arises - what are "our interests" in the understanding of Prime Minister Krišjānis Kariņš and Minister of Foreign Affairs Edgars Rinkēvičs. If those are the same interests as from the times of Augusts Voss, when every local government's dream was his own office in Moscow, then everything is clear. The cabinet in Brussels can be obtained by nodding diligently when the "big guys" speak. Dombrovskis' example is more than obvious. However, if these politicians first think about the interests of the Latvian state, then a more balanced position would be in the interests of all of us. By that I mean greater support for Poland as our closest strategic ally.