“The adoption of the law on SAFE (Financial Instrument for the Increase of Security) represents a mortal threat to Poland’s independence. SAFE would make Poland dependent on Germany in an incomparably greater way than the NGEU (NextGenerationEU)/Recovery and Resilience Facility, because the amount of money we would receive is much higher and the repayment would last as long as 45 years.” Jacek Saryusz-Wolski, adviser to President Karol Nawrocki—former negotiator of Poland’s accession to the EU, long-time MEP, and Vice-President of the European Parliament (2004–2007)—has no doubts that the SAFE initiative is a trap for Poland. According to him, the main problem is that “SAFE operates as a modern instrument of forced integration. States assume the financial responsibility, while decisions on access to the funds remain in the hands of a central institution that is not politically accountable to the citizens of the states whose situation it actually shapes.”

The European Commission has announced the approval of the second group of national defence plans under the SAFE initiative, which is supposed to represent a major step forward for the security of the Union. The financial assistance would concern Estonia, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, and Finland.

The SAFE instrument is a €150 billion loan fund intended for the development of the EU’s defences. The interest rules and repayment schedule have not yet been specified. Poland has requested a gigantic loan of €43.7 billion for 139 projects, which the government has concealed in the discussions about the loan.

To obtain the loan, at least 65% of the components must come from EU member states. The intention is to strengthen the Community’s strategic autonomy, which limits the participation of non-EU companies—from which Poland has so far purchased the best military equipment (for example, from South Korea or the United States). SAFE operates under EU law and, it must be strongly emphasized, is subject to the conditionality mechanism, as in the case of the Recovery and Resilience Facility.

On February 13, the Sejm (the lower house of the Polish Parliament) approved the SAFE implementation law after only two days of debate, demonstrating that the government is in a great hurry to pass this legislation. Moreover, public opinion was shocked by the news that German Ambassador Miguel Berger attended Thursday’s sessions in the Chamber, indicating how much Germany—which has not requested this loan!—was interested in Poland taking on SAFE debt.

The SAFE law could have been improved: both the president and opposition MPs requested it, submitting several amendments to protect Polish national interests. All were rejected in the Sejm. The opposition in the Sejm voted against the SAFE law, mainly out of fear that the funds would end up primarily in the German and French arms industry. Another reason was the lack of transparency regarding the projects: it is not known exactly what the funds will be used for. And the media have begun to reveal troubling details. For example, the largest Polish beneficiary of SAFE-related projects is the private company Polska Amunicja (Polish Ammunition), led by former MP from Tusk’s party, Paweł Poncyljusz. It is supposed to receive as much as €2.3 billion for ammunition production, despite having neither production capacity nor licences, while state-owned companies of the PGZ (Polish Armaments Group) would receive only €800 million!

On how dangerous it is for Poland to take on debt under SAFE, Minister Saryusz-Wolski expressed himself clearly. According to him: “Accepting the SAFE loan represents a threat to Poland’s independence. SAFE would make Poland dependent on Germany in an incomparably greater way than the Recovery and Resilience Facility, because the amount of money we would receive is much higher and the repayment would last 45 years! And it is not true that it can be substantially improved, because the principle of conditionality is non-negotiable, guaranteed by the SAFE regulation. This means that the sword of Damocles will hang over Poland: it will be forced by Germany to take actions that Poles do not want.” But this conditionality would be even more dangerous than in the case of the Recovery and Resilience Facility, because these are funds for the country’s security. The EU, dominated by Germany, could find any pretext to block these funds.

According to the minister, Poland should reject this programme, “because this is not at all about the army or the rearmament of the Polish army,” and he explains why the SAFE fund can be used as an instrument of blackmail and manipulation of the country. “Imagine that Poland has to veto important decisions. For example, in 2027 on the EU budget, which is an imposition in the style of the Recovery and Resilience Facility and deserves a veto. Then Brussels will surely hold a gun to our temple and block the armament funds from SAFE. Or imagine that we refuse migrant relocation: again we will be subject to blackmail. What is happening is an assault on power and the deprivation of what seems non-negotiable to us—in fact, we lose the right of veto in all other areas. This blackmail mechanism will destroy the principle of unanimity, because Poland, under the threat of cutting funds, will be subjected to blackmail that can also be used to ensure the continuity of the Tusk government. Poland could be subjugated and subdued if it were not governed by a government different from Tusk’s.”

Faced with the government’s statements that the SAFE credit will be taken out anyway even if President Nawrocki vetoes the implementation law, the president’s adviser recalled that this would mean violating the Polish Constitution, which states that “the ratification by the Republic of Poland of an international treaty and its denunciation require prior consent expressed by law, if the treaty entails a significant financial burden for the State.” In practice, the law would have to go through the entire legislative process, including the president’s signature.

Meanwhile, Prime Minister Tusk has announced that the government will work to obtain the SAFE funds even in the event of a presidential veto, saying: “We will find ways anyway, even if they block, even if they put vetoes.” Nothing new: for the current prime minister, violating the Constitution and circumventing the law is normal. If he does it with such arrogance, he most likely has Brussels’ blessing, which seriously calls into question the state of democracy in the EU.

The interview in Italian published in La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana