Janine Wedel - Collision and Collusion - The Strange Case of Western Aid to Eastern Europe

  79. Interviews with Klaus Schmidt and Andrew Rasbash of the EU delegation in Poland, April 7, 1994, and April 22, 1994, respectively; and interviews with John Kjaer and Pierre Mirel of the PHARE program in Brussels, May 4, 1994. In addition, the “Conclusions of the Presidency” document, Copenhagen, June 21-22, 1993, Brussels, European Union, p. 14 states: “Part of the resources under the PHARE programme may be used for major infrastructural improvements.” A report released by the PHARE information office states that “At the Copenhagen Council it was decided to allow the allocation of up to 15 percent of the total Phare budget to co-finance major infrastructure developments with international financial institutions. The first project was an ECU 30 million contribution to a railway development programme in Poland.” ( What is Phare? Brussels, Belgium: European Commission, Phare Information Office, May 1994, p. 11.)

  80. Interview with Klaus Schmidt of the EU delegation in Poland, April 7, 1994.

  81.  The Phare Programme Annual Report, 1995, Brussels, Belgium: European Union, September 25, 1997, p. 7.

  82. The “Accession Partnership” countries consist of Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia. Albania, Bosnia-Herzogovina, and Macedonia participate in the PHARE program but are not candidates for EU membership. European Commission, The Phare Programme Annual Report 1998, Brussels, Belgium: European Commission, March 2000, p. 2.

  83. To improve institution-building, PHARE introduced “twinning,” which pairs member state officials with corresponding officials in candidate states to help implement the Community acquis (the body of common rights and obligations of all EU member states). In investment support, the EU has designated 70 percent of the PHARE budget to bring industry and infrastructure up to EC standards. European Commission, The Phare Programme Annual Report 1998, Brussels, Belgium: European Commission, March 2000, p. 9.

  84. One exception was a small-business program with a little money for investment in a cross-border initiative to link Ukraine with PHARE countries. Interview with Michael B. Humphreys, counselor, European Commission delegation in Ukraine, August 22, 1995.

  85. Interview with Michael B. Humphreys, August 22, 1995. See also European Commission, Tacis: European Commission: The Tacis Programme Annual Report 1997, Brussels, Belgium: European Commission, 1998.

  86. Interview with Michael B. Humphreys, August 22, 1995.

  87. Robert L. Hutchings, “Statement of Ambassador Robert L. Hutchings, Special Adviser for East European Assistance, Department of State, before the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, House Committee on Appropriations,” April 19, 1993, p. 3.

  88. General Accounting Office, Poland and Hungary: Economic Transition and U.S. Assistance, Washington, D.C.: U.S. General Accounting Office, May 1, 1992, pp. 34, 31-36. This approach changed very little and was reiterated by the State Department Coordinator of U.S. assistance to the NIS. (See these strategy papers for Russia and the former Soviet Union: U.S. Department of State, United States Assistance and Economic Cooperation Strategy for the Newly Independent States, approved January 14, 1994, by the coordinator of U.S. assistance to the New Independent States, Washington, D.C.; and U.S. Department of State, United States Assistance and Economic Cooperation Strategy for Russia, approved May 19, 1994, by the coordinator of U.S. assistance to the New Independent States, Washington, D.C.)

  89. Interviews with Ágnes Nádházi and Kornél Kováts of the Hungarian Ministry of International Economic Relations, April 27, 1994, and Paweł Samecki, director of the Bureau for Foreign Assistance, Polish Council of Ministers, July 26, 1994.

  90. Although crucial, the historical legacies that would distinguish problems of transformation in postcommunist Europe from those in apparently comparable nations in both First and Third World regions were overlooked by many pundits of the day. In Varieties of Transition, political sociologist Claus Offe details the differences between the “transition” to democracy in Latin America and Southern Europe in the 1970s and 1980s and in post-1989 Central and Eastern Europe, as well as between post–World War II and post–Cold War transformations. In the former case, Offe argues that two main differences—massive migration and the necessity of economic (not just political and constitutional) reform in the case of postcommunist Europe—distinguish these cases from each other. In comparing post–World War II and post–Cold War transformations, Offe suggests that “the post-1989 case poses the more difficult problems of transition.” ( Varieties of Transition: The East European and East German Experience, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1997, pp. 31-32, 187-188.) See also Valerie Bunce, “The Political Economy of Postsocialism,” Slavic Review, vol. 58, no. 4, Winter 1999, pp.756-793.

  91. From 1959 through 1975, Hungary ranked in the top three each year. Romania also scored in the top three until 1965. From 1982 to 1985, at least two Eastern Bloc countries or the Soviet Union ranked in the top five. (Murray S. Klamkin, International Mathematical Olympiad, 1978-1985, Washington, D.C.: Mathematical Association of America, 1986, appendix B, pp. 11-117 and 121-124.)

  92. Interview with Walter Mientka, May 20, 1997.

  93. Interviews with and/or documents provided by Zbigniew Lewicki and Zdzisław Ludwiczak of the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Jitka Cenková of the Centre for Foreign Assistance of the Ministry of the Economy of the Czech Republic; Jarmila Hrbáčková, Andrea Matisová, and Lubo Lubina of the Slovak Ministry of Foreign Affairs; and Kornél Kováts and Ágnes Nádházi of the Assistance Coordination Secretariat of the Hungarian Ministry of International Economic Relations.

  94. Interview with Czech official.

  95. The cable stated that “at this time only Albania has signed the draft bilateral transmitted … and we have no hard information (other than possibly re the CSFR) that we are close to signing anywhere else.… The time has come for all posts to make a serious overture to the appropriate host government officials involved at the highest appropriate level and to agree on an imminent timetable for execution of these agreements, so that the program can continue without interruption.” Cable from Lawrence Eagleburger, acting secretary of state, August 10, 1992.

  96. Interviews with Zdzisław Ludwiczak, deputy director, Department of the Americas, Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, August 31, 1995, and May 12, 1997.

  97. As discussed earlier, the very concept of the Third World is tied to foreign assistance; see note 19.

  98. Václav Klaus, “Foreign Aid for a Post-Communist Country—Experience and Prospects,” speech given before the Bretton Woods Committee, World Bank, Washington, D.C., October 15, 1993.

  99. Interview with Zdeněk Drábek, July 7, 1994.

100. Marianne Gronemeyer, “Helping,” The Development Dictionary: A Guide to Knowledge as Power, Wolfgang Sachs, ed., London, United Kingdom: Zed Books, 1992, p. 55.

101. Jánoś Kornai, “The Health of Nations: Reflections on the Analogy Between the Medical Science and Economics,” Kyklos, vol. 36, 1983, Fasc. 2, pp.191-192.

102. Mark Hobart, “Introduction: The Growth of Ignorance?” An Anthropological Critique of Development, Mark Hobart, ed., London, United Kingdom: Routledge, 1993, p. 6.