Tomczyk about SAFE: we can't lose that chance

Why did Poland want this?

Previous EU projects on joint purchases have faced many difficulties. Different countries have different procurement systems, different approaches, regulations and, above all, needs. We so wanted simpler, country-specific projects to start first. That's what we've reported most of them.

The opposition calls on president Karol Nawrocki to veto the SAFE Act. What are the consequences of a possible veto?

First of all, we will have very small time to sign individual contracts. Secondly, without this law, the SAFE funds will not be allowed to go to the Border Guard, as the EU mechanics only provides for military purchases, and the way to finance borderers or police was to be the national bill.

Opposition politicians rise a number of arguments against SAFE. 1 of these is simply a secret list of projects to be implemented through borrowed funds and the rules on which these projects were selected. How was the SAFE list created?

This list was created by the General Staff of the Polish Army with the support of the Armed Forces Agency. All military orders consequence from Polish Armed Forces improvement Programmewhich is simply a paper to be adopted periodically. Its current version secures needs until 2035. On the another hand, all instruments available to the state, specified as the defence budget, the Armed Forces Support Fund or the SAFE programme, are only tools for its implementation.

Why is the SAFE list classified?

Let me answer the question with a question. respective countries participate in SAFE. Why has no country so far revealed its full list of projects? As far as politicians are concerned, any parliamentarian could and can inactive get acquainted with the list of SAFE projects at the secret law firm of the Sejm. However, there was small interest. Of the 560 parliamentarians, there were only 30 of them.

So the list stays classified?

The list will be presented to the public in the version prepared by the General Staff of the Polish Army.

So, which projects can we talk about?

Since we are talking about projects that are crucial to the safety of the state, we should talk about them in terms of capabilities of the Armed Forces of Poland, which we want to get through them. The most crucial is anti-aircraft and air defense. Another area is the ability of deep destruction. The list besides includes Tarcza East programme, cybersecurity, drones, satellite solutions and armored capabilities.

And by dividing it into economical operators, who gets the most?

The Agency of Armed Forces estimated that about 89 percent of the funds would be transferred to Polish companies, in peculiar to entities of the Polish Armed Forces Group. As late announced by Prime Minister Donald Tusk, Huta Stalowa Wola herself will receive orders worth at least PLN 20 billion thanks to SAFE. Only the SAN task is about PLN 15 billion. The next billions will go to the PGZ to acquisition individual equipment for soldiers, mines and a wide scope of equipment for the Armed Forces, specified as Polish Badsuki.

It'll be a turbo acceleration of the improvement of a national holding...

We want the PGZ, which is already the fifteenth firm of the European defence manufacture today, to enter the top 10 and become our national flagship, specified as Orlen.

The opposition accuses the government that SAFE is to support German arms.

I will admit that the arguments about the alleged "Germanity" of our arms purchases are at least surprising. Our contacts with the German side in the defence manufacture are alternatively disappointing – the Leopards can be upgraded. There is no agreement with Germany on arms purchases. All this can be checked online in a twelve minutes. It's time PiS stopped making fools of people.

Today, in the field of the arms industry, we are no longer just a client towards countries specified as France and Germany. We act as a partner, and frequently as a supplier of Polish weapons solutions.

One of the charges against SAFE is that the program was designed to draw Europe distant from America. Consequently, Poland and its safety may be lost.

The United States has been, is and will be our most crucial safety partner. Our US acquisition plans have not changed and are estimated at over PLN 100 billion by 2035. The allegations from the Law and Justice Party, formulated for ad hoc political gain, as though through SAFE we want to harm relations with the United States, are simply an anti-Polish action. There is no and there will be no ban on buying weapons in the United States. The SAFE programme is only an additional financial tool for existing mechanisms. Moreover, with SAFE, we will free the budget, which can translate into additional purchases in the US – if that is the military's decision.

Are the loans from SAFE financially beneficial to us?

Definitely. This is the most financially advantageous debt of all available options. The European Union's rating, which determines the cost of raising capital, is 1 of the best in the planet today, as it is based on the richest countries in Europe. We are incapable to top it, so loans available to us individually would be much more expensive. The alternate just doesn't exist. We have a ready-made support programme worth PLN 200 billion for the safety of Poland.

What about loans and financing purchases from South Korea or the US?

Unfortunately, I cannot uncover many details due to the fact that they are covered by bank secrecy, but both loans from Korea and the United States were much more costly than SAFE. 1 of the contracts was erstwhile disclosed by Bank Gospodarstwa Krajowego and published online – it afraid purchases in the United States, and the interest rate was 6.5%.

By the way, I would like to add that the actions of the Law and Justice Office, and in peculiar Minister Mariusz Błaszczak, who over the six months changed his position towards SAFE by 180 degrees and from a clear supporter became his top critic they talk for themselves. The conditions of the programme and its rules have not changed at the time. But lobbyists are working. And it's obvious...

But you will admit that any doubts could have been avoided. For example, the evidence on the repayment of SAFE from budgetary resources, but not from those intended for national defence. Why isn't he in the first version of the bill?

This is simply a good example of how the state works. The reconciliation of positions is simply a process – from consultation, project, debate in the Sejm and legislature to final decision. Initially, there was no full agreement on the repayment of SAFE, but during the work on the task we worked out an agreement with Minister Andrzej Domański.

So the allegations of opposition to SAFE are unfounded?

It's irrational. After all, we focus on how to supply the military with resources and enable it to build capacity. This is our role. The fact is that in matters of safety – and this is not truism – we should talk with 1 voice. If we agree that the army needs to be modernized and an injection of PLN 200 billion appears, then individual who denies it must just be crazy.
Now there's a threat of a presidential veto hanging over the law introducing SAFE. The arguments raised by the president towards the bill were taken into account in the amendments adopted by the Senate. The first afraid an issue besides applicable to the Ministry of Defence, so that the loans drawn up were not repaid from the national defence budget. The second amendment included the introduction of additional anti-corruption safeguards. In conclusion, the President's reservations were taken into account in the SAFE Act. Now you gotta choose either the interests of the organization or the interests of the state.

What if the president inactive vetos the bill?

This may sound intense, but if the president decides to veto this bill, it will be like spitting in the face of everyone who worked on this project, including those for whom he is liable as head of the Armed Forces. There is no soldier in this building working on orders for the military to say that SAFE is the incorrect solution.