Centrepiece

Generalised judgments

Colin Welch

There is much about the Polish dictator Jaruzelski which, to borrow an ex- pression from a prominent charwoman, fair gives me the dry heaves. The sobriquet 'general' reminds me of the British field- marshal who in the Twenties, reviewing the Irish Free State army, voiced surprise at the inordinate number of generals on parade. `Ah, well, you see,' explained the governor-general, Tim Healy, 'in Ireland it's hereditary. Their mothers were all generals too' — a pleasantry which must be glossed for the young, who know not the Edwardian slang for a maid of all work. Jaruzelski's features, primly bespectacled, lips pursed like a cat's arse, recall for me those not of a general but of a food-office clerk, of King Norman the Good or perhaps even of the respected petit- bourgeois murderer Christie.

More appropriate to them would be Christie's black tin hat, long greatcoat and stirrup pump than the Ruritanian finery actually preferred. The 'general's' serried rows of unearned medals make me won- der, was his father perhaps a decorator? No, he comes of a land-owning family and has, unlike Lord Stansgate, the excuse for his illiberal views that he was abducted at an early age to Russia. There he was transformed not into a Polish general, a class of person which the Kremlin abhors, but into a Stalinoid Communist Quisling which he more or less remains and we in the West more or less forget. The Poles forget never: bitter experience has taught them to mistrust all he says and does. Yet whenever he offers to take the gullible in the West for another ride, they clamber again on board.

Commenting on the murder of Father Popieluszko, the Times veered momentari- ly from sense to declare that Jaruzelski 'and his closest political advisers must be given some credit for bringing the immedi- ate offenders so swiftly to trial'. Possibly: but not if the 'general' and those advisers were in. fact, as is at least — well — conceivable, privy to the murder plot or had even ordered it, or had created the sinister, lawless and subservient atmos- phere in which, crime is the high road to preferment and a mere nudge or wink suffices to set the machinery of murder in motion. If they now seek to shuffle conve- niently off onto underlings guilt which is ,truly theirs, they deserve more discredit than Henry II for the murder of Becket.

The dear old Daily Telegraph has always been respected by suburban majors and other sound judges as one of the most sceptical observers and analysts of com- munist trials, protestations and tricks. Yet

even in its properly distrustful pages we learn from an unnamed member of its diplomatic staff that the trial is 'a measure of the degree to which the Polish State has become accountable to the nation. It would be unthinkable for a similar trial to take place anywhere else in. the East bloc, except as a showpiece for propaganda reasons.' Indeed; but pseudo-judicial eli- mination of subordinates no longer useful is a familar feature of communist life. Stalin got rid of millions, and never lacked subservient replacements. And perhaps also in Poland the trial is 'a showpiece for propaganda reasons'.

What could those reasons be? Well, perhaps to perpetuate the hallowed myth that there are always in communist dicta- torships softliners and hardliners; that Jaruzelski is one of the former, the arrested policemen three of the latter, together with whatever 'shadowy hardlin- ers', perhaps 'at the highest level' (though always excluding Jaruzelski himself) may have given them their orders. Jaruzelski's line has always been that he is the 'relative- ly liberal' dictator or 'nurse' who protects the Poles from a Kremlin which is some- thing worse.

Whether Jaruzelski directly or indirectly' ordered the murder of Father Popieluszko will not soon be known, though not much is done in communist states without the highest authority. The death of this formid- able antagonist cannot have been wholly unwelcome to him, however; and whatever risks and disadvantages might flow from the crime may be averted by the 'general' posing as the priest's avenger. The 'gener- al' is in fact accountable to the Kremlin, which put him where he is, and not to the Polish nation, which did not. By suggesting precisely the opposite, the trial is doubtless designed to make Jaruzelski appear a more proper recipient, on behalf of the nation to which-he is 'becoming accountable', of the aid, loans, privileges, visits and legitimacy which he greedily seeks or urgently needs. The cynical may deem accountability truly achieved only when Jaruzelski throws not others but himself to the wolves.

The Economist shrewdly noted what the old twister is after — in particular, from

America, credits and most-favoured- nation status. The effect of this shrewdness was marred in the next issue by a not uncharacteristic display of omniscient naivety. Jaruzelski and his interior minis-

ter, the Economist revealed, 'agreed' that

the investigations and trial should be 'open' (up to a point, Lord Copper?) in order `to flush out the government's hard- line opponents in the security apparatus

and beyond'. 'Opponents'? 'Most trusted servants', the Daily Telegraph calls them. Which are they? And how does the Eco- nomist know all this? Bugging devices? Flies on the wall? Fallible in the past, why is the Economist so cocksure now? It speaks of interior ministry officials 'shock- ed' by the priest's murder. So squeamish? Is all in Poland as it seems? No Pole thinks so.

The regime and Solidarity have apparently joined in demanding 'strict jus- tice' for the accused. If 'strict justice' means exemplary punishment for them and them alone, it could be strict injustice. While humble monkeys suffer, the organ- grinders parade in shining robes as the impartial guardians of law and order.

I feel sympathy, I must confess, for former police lieutenant Chmielewski, stammering and swaying in the dock, his face distorted by nervous spasms. Com- munism degrades and ruins those it uses more than those it oppresses.

I feel also much greater sympathy for Pte Ian Thain of the Light Infantry — much greater, because to join an honourable regiment like the Light Infantry is more excusable, to say the least, than joining the Polish secret police. Pte Thain has been sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder in Belfast of Thomas Reilly, road manager of a pop group, who had allegedly punched a soldier and tried to steal a riot-gun and who had certainly, according to the judge, been drinking heavily and involved in a fracas. Thain declared that he had three times called on Reilly to stop and fired then in self-defence. His evidence, or part of it, was not believed.

The judge said that he had taken into account the then recent murder of Thain's mate, as also Thain's youth, inexperience (he was 18, had been in the army less than a year), doubtful 'stability' and lack of sleep. What sentence, I wonder, would he have imposed had he not? I wonder too: who put the gun into Thain's hands, trained him and found him fit to use it? Who gave him his orders? Did he under- stand them? Were they clear, simple to carry out? Were they the general orders given to all troops on patrol in Ulster? If so, are they appropriate to the circum- stances, or totally inappropriate? Can a war be conducted under peacetime law? Unless all these questions can be well answered, a life sentence seems to me monstrous.

I once shot a German corporal dead without warning or provocation. No prize for marksmanship: he was huge and less than six feet away. I may have been very scared at the time. One thing I was not scared of was getting a life sentence be- cause some judge, a year later, refused to accept that I was acting in defence of self and comrades. Surviving at liberty, thank God, I am free to express disgust when humble men, prone to error or worse, are made to pay for the crimes and follies of remote superiors, pharisaical or worse.