MACIEJEWSKI: EU ERRS IN ITS APPROACH TOWARD RUSSIA

– November 23, 2008

- an interview with Mr. Andrzej Maciejewski, a policy expert

at the Sobieski Institute in Warsaw, Poland, who specializes in international relations analysis, security issues and energy

policy. Mr. Maciejewski can be contacted at this email.

Also available in Polish here.  

Sebastian Aulich: This week we had the first anniversary

of the Tusk Administration’s rule in Poland. How would you describe the foreign policy of Tusk's Cabinet?

Andrzej Maciejewski: The Tusk Administration has been conducting dovish foreign policy as contrasted with the hawkish policy of President Kaczynski. If one combines doves with hawks, one usually gets a parrot and that’s what we actually have in our foreign policy right now. Poland’s foreign policy is colorless in terms of its effectiveness, although it may seem colorful visually. We are pursuing a policy of acquiescence toward Russia. On the other hand, our establishment seems to believe that the European Union has already adopted its own constitution, that the Lisbon Treaty has been ratified by everybody and that Europe is a one state. It was a year in which many opportunities were lost, especially as it relates to the Eastern policy. However in terms of Poland’s relations with the EU, there has been improvement, what should be noted.

SA: What mistakes did the Tusk Administration make in its Eastern policy?

AM: First of all, a foreign policy requires consequence and some long term vision. However, if we analyzed the last 10 years, and especially the last 4 years of right-wing cabinets in Poland, we would see the lack of consequence, what makes our foreign policy rather weak. At the same time we should reject the idea that an Administration, which is in power only one year, can change much. There is no doubt that our foreign policy should be consequent, regardless of who is in power right now, from what party and whether that person has a twin brother, who happens to be a President. Such issues should be irrelevant. The efficiency of a foreign policy is based on its consequence and long-term vision. Donald Tusk’s problem is that his foreign policy is neither consequent nor does it have any special long term vision. It seems that he reversed great amount of work done by President Kwasniewski and President Kaczynski in the field of Poland’s relations with Ukraine, the Baltic States and Georgia. On the other hand, if we asked today our politicians about the most important aims in our Eastern policy, they would probably have problems in giving any satisfactory answer. These are elementary problems of our foreign policy, which will haunt us in longer term. Some politicians forget that one cannot create vision for a foreign policy just overnight and that it requires a long process.

SA: We have a constitutional conflict in Poland between the President and the Prime Minister, who argue with each other who has greater constitutional competencies in the filed of conducting the foreign policy. On the other hand, the Constitutional Tribunal seems unwilling to rush to give an answer to this question. How should this problem be solved?

AM: In my opinion, Poland’s Constitution is quite precise in this field. A while ago I gave an interview for the Polish Public Radio in which I compared our foreign policy establishment to a soccer team. Presently what we are witnessing is a competition between the President and the Prime Minister about who is going to be the captain of this allegoric soccer team. For sure, the Council of Ministers, which is led by the Prime Minister, and the President himself, need to play in the same team if we want to win our games. However, every soccer team, besides having a captain and other players, needs also a coach and that is a role for the President. The President should be a mentor, with whom the captain and the rest of the team always consult. Thus, the problem of Poland’s foreign policy is that we do not have a one, unified team and many times we simply play against each other, therefore too often we lose our games. There are emotional aspects involved as well, which come into play, however they hurt the interest of the country.

SA:  There is a discussion ongoing in the United States whether the Obama Administration should continue the project of locating the U.S. antimissile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic or rather to drop the idea. What should be Poland’s response to that?

AM: I believe in common sense and the healthy American democracy. It seems to me that American think tanks have already recovered from the campaign heat and so did the President Elect. On the other hand, I don’t believe that one day there comes a new President, who reverses everything that the Bush Administration worked on and achieved so far. Additionally, we also need to remember, that Barack Obama many times supported Bush’s policy proposals in many different fields in numerous votes in the Senate. The strength of America’s foreign policy is based on its consequence and on the principle that it has been always continued regardless of who was in the office. Of course, there have been changes in the U.S. foreign policy, however, they never were revolutionary or radical. The policy goals were modified and were evolving, nevertheless always in a delicate way, which would be least harmful to a national interest. I doubt that President Elect’s advisers did not draw conclusions from recent statements by the Russian President and the leaders of some of the European Union’s member countries. After the announcement of the election results in the U.S., many European states and Russia surprisingly started speaking in one voice. Suddenly, those leaders woke up, as if they were afraid to speak out in one voice anytime before that or were afraid of George Bush. The President Elect should draw conclusions from that. If he does not draw proper conclusions from this precedent, it may mark and cause America’s decline. The statements by Sarkozy, Berlusconi and Medvedev, reject America’s actions and achievements in Europe, which were done so far. As I said before, the strength of the U.S. foreign policy has been so far based on its consequence and long term vision.

SA: What about the very idea of the antimissile shield, is it a good solution for Poland or not?

AM: In the first place it needs to be noted that all statesmen are remembered by history because they make difficult and often unpopular decisions. Ronald Reagan’s idea about the Star Wars project, which is now being continued in the concept of the antimissile shield, is an example of such bravery of a statesman. Whether this project is good for Poland, we need to analyze if Poland has any other alternative and if we can have something else instead of that? What Poland can do today by itself to further its own security? We are a close and important ally of the United States. Regardless of the differences between the Prime Minister and the President during the debate about the shield, both of them agreed that it was a good idea for Poland, both as an element of prestige and as a security factor. From the Polish perspective, I would not attempt to reopen this discussion again. We already know the reaction of our partners from the European Union, while Russia did not surprise us with anything new. The question remains whether Obama will behave as a statesman or rather as an average politician of Sarkozy or Berlusconi-type.

SA: What should be the policy of the United States and the European Union toward resurgent Russia?

AM: Russia is not trying to start a new Cold War or to revert to military actions. It is rather conducting a policy which is a result of an “icing syndrome”. Russia’s foreign policy over the last twenty years is a result of such kind of a syndrome. It aims at annexation, inducing dependency and “freezing”, paralyzing – for an unlimited time – certain kind of territories. If one analyzes the territories captured and controlled by Russia, whether that is Belarus, Transnistria, Abkhazia, Ossetia, Crimea, Chechnya and so on, one sees that these were territories, which had serious problems to exist in economic terms, they were merely economically vegetating. Therefore they all became a modern day colonies, within the brutal meaning of this term. The energy security issue is a very important one but it lost its cover once the financial crisis in Russia has transformed into a serious economic crisis that spread to the whole Russian territory. In its relations with other countries, Russia eventually revealed, what Poland and the Baltic States have been claiming for a while already, that Russia under Putin and Medvedev is not a serious and reliable partner. It is a Russia, which is aggressive, which does not engage in a dialogue, it is a Russia where there is no democracy and freedom. It is a country, which treats other countries, such as Georgia, the Baltic States, and even Poland, Ukraine and Belarus, as its historic dominium and property. Russia has not changed its policy in this field since years. However, the European Union seems to be somehow charmed by Russia. The latest developments during the EU-Russia Summit and statements by European diplomats show that the EU is unable to be consequent in its policy and even agrees to be humiliated. Especially, when Sarkozy, as a chief of EU Presidency, agreed that Russia need not to adhere to the requirements of previously negotiated peace in Georgia and need not to withdraw its troops from that country. Sarkozy did not react not because he was misinformed, but rather because there is a real lack of leadership in the European Union, which suffers from shortage of true statesmen. There is nowhere a Reagan, a Thatcher or a De Gaulle in a present day Europe. The EU is governed by average, if not mediocre, politicians and public servants, who do not think according to any long-term vision for Europe, but act based on their “public relations” needs.