A newcomer to the EU, Poland is not shy about demonstrating its own approach to European problems, which differs from that of veteran EU members. In 2006, after the Ukrainian-Russian gas conflict, Poland proposed creating an energy NATO in the EU in order to provide energy security to the members of this economic union. One of the more daring displays of Warsaw’s temperament was its November veto on the Brussels-Moscow partnership and talks on cooperation. In taking this step, Poland was not held back by the fear of spoiling its image. Was this move justified? Is Brussels reacting adequately to energy security challenges? Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary Ambassador of Poland to Ukraine Jacek Kluczkowski answers these and other questions in the following interview with The Day.
WE WERE FORCED TO USE OUR RIGHT OF VETO
“Our stance on the use of veto is clear. We are part of the European market and believe it is an incorrect approach when a country does not view us as an EU member and specifically bans Polish imports. Russia and Ukraine signed a partnership and cooperation treaty with the EU, which regulates trade conditions. We were forced to take this step and use the right of veto in order to emphasize that we are a full EU member, and our neighbors should not treat us differently from the rest of the European common market members. This was a justified step on our part. Incidentally, we received support in this matter from the European Commission and many EU members. Unfortunately, the timing was wrong. If we had received such support earlier, we wouldn’t have had to resort to a veto on the EU-Russia talks.”
When will Poland lift its veto?
“When we resolve these problems.”
That is to say, this depends on Russia’s consent to renew Polish meat imports?
“Yes. We are waiting for Russia to fulfill its obligations pertaining to its trade with the EU in the part that concerns Poland. Then there will be no obstacles on our part.”
NO CONSUMER, NO ENERGY SUPPLIER
Your country initiated the creation of the energy NATO. Recent events, in particular the Minsk-Moscow oil conflict, seem to have confirmed the soundness and wisdom of Warsaw’s proposal. Is Brussels reacting adequately to energy security challenges?
“I think we are witnessing the emergence of the all-European need for a common energy charter and common energy policy. The leading countries of the European community and the European Commission are gradually becoming cognizant of this need. This process will take several years. Now the EU is conducting a very focused discussion about developing a common energy policy. I think this is a step in the direction we spoke about last year. The creation of the energy NATO, i.e., understanding between the European countries about mutual help in the event of an energy crisis, is a different, and much more difficult, matter. This kind of help requires huge investments. Storage reservoirs and gas and oil pipelines will need to be built; storage and reserve volumes will have to be increased. This is an immense task dictated by the necessity to avoid a situation in which energy-supplying countries use their energy resources as a way of exerting pressure on our country. I think that this is the direction we will choose. The EU is the world’s largest energy consumer, and only the EU can pay serious money for energy. No consumer, no supplier.”
German chancellor Angela Merkel was recently quoted by the Polish newspaper Rzeczpospolita as saying that she is in favor of a united gas pipeline network for the EU. At the same time she said she is unable to do anything about the fact that Polish companies are not interested in the offer to participate in the construction of the North Atlantic gas pipeline. Can you comment on this statement?
“First of all, I would not want your readers to get the impression that Poland decides everything here. I can say that we are very much interested in building a common gas pipeline network, especially because Germany has more sources of gas supply than Poland. As far as the North Atlantic gas pipeline is concerned, we have nothing more to add to what we have already said. This project is designed to bypass Poland and Lithuania and this is not beneficial to our country. We have a contract with Gazprom that dates back to the 1990s. At that time the Russians promised to build a second gas pipeline. Now it seems as though this contract does not exist, even though it was signed. We never gave them any reason to consider us an unreliable transit country. That’s why the majority of Polish politicians and citizens believe we should not participate in this project.”
Does the oil and customs conflict between Russia and Belarus provide an incentive for completing the beleaguered project of building the Odesa-Brody-Plock oil pipeline?
“The problem here is not with Poland. We have been ready to cooperate on this project for a long time. But first we need to have the oil. We can negotiate about this, and we have even proposed using this pipeline in the forward direction to supply oil to the Czech Republic, where a Polish oil company owns one of the biggest oil-processing plants. So far we haven’t received an answer to these questions, but we have heard that the talks between Ukraine’s representatives and Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan are proceeding in a direction that is favorable to this project.”
LUSTRATION HAS SUPPORT OF CITIZENS
The archbishop of Warsaw recently declined a promotion when his collaboration with the former Polish security services was revealed. Poland’s parliament is considering a bill that would prohibit former secret police agents from occupying important positions in government institutions. Doesn’t this smack of McCarthyism, the policy that was once pursued in the US? Is this practice of ridding state agencies of former secret service agents relevant to Polish society now?
“These plans are not aimed at persecuting people for their convictions. Any parties working within the Constitution may realize their plans and take part in elections. For 10 years now we have had a law on lustration that obliges former secret service agents to report on their past. This applies to ministerial positions, deputy ministers, heads of provinces, parliamentarians, senators, attorneys, and judges. Appointers and appointees have to square accounts with their past.
“Now we are talking about something different. The presidential administration is proposing a bill to establish an average pension for all former officers and employees of the communist secret services, without bonuses for their employment in these agencies, and to strip them of decorations that were awarded in the communist period. We believe that their service did not benefit Poland as an independent country. These kinds of proposals compel people to review their past and not be always proud of it.
“The Warsaw archbishop’s case is totally different. The archives of the communist secret services are now open to scholars and journalists, and files like the one on the archbishop are accessible. People are very interested in this, and this case is sparking arguments in the press, society, and hierarchy of the Catholic Church about what really happened and whether his activities were detrimental to the faithful. This is difficult to estimate, especially for the young generation, but we need to find out the truth. We decided to pass this kind of law. In any case, it facilitates attempts to settle accounts with the difficult past. In my opinion, lustration has support among the population, especially young people.”
From the very beginning Poland was one of the US’s allies in Iraq. Polish military presence in Iraq did not enjoy popular support, but for the moment the government is not going to withdraw the troops. At the end of 2006 Poland’s President Lech Kaczynski again extended their stay. What benefits has Poland derived from its military presence in Iraq?
“The point is not about deriving benefits from our presence in Iraq. We decided to join the US in its antiterrorist campaign. We are willing to acknowledge that there may have been mistakes but this was our strategic decision — to be with our allies, the US and Great Britain. Being together is definitely a huge benefit. When our country needed help during the days of communist dictatorship, we received help. Our society feels indebted to the West, especially the US. That’s why we are a staunch ally. That is not to say that we don’t have our own views on how the Iraq problem can be resolved. I would like to emphasize once again: the most important thing for us was not some sort of benefits. I don’t know what kind of benefits are to be gotten in Iraq, a country in the state of civil war. It is our principled position to be together with those countries that are taking practical measures to defend us and our civilization from terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism.”
Belarus is our common neighbor. You must have noticed that the Ukrainian government is pursuing a very pragmatic policy toward Belarus and hasn’t criticized it lately for human rights violations, as the EU and USA are in the habit of doing. In the light of the crisis that recently erupted between Minsk and Moscow, what kind of policy should the EU be pursuing toward Belarus? Does Poland have its own proposals?
“We understand Ukraine’s position. Before, it was our desire to adopt a more open strategy toward Belarus. Unfortunately, Belarus shows negative trends. We sincerely desire to help Belarus gain economic independence and to cooperate more closely with this country. However, I think that the recent elections to local administration bodies in Belarus supplied further evidence that the country does not have any prerequisites for a change in the EU’s-and Poland’s-policy.”
UKRAINE’S STRATEGY FOR JOINING NATO IS ITS OWN BUSINESS
Regarding the topic of Ukraine’s integration into the EU and NATO, have you observed any positive changes and progress toward Ukraine’s membership in the North Atlantic organizations in the activity of the anti-crisis coalition and Yanukovych’s government?
“It is up to the Ukrainian people to evaluate the government’s activity and changes and decide how positive or negative they are. As far as contacts and ties with Poland are concerned, I do not perceive any significant changes. We have close, I would even say exemplary, relations at the political level and fairly good economic ties, although our economies are not complementary and in some sectors are even competing with each other. But in any case we are trying to resolve problems as they arise. I have no criticisms to make about our bilateral contacts.
“As far as your strategy for joining NATO is concerned, this is your own business. We want Ukraine to find its place among democratic countries and in the system of security policy, the center of which is NATO. This is up to Ukraine to decide. On the one hand, we hear the president and prime minister’s statements that Ukraine intends to develop its relations with NATO and build them not only in the military sphere but also in economic and other sectors. So far NATO has not invited Ukraine, and Ukraine in its turn is not ready to join NATO. There is a lack of proper support in society.”
EU PROXIMITY AND MEMBERSHIP WILL DEPEND ON THE PACE OF BUILDING ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS
The situation with EU integration is different. What can Brussels do to encourage Ukraine to implement the necessary reforms that would open up the way to the EU?
“Our position is known to the EU members. We are in favor of extending Ukraine the prospect of membership. I am sure that most EU countries are not against this. The problem may be with timing and the EU’s ability to expand. For several reasons it is not ready for expansion now. But the first question is still about Ukraine — how fast changes are taking place here, how quickly a competitive economy is being built, and how transparent and open economic processes are in general. The signals here are mixed.
“Unfortunately, Ukraine does not have conditions for developing small and medium-size businesses, and there is no decisive struggle against the oligarchization of economic life. Some changes are in place, but foreign investors are not satisfied with the investment climate. The EU membership problem will be resolved according to how fast a competitive economy is built. To a large extent this depends on when Ukraine joins the WTO because this will send a signal that Ukraine is ready to work in an open and liberalized market. The competitiveness of a country and its economy decide whether it is ready for EU membership. Everything beyond that is just talk.”
Roman Shpek, Ukraine’s representative in the EU, recently criticized the European Neighborhood Policy and said that Kyiv will insist on the diversification of this policy. Will Poland support Ukraine’s moves like that?
“First of all, we need to think about why the results that were anticipated two years ago have not been achieved within the framework of the existing neighborhood policy. Poland’s position is that the EU should offer Ukraine a cooperation policy that would lead to the prospect of membership. Also equally important is the ability to implement this kind of policy. I do not see any discussions in Ukraine about how the plan of action that we prepared in 2004 is being fulfilled. Is this success or not? The final goal may be established, but we also need to see how we are meeting prior commitments.”
MEDIA CAPITAL IS NOT FLOWING INTO UKRAINE
In one of your interviews, among the negative aspects in the relations between our countries you mentioned our societies’ poor knowledge of each other, lack of joint media projects, and low level of cultural activity. How can this state of affairs be rectified?
“The state of affairs is not bad. We have a lot more contacts now than we did in Soviet times. The border used to be closed but now hundreds of thousands of people cross it. But it is true that we have not made a breakthrough in our relations. I don’t believe there is anything wrong going on here but things can always be better.”
Why haven’t we made a breakthrough?
“It’s difficult to say; perhaps because our countries have different priorities. Why have media projects failed? Because there is no capital that would be interested in this question. State funding is insufficient because there are other budget concerns. It’s always a problem of priorities. At the same time, you cannot say that there is no funding at all. We need to show results in this area if we want to build a united Europe and understand each other better.”
But bank capital is coming to Ukraine.
“Media capital is not coming to Ukraine, and this is true not only of Polish capital. Except for Russian media capital, no other capital is coming. You need to ask yourselves why this is so.”
