Alexander KWASNIEWSKI, the former president of Poland, is a frequent guest in Ukraine and a constant observer of events taking place in our country. He has been tapped as one of the candidates for the presidency of the European Union. How does Poland and NATO assess the confrontation that has emerged in the Verkhovna Rada concerning the Ukrainian leadership’s application for Ukraine to join the NATO Membership Action Plan (MAP) and Russia’s reaction to this step? What should the Alliance do in order to convince the Russian people that NATO is no threat to them? These and other questions are raised in The Day’s exclusive interview with Alexander KWASNIEWSKI.
UKRAINE HAS THE RIGHT TO MAKE ITS OWN DECISION ON WHAT STRUCTURES TO JOIN
“Today the Ukrainian president stated clearly that this will be a sovereign decision of Ukraine. And in my opinion, everything must be understood precisely this way. NATO is not working against Russia. Moscow cooperates very well with the Alliance. Ukraine has the right to make her own decision on what structures to join. The main thing is for the world to understand that Ukraine is a sovereign state, and it is sovereign within the framework of the civil society that was born during the Orange Revolution and which is developing now. The recent elections proved that a civil society is developing in Ukraine. Therefore, the citizen society must be given a voice. It should state whether Ukrainians want to join NATO. If I were asked this question, I would answer ‘yes.’”
And Poland?
“Poland supports Ukraine’s accession to NATO. I personally support it because NATO today is a single political and military structure working very well in the field of democratic values and good relations, which is capable of resisting all known and unknown threats emerging in the 21st century. I guess that one day we will have to consider in a very serous way and speak about the possibility of Russia entering NATO. Of course, it sounds like a dream at the moment, and like a political provocation, as someone else would say. But this is neither a provocation nor a dream but a reality. If we are eager to fight against the new threats in the world, we have to cooperate. And NATO is a structure that exists, which has its successes and values that were preserved during the Cold War era.”
ON THE REFERENDUM AND THE BUGBEAR
You have probably noted the similarity between the positions of the Party of Regions and the members of the Russian elite, who are demanding that a referendum be held before Ukraine joins the MAP.
“I am not against the referendum as a form of conversation with the nation. We used this form twice during my presidency: to adopt the Constitution of Poland and to join the EU, and both times they were successful. Of course, a referendum makes sense when the essence of a problem is at issue, not the way it happened during the failed French referendum, when the people practically voted either for or against Chirac. I would like all the referendums that will be taking place in Ukraine to be connected to the resolution of one question or another and not conducted this way: who likes Yulia, or one Victor or the other. Such a personification of the political struggle is not wise when it is applied to important questions.”
What should NATO in general or the members of the Alliance in particular do in order to convince the Russian government that NATO is no threat to it?
“One should talk about this and organize various events and discussions. But I am afraid that Russian politics has a dual approach to NATO. On the one hand, relations between Russia and NATO are very good, and cooperation between Russia and NATO is developing. And this is correct. But where it comes to national policy, Russia uses NATO as a sort of bugbear that has remained since the Cold War and has to be used to scare people. In my opinion, this is not quite correct and clear. If we want to treat both known and unknown threats in a serious way, we need a good structure. This is the Euro-Atlantic structure of NATO and good cooperation with Russia, because Moscow will not solve the complex issues in Asia and the Caucasus on its own. One should have cooperation here. Nothing will come without this.”
BRUSSELS’ TWO APPROACHES TO UKRAINE
Speaking about Ukraine’s European integration, what signal, in your opinion, should Brussels give to Kyiv, where there is a new government?
“Brussels has two approaches. And one should speak frankly about this. The first approach is rather skeptical. These people are talking about so-called enlargement fatigue, that it was very complicated and that now it is time for a break. In my opinion, this is the wrong approach because enlargement was among the most correct historical decisions of the European Union in recent years. Moreover, further enlargement will be helpful to the EU. The Eurocommunity is populated by 500 million people. This is a good market, well-educated people, and good companies. Everyone will benefit if there are more of us, together with Ukraine, the Balkan countries, and Turkey. This is my approach. And one should speak frankly about this. Ukraine should show more vigor in Brussels and have better communication with the 27 members of the EU.
“If we compare Turkey with your country, they are both large countries, and it is not easy to resolve the question of accepting 47 million Ukrainians and 65 million Turks into the EU. This is a serious matter and one should consider it very carefully. But it also has to be said that the question of whether Turkey is a European country is debatable. There can be no controversy about Ukraine. When we are speaking about European tradition and history, Ukraine has always been here with us and it has even created European culture, European thought, and religion.”
In Ukraine large hopes were once pinned on the Polish presidency of the European Union. But after the Lisbon agreement was signed, the presidency of countries was abolished. Will Poland be able to promote Ukrainian interests in the European Union after the new institutions are implemented in 2009?
“One should do this without looking at who is where. It is clear to everyone in Europe that the Ukrainian question cannot be avoided by any means. And one day we will have to say ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ Of course, one should consider Ukraine’s alternatives. The first one is to become a member of the European Union, another one is to return to Russia. Then there will be an absolutely different map of Europe. One should understand that this will create another kind of Europe. I am not saying whether this is good or bad. And the third one is Ukraine remaining in a gray zone, or a vacuum. This is bad for Ukraine and no good for Russia. This is also wrong for Europe.”
Have you been tapped as one of the candidates for the presidency of the European Union? Are you going to fight for this office?
“It is too early to talk about this at the moment. In my opinion, the post of EU president will be retained by the old members of the European Union. And I think this is correct. One should take into account the fact that these countries have extensive experience, and only the next president can come from the new member countries of the European Union. Of course, I am ready to fight for this office. I am a former president of Poland, and I am not going to make politics in Poland because my role was over with the end of my presidential term. What will I do now? I am ready to work in an active way and assist with European relations. Of course, I consider that my position after a 10-year long presidential term is not bad. I am glad to continue doing what I am doing now. There is a nice Russian proverb, ‘Let us live, let us see.’”
ON RELATIONS WITH RUSSIA AND ON IRAQ
How is the current Polish government, which promised to resolve problems with Russia after coming to power, settling Polish-Russian relations?
“I think that the Polish government’s policy concerning Russia is correct because there are no problems that should worsen our relations with our neighbors, Germany and Russia. It is good that the Polish government has found new opportunities and started talking about complicated problems with Russia.”
What about Warsaw’s policy concerning the deployment of elements of the US missile defense system on Polish territory?
“I think that the government is acting correctly here as well. We want to talk about this with Germany, the US, NATO and, of course, with Russia because we cannot remain in a situation where the missile defense system should give everyone in the world the possibility to fight terrorism, but our neighbor Russia says that if we have this system, they will deploy their missiles in Kaliningrad. This was a way to talk in the 1950s or at the end of Brezhnev’s doctrine. It should not be like this. We want the Americans first to come to an agreement with the Russians about what to do. We are also ready to have a system of anti-missile defense from any attack coming from unnamed countries or terrorist organizations. I like the policy of conducting negotiations with NATO, the EU, the US, and Russia.”
Do you consider Tusk’s decision to withdraw the Polish army from Iraq to be correct?
“At the end of my presidential term in 2005 we were ready to withdraw our troops in 2006. Poles were not going to take part in the Iraq mission for a hundred years. There was an agreement that one could leave Iraq as soon as all the possibilities for the Iraqis to function were created. In my opinion, this can be done right now. Therefore, Polish troops will be recalled from Iraq this year. In my time, I advised the Polish government to withdraw our troops, but not to tell anyone the exact date in order, on the one hand, to prepare a substitution by Iraqi soldiers, and on the other, not to become a target for any terrorist organization. When this will be is not a matter of one or two months. The question is: our mission in Iraq is over, we have done our best to help the Iraqis, and now we are ready to hand over our area of responsibility to them.”
ONE DAY THERE WILL BE NO BORDERS BETWEEN US
You have probably observed that after your country joined the Schengen zone, difficulties arose on the border between Poland and Ukraine. One of the main reasons for this is that our countries did not sign an agreement on small border traffic. Didn’t the government of Poland predict that such difficulties would emerge?
“You should understand that the Schengen zone is Europe’s historical decision. Today I travel from Poland to Switzerland without a visa. There are no borders. And the price we pay for the historical moment is that our relations with Ukraine have grown more complicated. I think that Ukraine and the EU should come to an agreement about a more liberal and very simple visa regime, so that visas are multi-entry and valid for many years, and so that they are free of charge for certain categories so that this border does not become a new European curtain, because there are no reasons for this. Of course, this is a technical rather than political question. In the political sense, everyone understands that it should be this way, that these kinds of transition should not become more complicated. But in my opinion, you know both our and your bureaucracy as well as European bureaucracy. So for a couple of months there will be unpleasant situations. Good procedures and the technology of crossings should be developed.
“I think we will come to an agreement concerning border issues and the future of Ukraine and the EU, and one day there will be no borders between us. There definitely should not be any complications during Euro-2012, because no one will understand why Europe needs to move without obstacles in one direction but not in the other.”
