 |
| Polish expert: “We won’t let Russia divide us” |
|
|
Mariusz Bober converses with Andrzej Nowak, Polish historian and publicist, Professor of Jagiellonian University and chief editor of socio-cultural magazine “Arcana”.
Did you expect Victor Yanukovych’s victory – six years after the Orange Revolution protests against him?
Of course, six years ago it was hard to imagine such results during the next election. It was similarly difficult to foresee that Mr. Yanukovych would not only remain at the country’s political arena, but that he would win the next election – all the more so because he has no striking personality.
A minimum advantage of Mr. Yanukovych became a pretext for talks about new street public protests…
The worst-case scenario for Ukraine is the long, energy-consuming fight over the election results, which will plunge the country into chaos and a kind of the so-called “cold civil war” between the supporters of Victor Yanukovych and Yulia Tymoshenko. I may be mistaken, but I think that it’s better to respect the choice of the Ukrainians, whether we like it or not. It’s very important that this country learns to respect the election results, that those in power could work within the scope of all their legal authority and that they would be held responsible for their acts. Ukraine has a much more favorable situation than its neighbors – Russia and Belorussia. It has democratic elections, like we do in the West.
What will Mr. Yanukovych’s presidency mean for Ukraine?
The first conclusion I tend to jump at after this election is that this person was easier to be managed, if not manipulated. Another conclusion is obvious to everyone: the Orange Revolution failed.
Why?
There are several reasons for it. Firstly, there is internal strife in the Orange camp between its two leaders – President Victor Yushchenko and Premier Yulia Tymoshenko. Secondly, there is inept governance, particularly of President Yushchenko.
You said that Mr. Yanukovych is a candidate who can be easily turned into a pawn. Do you imply that his victory was a result of political games and technologies, as in Russia and Belorussia?
I don’t think that the election was manipulated by mass media. I think that the majority of the Ukrainians have made a democratic choice. It’s worth mentioning that many see this choice as a natural reaction to the Orange period. The self-destructive war between the two leaders, who initially declared Ukraine’s moral revival, couldn’t but trigger rejection. Under these circumstances, many Ukrainians chose to have a ruler, who is less capable but expected to bring “peace and stability”.
May the Ukrainians’ choice be explained by disappointment with the Orange, who failed to fulfill their promises? In addition to the moral revival, they also promised the country’s economic breakthrough and integration with the West…
Aside from the abovementioned conflicts in the “Orange” camp, the country’s political elite has not made too many grave mistakes, for which they could be held responsible. The raise of social standards is a result of Orange reforms, although they were carried out limitedly and inconsistently. Moreover, the promises of these politicians about Ukraine’s very bright future were simply unreal. Nowhere in the world changes are made at such rapid pace, all the more so because the country’s fast modernization is impossible without the mobilization of the ruling elite and the general public. Ukraine needed strong political will to cooperate with the European Union. The EU didn’t have this will and has it even less now.
Is the program of “Eastern Partnership”, so proudly nourished by the Polish Foreign Minister Radoslav Sikorsky as real aid to Ukraine, not enough?
This program is worse than EU surrogacy. I don’t say it’s unreal, but its realism is unlikely. Strictly speaking, the program of Eastern Partnership can only solve several minor problems, such as simplification of visa regime. Of course, this is important, and I’m glad that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Poland helped realize this program in Ukraine. But in the scope of making Ukraine’s strategic choice between Russia and the West, these steps are insufficient. This program is a serious setback from the ambitious initiative of our Eastern neighbor’s membership in NATO and the EU. This was the initial goal of Law and Justice Party and Prezident Lech Kaczynski. When the Civic Platform came to power, we made several steps back. The correlation of our position is all the more troublesome because the Russian policy was well-thought-out and straightforward.
Moscow’s attempts at stirring trouble in the relations of Kyiv and Warsaw have brought forth unquestionable results. Gas blackmailing of Ukraine in January 2008 is merely a single example. And while Donald Tusk’s cabinet was only thinking over their next steps, the Russians planed Mr. Sikorsky’s visit to Moscow just on the eve of Premier Tymoshenko’s arrival there. Having a gas pistol by her temple, she had no choice but to sign “the capitulation act” of Ukraine during gas negotiations with Moscow. Mr. Sikorsky’s visit to the Russian capital at that time was a vivid example of the effectiveness of Russian policy, which showed the Prime Minister of Ukraine that Poland comes in the wake of Russia and distances itself from Ukraine. The Ukrainians saw the obvious – Russia is more important for Mr. Tusk’s cabinet than Ukraine. Of course, we can argue whether Russia can be our major Eastern partner instead of Ukraine, but under Mr. Tusk this choice was made. Sadly, only the Kremlin defines the terms of this partnership.
Will the Kremlin also decide what kind of relations we should have with Ukraine, particularly when we have “Russian appointee” as Ukraine’s President now?
I doubt that having been elected, Mr. Yanukovych would fly to Moscow at once to sell out Ukraine to Russia. He is a politician supported by big oligarchs in the east of the country, and these oligarchs are unwilling to share the fate of their Russian peers, such as Mikhail Khodorkovsky. They prefer to manage assets worthy of 4-5 million dollars rather than being incarcerated as the former Yukos chief. However unbelievable it may sound, Ukrainian oligarchs today serve as safeguards of Ukraine’s sovereignty and democracy, and they know how to fight for power. At the same time, they can allow the more prominent presence of Russian culture in Ukraine. This politician doesn’t hide it that he speaks Russian better than Ukrainian.
On the other hand, we may expect that under his leadership, nationalist or even chauvinist trends in the Ukrainian policy, used (or abused) by President Yushchenko in the most despicable way, would subside. It’s impossible to imagine that Mr. Yanukovych will support the UPA or other Ukrainian insurgents, as Mr. Yushchenko did during the last months of his presidency. Hence we can’t view the new president of Ukraine as a misfortune for Poland; we have to start dialogue with him first.
How will Ukrainian-Polish relations change under Mr. Yanukovych and what will his foreign policy be in general?
This depends greatly on the actions of the Polish Government and its reaction to long-term Russian policy toward Ukraine with its very transparent goals. This policy is aimed at widening the gap between Warsaw and Kiev. Also, Russia will try to emphasize “the warmth” of Russian-Polish relations at every convenient instance, while at the same time it will be unwilling to make any concessions on the issues that rare principle for Poland. For example, let’s look at Katyn-2010, which was perfectly orchestrated by Russia. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin invited his Polish counterpart to visit the graves of Katyn victims, having dishonored their memories and the feelings of all Polish people.
How so?
Well, the Russian Premier represents the organization that is responsible for Katyn murders. Although I don’t want to reproach him on the years of KGB service, it’s impossible not to think about it in Katyn. Besides, he never dissociated himself from KGB. On the contrary, as is shown in the documentary “Comrade President”, he reported to his colleagues at Lubyanka, a somber residence of Russian and Soviet security service, on the election results in 2000: “Comrades! The task is fulfilled!”…
Because Mr. Putin has never condemned KGB activity, we can presume that he rules on behalf of the people who were trained by this organization – the organization responsible for killing millions of people. This means that he wanted to turn the commemoration service at Katyn into travesty. In my opinion, if someone treats these ceremonies as a turning point in history, comparable to the letter of Polish bishops to German bishops, I’d suggest that this person thinks twice before actually making such statements.
Do you see any real chance for a change in Russian-Polish relations?
The positive moment of the upcoming commemoration services is the recognition of this crime by Russian Orthodox Church. Here we indeed see a turning point – despite political feelings on the matter. I think that the presence of Moscow Patriarch and perhaps the Head of Polish Episcopate at Katyn could have an outstanding significance, because the condemnation of this Communist crime in church could have a purifying effect – of course, if no one mocks the ceremony. Hence we have to separate a political aspect and point out that Russia under Mr. Putin is set to divide Poland as it used to do under Stalin in 1944, when it dictated the London Government who to talk to – perhaps Premier Stanislaw Mikolajczyk, but not President Władysław Raczkiewicz. In the same way Empress Ekaterina II contrasted King Stanislaw Poniatowsk and Polish magnates during the 18th century. If Poland acquiesces to Moscow’s demands and let it decide who to talk to in Warsaw, it will be a sad example of Russian imperial triumph and testimony to Polish political immaturity.
But President Lech Kaczyński has already announced that he will go to the ceremony even without an invitation. Does it mean that he has solved this problem?
I’d rather not impose decisions on the President or Premier. If only the Prime Minister goes and the President stays in Poland, it will be Moscow’s obvious victory. At the same time, if the President goes together with the Prime Minister, but is treated there as a second-rate guest, it will also be an insult to our country. We need to find ways to face the challenge made by Mr. Putin. The most important thing is to keep the political fight between the President and the Prime Minister in the loop, particularly when Russia is involved. Otherwise, it will be the triumph of Russia’s policy of “divide et impera”. With this in mind, the President and the Prime Minister have to work out a common policy in this regard. The mass media should help them do it rather than wash their dirty linen in public.
Author: Mariusz Bober
Source: http://rus.ruvr.ru
17 February 2010
|
answer
