Raczynski: NATO's action complicates Poland's relations within the region
Rather it is allied with a group that is on an opposing side to its Eastern neighbor. On the other hand, Poland and Russia still have strong ties, as last year's economic crisis there showed. Further changes in the countries' relations are expected as the Kosovo conflict continues and Poland charts its own political course. But Russia, and its reactions to Polish policy, remain a strong concern. So Kremlinology remains an important science for people like Zdzislaw Raczynski, an adviser on Russian affairs in the National Security Office (BBN) within the president's chancellery. The 40-year-old graduated from the Moscow State Institute of International Relations and for 10 years worked as Moscow correspondent for the Polish Press Agency (PAP), Radio Zet and weekly newsmagazine Polityka. He joined the BBN in September 1997. The WBJ's Malgorzata Halaba spoke with him last week about the continuing evolution in Polish-Russian relations and how the Kosovo crisis will influence them. Following is a translated, edited version of their conversation.
Q. Less than two weeks after we joined NATO, we are involved in a war that is opposed to Russian interests. What does this mean to Polish-Russian relations?
A: We all know that Russia was against NATO's expansion. On one hand, it's very unfortunate that shortly after Poland joined NATO we have to pass such a difficult exam. But on the other hand, we have to realize, and let's be slightly cynical about it, had we not already been a NATO member, maybe resignation or delay of NATO expansion would be the price Russia would demand for its neutrality in the Kosovo situation. Look at what (Russian Prime Minister Yevgeny) Primakov's government is doing right now, by putting aside all its rhetoric: They are rather careful and aren't taking any steps other than making diplomatic gestures. Russia is trying to sell its neutrality for the highest possible price. Of course, NATO involvement in Kosovo and Serbia can't improve Polish-Russian relations. We're not participating directly in the conflict, but Poland's president clearly announced our support for it.
Q. Since you mentioned Ukraine, President Aleksander Kwasniewski has tried to act as an intermediary for Ukraine, the Baltic states and the West. It could be said he is trying to build a position as a regional leader. How will the conflict influence these attempts?
A: First, personal contacts play a very important role here. President Kwasniewski had very good personal relations with (former Lithuanian President Algirdas) Brazauskas and (current Lithuanian President Valdas) Adamkus in Lithuania. His relations with Ukrainian (President Leonid) Kuchma can even be defined as friendly - 20 meetings during the term, that's rather unusual. Kwasniewski-(Russian President Boris) Yeltsin relations are proper, I would say. With (Belarussian President Aleksander) Lukashenko, well … Secondly, his position results from Poland's position in the region, because we made it in terms of the transformation. We try to avoid the term 'leader.' It's not that. There is a very good Russian word for that, "pervoprokhodets," which I would translate as 'pioneer,' somebody who went down the path first and has experience he can share with others. But you were right - NATO's action against Serbia complicates Poland's relations within the region, there's no question about that.
Q: How will the conflict affect our relations with other countries in the region, such as Bulgaria?
A: The governments of countries such as Bulgaria or Romania have taken a pro-NATO attitude. But obviously there are strong pro-Serbian feelings, too, especially in Bulgaria. I think that the Kosovo issue, in its present manifestation, will be a short-term one. But its consequences, in terms of NATO perception, will be long term, even if the Kosovo issue is solved within coming weeks or months.
Q: Let's stay with Russia for a while. What is its role in the conflict?
A: So far Russia is neutral. Because of historical and geo-political reasons Russia got involved in the defense of something I would call the "old political order" in Europe, and thus Serbia's defense. The problem is that this formal order doesn't reflect reality anymore. How should the world react to things that take place in Kosovo? Of course, Russia has strong arguments, even legal ones, saying that without UN approval NATO has no right … and so on. That's true. But this is another example of how faulty the existing solutions are. Partly, Russia is Serbia's hostage. Russia got the West involved in the Balkans. But at the same time Russia got itself involved and right now, especially with these anti-NATO slogans, Russia put itself on (Slobodan) Milosevic's side and narrowed its own room to maneuver. Frankly, there is nothing in Serbia that Russia could gain. If Milosevic gets stronger, will that be a great success for Russia? If the West is forced to give up, it will be the West's failure, but not necessarily a Russian victory.
Q: Do all political forces in Russia support the Serbs? How about the opposition?
A: The situation of the liberal and democratic opposition is extremely difficult. They relied on the West - that was something they looked up to. And it turned out the Westerners were aggressors. So they are not able to find support in society, therefore they take neutral positions. It's Grigory Yavlinski (leader of the reformist Yabloko party) who said that Russia should keep as far away from everything as possible. But the whole range of political forces, from nationalists to communists, sided with Serbia. That's because Serbia's cause generates warm feelings, but also because of internal reasons. This is a very good tool for mobilizing public opinion under their own banners. Boris Yeltsin, who adopted some of the opposition's slogans after the 1993 election, was a supporter of pro-Western solutions and thinking. The whole opposition, especially the extreme left, tried to overthrow him. And suddenly they have an enormous tool. They drowned the political scene with their screams. So what can Yeltsin do? Of course, he can only join them.
Q: Support within Poland for NATO's position seems to be strong, especially in contrast to the Czech Republic where there are deep divisions on the issue. Why is this?
A: According to a Pentor survey, 59% supports NATO. So it's not that everybody supports NATO - there are some controversies and protests.
Q: What's the percentage then? How many are against?
A: Eight to nine percent is neutral and the rest shows different levels of objection. In Parliament, only nationalists are strongly against NATO. Definitely Poles of the Orthodox faith are against, and we should understand their point of view - Kosovo is a very important place for the Orthodox religion. But where does Polish loyalty come from? First, it's the loyalty of a rookie ally. Secondly, public opinion sensitivity to human rights issues; to humanitarian issues, also plays an important role. And last but not least, the univocal position of Polish authorities contributed as well. Both the president and prime minister speak in tune, leaving no doubt where our loyalties lie. So that has also convinced society. Personally, I expected more opposition.
Q: Is there any negotiator role for Poland to play during possible diplomatic actions?
A: To my knowledge, so far there have been no individual attempts on the Polish side to start such activities, but taking into account (Foreign Minister Bronislaw) Geremek's experience, who acted as a chairman of the OSCE (Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe) or (Tadeusz) Mazowiecki's experience, who knows the area since he acted as special UN emissary during the first Yugoslavian conflict, Poland could make such an attempt but frankly, I don't believe it would be successful.
Q: There have been rumors and fears that Poland will become a gateway for Russians looking to fight alongside the Serbs. Are these concerns justified?
A: If you're asking whether it's possible for military materials to be transported through Poland, the answer is no. Besides, Russia is still participating in sanctions against Serbia. Of course, one can't exclude that it might use third parties, like Belarussia, to send arms to Serbia. We have to remember the Serbian foreign minister's trip to Belarussia the week before the NATO operation. But there is the issue from Russian TV about alleged volunteers that may use Poland's territory for recruitment in Kaliningrad. Of course, the State Security Office has taken certain steps, the border guards are making sure Poland's borders are sealed. But in my opinion not only is that highly unlikely, but these could be an action we could call … well, I can't find a better word other than provocation.
Q: How will Yeltsin's possible impeachment in the Russian Duma and the narrowing of the Russian political scene influence Russia's economy and how will that affect Poland?
A: Part of the Russian media has criticized Primakov for his demonstrative decision to turn his plane around from the States; that he lost so many billions of dollars. But it didn't change a thing. Both President Bill Clinton and the IMF (International Monetary Fund) mission to Russia show that Russia will get that financial assistance. The problem is that whatever this assistance is, it won't be enough. As I said, Russia can sell its neutrality but the price might not be high enough. As long as certain political changes take place in Russia, and I mean the young generation - new faces, new thinking - no breakthrough is possible there.
Q: Politically, we are not tied to Russia anymore. But economically, as last year's crisis showed, we are …
A: Right, we underestimated the importance of the relations that still remain. First, we depend on Russian supplies of raw materials. Second, we can't afford to lose Russian markets. But I don't think that the Kosovo crisis would have a negative impact on our economic relations, I would rather attribute it to the general economic situation in the world. Right now, we're waiting for Primakov's visit to Poland in April.
Q: How has Poland's foreign policy in regard to Russia and its new responsibilities as a NATO member changed and what consequences will this have?
A: I don't think our foreign policy has changed. It's a political alliance with the West; a stabilizing position in the region and good relations with Russia. NATO membership has changed nothing. What's more, when we have NATO behind us, we can be more audacious in terms of our ideas; our proposals regarding Russia.
Q: If the conflict in Kosovo becomes more acute, should Poland send its troops to Serbia?
A: At the very beginning of the Kosovo conflict the status of NATO forces was clear - we were to guard peace, to sustain peace rather than impose it. There is a new situation right now. In my opinion, in case of further involvement and land operations in Serbia, and such a possibility is not excluded anymore, our participation, even symbolically, would be recommended. We are a NATO member, so we should fulfill our responsibilities.
Q. Less than two weeks after we joined NATO, we are involved in a war that is opposed to Russian interests. What does this mean to Polish-Russian relations?
A: We all know that Russia was against NATO's expansion. On one hand, it's very unfortunate that shortly after Poland joined NATO we have to pass such a difficult exam. But on the other hand, we have to realize, and let's be slightly cynical about it, had we not already been a NATO member, maybe resignation or delay of NATO expansion would be the price Russia would demand for its neutrality in the Kosovo situation. Look at what (Russian Prime Minister Yevgeny) Primakov's government is doing right now, by putting aside all its rhetoric: They are rather careful and aren't taking any steps other than making diplomatic gestures. Russia is trying to sell its neutrality for the highest possible price. Of course, NATO involvement in Kosovo and Serbia can't improve Polish-Russian relations. We're not participating directly in the conflict, but Poland's president clearly announced our support for it.
Q. Since you mentioned Ukraine, President Aleksander Kwasniewski has tried to act as an intermediary for Ukraine, the Baltic states and the West. It could be said he is trying to build a position as a regional leader. How will the conflict influence these attempts?
A: First, personal contacts play a very important role here. President Kwasniewski had very good personal relations with (former Lithuanian President Algirdas) Brazauskas and (current Lithuanian President Valdas) Adamkus in Lithuania. His relations with Ukrainian (President Leonid) Kuchma can even be defined as friendly - 20 meetings during the term, that's rather unusual. Kwasniewski-(Russian President Boris) Yeltsin relations are proper, I would say. With (Belarussian President Aleksander) Lukashenko, well … Secondly, his position results from Poland's position in the region, because we made it in terms of the transformation. We try to avoid the term 'leader.' It's not that. There is a very good Russian word for that, "pervoprokhodets," which I would translate as 'pioneer,' somebody who went down the path first and has experience he can share with others. But you were right - NATO's action against Serbia complicates Poland's relations within the region, there's no question about that.
Q: How will the conflict affect our relations with other countries in the region, such as Bulgaria?
A: The governments of countries such as Bulgaria or Romania have taken a pro-NATO attitude. But obviously there are strong pro-Serbian feelings, too, especially in Bulgaria. I think that the Kosovo issue, in its present manifestation, will be a short-term one. But its consequences, in terms of NATO perception, will be long term, even if the Kosovo issue is solved within coming weeks or months.
Q: Let's stay with Russia for a while. What is its role in the conflict?
A: So far Russia is neutral. Because of historical and geo-political reasons Russia got involved in the defense of something I would call the "old political order" in Europe, and thus Serbia's defense. The problem is that this formal order doesn't reflect reality anymore. How should the world react to things that take place in Kosovo? Of course, Russia has strong arguments, even legal ones, saying that without UN approval NATO has no right … and so on. That's true. But this is another example of how faulty the existing solutions are. Partly, Russia is Serbia's hostage. Russia got the West involved in the Balkans. But at the same time Russia got itself involved and right now, especially with these anti-NATO slogans, Russia put itself on (Slobodan) Milosevic's side and narrowed its own room to maneuver. Frankly, there is nothing in Serbia that Russia could gain. If Milosevic gets stronger, will that be a great success for Russia? If the West is forced to give up, it will be the West's failure, but not necessarily a Russian victory.
Q: Do all political forces in Russia support the Serbs? How about the opposition?
A: The situation of the liberal and democratic opposition is extremely difficult. They relied on the West - that was something they looked up to. And it turned out the Westerners were aggressors. So they are not able to find support in society, therefore they take neutral positions. It's Grigory Yavlinski (leader of the reformist Yabloko party) who said that Russia should keep as far away from everything as possible. But the whole range of political forces, from nationalists to communists, sided with Serbia. That's because Serbia's cause generates warm feelings, but also because of internal reasons. This is a very good tool for mobilizing public opinion under their own banners. Boris Yeltsin, who adopted some of the opposition's slogans after the 1993 election, was a supporter of pro-Western solutions and thinking. The whole opposition, especially the extreme left, tried to overthrow him. And suddenly they have an enormous tool. They drowned the political scene with their screams. So what can Yeltsin do? Of course, he can only join them.
Q: Support within Poland for NATO's position seems to be strong, especially in contrast to the Czech Republic where there are deep divisions on the issue. Why is this?
A: According to a Pentor survey, 59% supports NATO. So it's not that everybody supports NATO - there are some controversies and protests.
Q: What's the percentage then? How many are against?
A: Eight to nine percent is neutral and the rest shows different levels of objection. In Parliament, only nationalists are strongly against NATO. Definitely Poles of the Orthodox faith are against, and we should understand their point of view - Kosovo is a very important place for the Orthodox religion. But where does Polish loyalty come from? First, it's the loyalty of a rookie ally. Secondly, public opinion sensitivity to human rights issues; to humanitarian issues, also plays an important role. And last but not least, the univocal position of Polish authorities contributed as well. Both the president and prime minister speak in tune, leaving no doubt where our loyalties lie. So that has also convinced society. Personally, I expected more opposition.
Q: Is there any negotiator role for Poland to play during possible diplomatic actions?
A: To my knowledge, so far there have been no individual attempts on the Polish side to start such activities, but taking into account (Foreign Minister Bronislaw) Geremek's experience, who acted as a chairman of the OSCE (Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe) or (Tadeusz) Mazowiecki's experience, who knows the area since he acted as special UN emissary during the first Yugoslavian conflict, Poland could make such an attempt but frankly, I don't believe it would be successful.
Q: There have been rumors and fears that Poland will become a gateway for Russians looking to fight alongside the Serbs. Are these concerns justified?
A: If you're asking whether it's possible for military materials to be transported through Poland, the answer is no. Besides, Russia is still participating in sanctions against Serbia. Of course, one can't exclude that it might use third parties, like Belarussia, to send arms to Serbia. We have to remember the Serbian foreign minister's trip to Belarussia the week before the NATO operation. But there is the issue from Russian TV about alleged volunteers that may use Poland's territory for recruitment in Kaliningrad. Of course, the State Security Office has taken certain steps, the border guards are making sure Poland's borders are sealed. But in my opinion not only is that highly unlikely, but these could be an action we could call … well, I can't find a better word other than provocation.
Q: How will Yeltsin's possible impeachment in the Russian Duma and the narrowing of the Russian political scene influence Russia's economy and how will that affect Poland?
A: Part of the Russian media has criticized Primakov for his demonstrative decision to turn his plane around from the States; that he lost so many billions of dollars. But it didn't change a thing. Both President Bill Clinton and the IMF (International Monetary Fund) mission to Russia show that Russia will get that financial assistance. The problem is that whatever this assistance is, it won't be enough. As I said, Russia can sell its neutrality but the price might not be high enough. As long as certain political changes take place in Russia, and I mean the young generation - new faces, new thinking - no breakthrough is possible there.
Q: Politically, we are not tied to Russia anymore. But economically, as last year's crisis showed, we are …
A: Right, we underestimated the importance of the relations that still remain. First, we depend on Russian supplies of raw materials. Second, we can't afford to lose Russian markets. But I don't think that the Kosovo crisis would have a negative impact on our economic relations, I would rather attribute it to the general economic situation in the world. Right now, we're waiting for Primakov's visit to Poland in April.
Q: How has Poland's foreign policy in regard to Russia and its new responsibilities as a NATO member changed and what consequences will this have?
A: I don't think our foreign policy has changed. It's a political alliance with the West; a stabilizing position in the region and good relations with Russia. NATO membership has changed nothing. What's more, when we have NATO behind us, we can be more audacious in terms of our ideas; our proposals regarding Russia.
Q: If the conflict in Kosovo becomes more acute, should Poland send its troops to Serbia?
A: At the very beginning of the Kosovo conflict the status of NATO forces was clear - we were to guard peace, to sustain peace rather than impose it. There is a new situation right now. In my opinion, in case of further involvement and land operations in Serbia, and such a possibility is not excluded anymore, our participation, even symbolically, would be recommended. We are a NATO member, so we should fulfill our responsibilities.
