Payment for “advocacy”?

Polish-Ukrainian relations have a long and difficult history. The centuries of confrontations, do­mi­na­tions, and wars that claimed nu­me­rous human lives on both sides, have left an imprint of pain, injury, and hostility in the two nations’ memory. A step to meet one another halfway was taken in 2003, when the par­lia­ments of Ukraine and Poland adopted a joint statement on reconciliation and presidents Kuchma and Kwas­niew­ski apologized to each other. But 10 years later, on the eve of the 70th anniversary of the Volyn tragedy, the Poles decided, in fact unilaterally, to resuscitate the painful issue. Last week the Senate of Poland adopted a statement that calls the 1943 tragic Volyn events “ethnic cleansing with signs of genocide.” Why did they change their position?

“This is a domestic policy issue,” Andrzej Szeptycki, an analyst at Warsaw University’s Institute of International Relations, comments to The Day. “We have a lot of people who are taking a critical view of the Volyn tragedy and the role of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army in it. This especially applies to the Polish Agra­rian Party, the coalition’s No. 2, which has been trying to honor the victims for several years on end. In my view, [Polish Prime Minister Donald] Tusk is trying to find a ‘third road’ to this. We should remember that his go­vern­ment is in a not-so-com­for­table si­tua­tion. Having a low rat­ing, he decided to do so.”

What consequences will the Polish Senate’s resolution on the 1943 Volyn tragedy have for relations between the two states?
Why are relations with Ukraine being sacrificed to Poland’s home policy? Should the rating problems be tackled at the expense of the Volyn tragedy? “The most important conclusion from this all is that politicians must not pronounce judgments on the events that even historians have not yet amply studied,” Ukrainian historian Volo­dy­myr Viatrovych says. “Otherwise, it is clear that this will not be conducive to the establishment of normal relations between the Ukrai­nians and the Poles.”

Incidentally, Ukraine used to address its domestic problems not at the expense of relations with Poland but by means of involving the Poles themselves. Still fresh in the memory is the participation of the then Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski as intermediary in the 2004 political crisis in Ukraine, which broke out after the Orange Revolution. After 10 years in office, Kuchma failed to transfer power in a normal way and needed the help of his Polish friend. Kwasniewski was assigned the role of an “advocate.” This word has been applied ever since to Poland as the main defender of Ukrainian interests in Europe. At present, Kwasniewski is part of the European Parliament’s “Cox-Kwasniewski mission” that monitors the Tymoshenko case.

We must admit that Poland is doing very much for Ukraine’s European integration, but this does not seem to contravene Polish interests. In some cases that country does not just pay attention to the position of Ukraine – in this case about the Volyn tragedy. Does it mean that the Po­lish Senate’s resolution is our country’s payment for “advocacy”? Do we need an “advocate” like this? Is Ukraine really unable to address its problems on its own?

“Poland as ‘advocate’ is a political ploy,” the Party of Regions’ Volodymyr Zubanov says. “Indeed, Poland is inte­rested more than other European countries in Ukraine moving towards Europe. They have their own interests, but we must also have an interest of our own. Above all, all things should be to the be­nefit of our state. There are certain things and policies that hold no place for such emotional terms as ‘advocate’ of a country. It is nothing but a politicized allegory. We are quite a powerful state to be able to address our problems and be interesting to other states without any advocates. If somebody sincerely wants to help us and it is to the benefit of our state – why not? But the Poles care, first of all, about themselves, not about us.”

What confirms the last phrase is a fresh statement of Poland’s Foreign Mi­nister Radoslaw Sikorski who thinks that Ukraine is not prepared to sign the EU Asso­ciation Agreement. “As far as I know, Ukraine carries out no reforms, so there can be only one conclusion today: Ukraine is not yet prepared to sign the association agreement,” Radio Liberty quotes him as saying before the session of EU foreign ministers in Luxembourg.

Analyzing the latest comments of experts, politicians, and journalists well after the Polish Parliament’s upper house resolution, we can arrive at the following conclusion: “The general impression is that it is a political decision that does not mirror the position of all the Poles. It will certainly affect but not impair the Ukrainian-Polish relations. Ukraine must react to this, but the reaction must be very special – we must show the high bar of knowledge and attitudes.” We will only add that this requires learning.

Of course, it is better late than ne­ver. But, still better, in good time. Back in 2004, the newspaper Den published the book Wars and Peace, or Ukrainians and Poles: Brothers, Enemies, Neighbors… We answered many disputable ques­tions in the history of Ukrainian-Polish relations at the time. Let us quote Adam Michnik from the preface to the Polish edition:

“Ukraine and Poland are two big countries located between Russia and Germany. Very much will depend on our relations. It is difficult but necessary to speak of our history. The question is that we must direct our thoughts into the future and understand that we have a lot of common values and interests as well as many things that we can achieve together…”

“I THINK POLAND HAS MADE A PREMATURE AND ILL-CONSIDERED DECISION”

Mr. Kravchuk, what do you think this step of the Polish state mean?

“The Poles are more and more focusing on the analysis of what happened in Volyn. Receiving additional information, they for some reason rejected the 2003 joint resolution of the Ukrainian parliament and the Polish Sejm, when a balanced decision was made and the questions of our cooperation and future were on top of the agenda. As for history, we have never disputed the fact that a horrible tragedy occurred in 1943. It is true that there were victims. However, we decided in 2003 that the past must not be a disuniting factor – on the contrary, we must use it for improving our relations. Following this, the two countries’ presidents would unveil monuments and deliver speeches, which showed that the two states had settled these disputes and were going down the road of studying the problem rather than aggravating the situation.

“But the Poles have changed their stand now. In any case, the Sejm has pass­ed a resolution that the Volyn events were ‘ethnic cleansing with signs of genocide.’ I was recently in Poland as member of the nonprofit committee ‘Reconciliation between Nations’ and tried to persuade their political leaders to reconsi­der their position, but they still favor revising the statements made 10 years ago.

“At the same time, I met Poland’s President Komorowski who is taking a balanced stand and thinks that the Volyn events can be called ethnic cleansing but not genocide and that one must not blame one side only, for both sides – the Armia Krajowa and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army – used weapons.

“The question is not so much what kind of a decision it is as on what level it was made. When it is made by non-go­vernmental organizations or political parties, it is their democratic right, but raising an issue like this onto the interstate level is not a well-balanced decision. Moreover, as this has already happened, one should be guided by international do­cuments, including the 1948 UN Conven­tion that defines the essence of genocide. Besides, there is such thing as Hague Court. So one should give the ques­tion a high prominence instead of making decisions in such a provincial manner and shift the blame to one side only.

“Although I don’t want to use undiplomatic expressions, but I think Poland has made a premature and ill-considered decision which will not be conducive to mutual understanding between the two states. In general, this issue is being politicized because of the upcoming elections or for some other politically-motivated reason.
“I do not know what actions our state, our parliament, will take, but we must not swallow this and keep silent. This would not be the line of behavior that shows our honor, dignity, and properly reflect historical facts. There was a war from both sides: between Hitlerite Nazi Germany and a totalitarian Soviet Union. A conflict broke out between these two giants. But what really matters is not arithmetic – where more and where fewer people were killed. I requested the Senate to study this matter. But they said they could not help commenting on the 70th anniversary of the tragedy in July.”  

You mentioned the nonprofit committee “Reconciliation between Nations.” Was there any response from the Polish side?

“There was no response to this. The Poles said nothing negative to our committee’s statement, nor did they make any decisions in response. I know the position of ex-president Kwasniewski, who knows Ukraine very well, and of the Po­lish go­vernment. Poland supports Ukraine on the way to signing the Association Agreement in November. Komorowski thinks it is a necessary step for today’s Ukraine, and our president is also making efforts in this direction. We are grateful for the things that prompt us to address Europe-related problems.

“As for the committee, it was set up not for one day only and will go on working, persuading Ukrainian society, and issuing signals to Poland. We are appealing to common sense, even though not all are heeding us. Ukraine should not in turn exacerbate its statements and put the blame on Poland. We should react in such a way that everybody knows that our state and our public are not staying clear of these issues.”

Polish Sejm Speaker Bogdan Bo­ru­sie­wicz opposed the resolution, saying that it is the result of a stronger position of the Radicals. Would you comment?

“Indeed, radical sentiments are on the rise all over the world due to a worsening material and social condition of people and globalization. We should take this into account and, what is more, we should not keep silent in order to ward off the impression that we do not attach importance to this kind of problems. Ukraine must respond to any statements of either Poland or Russia. Sometimes we employ the tactic of ‘everything will take its due course,’ but history accumulates facts that result in the real actions that complicate our life.

“Undoubtedly, we also have domestic problems. For example, communists continue to believe that the West is an enemy. Mr. Kolesnichenko reviles the past, history, and MPs from other political parties, including Svoboda. I don’t like some declarations of the latter, but the Ukrainians voted for them. On the whole, the people who have joined the communists or are such by their persuasions, even though carrying mem­ber­ship cards of other parties, are ‘helping’ Ukraine to taker a clear-cut stand, particularly, in international matters. We must know these people and explain to the public why they are taking this position – they are doing so, by all accounts, under the influence of centers outside Ukraine. This fifth column is working against our state. Thank God, there are not many of them, but still they are.

“The Poles we talked to were saying: look, you are protesting and standing up your ground, while representatives of your ruling party make even worse statements than we do – so you’d better come to terms inside your own country. If a person is an ignoramus and does not know history or knows it from a certain angle in order to cause people to quarrel, if he or she has read [Soviet-style] books on the OUN-UPA and then travels around the country, saying how bad the Ukrainians are – only fascists, nationalists, and extremists – is this person going to build a united Ukraine and help promote peace in the state?

“It is rather difficult to explain these things to foreigners. Foreigners do not understand how on earth can a nation speak of unity but in reality be striving for a split.”

Why do you think the leadership has not yet responded to the Polish Senate’s resolution? In what way should it respond?

“First of all, parliament should have made some kind of statement or a resolution about the 70th anniversary of the Volyn tragedy – not necessarily about marking this date. This thing must not be ignored. Besides, the Polish side is open to reciprocal actions. Komorowski said he was ready to see the Ukrainian president and discuss this matter. There should be some reaction so that there is no impression that the Poles are in action, while we are still waiting for somebody to do something for us.”

You spoke about relations between the two countries, but, in the light of the latest events, can Poland be considered the “advocate” of Ukraine, as it is often said, and do we really need an “advocate”?

“I spoke to President Komorowski and must say that he is very much devoted to the interests of Ukraine. His words evoke not only respect for, but also deep appreciation of this person: ‘If Ukraine signs the Association Agreement, I will walk to the Holy Virgin.’ The Polish use this phrase when they mean something very important. When a Polish president is saying this, we must pay deep respect for the persuasions of this president. And, from our side, we must do our utmost to sign this document. All parties are unanimously supporting Ukraine’s European choice.

“However, the problem we are talking about has been aggravated. But we, too, have failed to do our best to study this issue and, hence, have been a bit slow to react. Yet our position should be calm and well balanced – we don’t need any exa­cerbations. Naturally, this incident has cast a shadow on our relations with Poland, but it will not change them ra­di­cally. Po­land will not stop helping Ukraine, and Ukraine will not stop respecting Poland. We must overcome this regrettable incident by way of our actions, mutual understanding, and further improvement of our relations.”

COMMENTARY

“OUR RELATIONS ARE NOT THE WAY THEY USED TO BE”

Andrzej SZEPTYCKI, analyst, Institute of International Relations, Warsaw University:

“There are five dimensions in this case:

1) Historical. Each nation is trying to remember its history, especially, the moments it considers important or disputable.

2) Moral – in other words, the question of honoring the memory of the Poles killed in Volyn.

3) Domestic policy. Many Poles have their roots in what was known as the Frontier – the former Eastern lands of the interwar Poland. They are not indifferent to what is going on there. This vote should be interpreted as an attempt to win the love of the voters whose relatives used to live in Volyn.

4) International law. We should remember that, under international law, parliament does not represent the state in international relations. Those who officially represent the state are the president, the prime minister, and the minister of foreign affairs. This is a UN convention requirement.

5) Foreign political. This resolution may have a negative effect (in a way) on the Polish-Ukrainian relations. But I do not think there will be a long-term crisis.

This year is going to be difficult for our relations in the context of the 70th anniversary of the Volyn tragedy.

“As for why the wording of this re­solution was changed, there are several explanations. Firstly, it is the importance of Polish-Ukrainian relations for the Polish government. Secondly, it is also a juridical issue. Genocide has a legal de­finition enshrined in the 1948 UN Convention. The very use of this term refers us to the latter. It is safer to use a milder form – ‘with elements of genocide.’

“Does this resolution show the wor­sening of relations between Kyiv and Warsaw? It is quite clear that our relations are not the way they used to be. Po­land is not interested in Ukraine as much as it was in 2005. For in 2010 Ukraine became a country totally different from the one it was in 2005. In every country, parliament cares first of all about the domestic policy – MPs think about their voters.”