Materials&Documents
June 2008
Interviews and statements
An interview with President of the Republic of Poland Lech Kaczynski, June 5, 2008: 1
Address by President of the Republic of Poland Lech Kaczynski during a visit to Warsaw by President of the Republic of Slovakia Ivan Gasparovic, June 6, 2008. 5
Statement by President of the Republic of Poland Lech Kaczynski during his visit to Lithuania, June 16, 2008 5
An interview with Prime Minister of the Republic of Poland Donald Tusk, June 16, 2008. 5
An interview with Prime Minister of the Republic of Poland Donald Tusk, June 21, 2008. 5
Statement by President of the Republic of Poland Lech Kaczynski at a meeting of the New Group of Friends of Georgia, June 25, 2008. 5
Q.: Mr President, we are talking on an exceptional day, on the anniversary of June 1989 elections which had a great significance in the process of building a free Poland. Has this process been ended in your opinion?
A.: Poland is free - this is unquestionable. The date of 4 June, 1989 was very important because the overwhelming victory of the Solidarity trade union opened new prospects. The Tadeusz Mazowiecki government was the effect of the elections - after 3 months - which at first was considered to be unrealistic. (...) This was the first non-communist government in the former Warsaw Treaty Organization, with all its mistakes. 12 September 1989, the day when the PM addressed the Sejm asking for a vote of confidence (...) is a crucial day for Poland. But before that was June 4.
Q.: I am asking whether Poland is really free, since it is not for some milieus. Because part of the Solidarity-rooted milieus believe today that Poland is not free from post-communist arrangements.
A.: It is not free. The first mistakes were made at the beginning of 1990, when "acceleration" was proposed but this "acceleration" did not take place. Why then? Communism collapsed in practically all countries of the Warsaw Treaty Organization, it was under threat in the Soviet Union and then was the time to accelerate action. It was not done. Reversely - some arrangements were preserved, with a very sad effect of those actions today.
Q.: Mr President, we are on the eve of the publication of a book by National Remembrance Institute historians, which suggests that President Lech Walesa was a communist-era agent. Some historians say in this context that history of the last 19 years should be written anew. Do you share this view?
A.:I have not read this book. But I know something about Lech Walesa. His biography is not free from weaknesses, although he undoubtedly was a leader of the nation in the 1980s. But I am repeating, this does not mean that it is forbidden to write the truth about him, because the authorities in Poland should be genuine. The worst solution in our country is when somebody receives the role of an authority, this has nothing to do with his real biography and he cannot be attacked. And on the other hand other people who are little tainted are attacked despite the fact that they have very good biographies.
Q.: But Mr President, the authorities say that Lech Walesa is our biggest authority, our legend.
A.: He is our legend.
Q.: And he should not be attacked in this way.
A.: A question arises about the legal status in our social life, about what the truth is, whether the society should be told empty words, that is lies, as such empty words contains both true and untrue information, whether democratic society has a right to be told the truth. I am saying clearly: democratic societies should be told the truth, even if it is difficult.
Q.: Mr President expects that we will read the truth in this book? The truth about the life of Lech Walesa?
A.: Not about the whole life but a certain fragment of his ife.
Q.: And this will be the truth?
A.: Yes.
Q.: How do you know Mr President?
A.: Since I know this truth, regardless of the book which I have not read and I can assure you of that.
Q.: Was Lech Wales the agent "Bolek?"
A.: Yes, he was.
Q.: Mr President, Six months of the Donald Tusk government have passed (...) Is this a good moment to evaluate this government, whether it is the government of a chance for Poland, or this is a government of a wasted time?
A.: I can say one thing, it is not the role of the president to evaluate a legal government, or at least such time has not come yet, since over six months is a long time but not sufficient time. So far this government has not carried out the tasks related to organizing a miracle in Poland. Miracles happen rarely which I said on November 11 last year, speaking on the occasion of Poland's national holiday. When somebody promises miracles, he usually does not keep these promises. But the question arises, whether miracles can be promised in a developed, honest democracy, where citizens are not cheated?
Q.: Has the Donald Tusk government surprised you with anything?
A.: I have known Donald Tusk and his close associates, although not all of them, for too long to be surprised with anything.
Q.: Has it disappointed you?
A.: I would not like to formulate it in this way now, since this is Poland's legal government and I am Poland's president, but I was certainly not surprised positively.
Q.: And what do you expect from the government?
A.: I expect the government, regardless of whether it is the Donald Tusk or any other government, to efficiently govern Poland, to resolve difficult problems, for instance those relating to the health care system, tax system, or currently to excise tax. In other words that it will have the courage to take sometimes popular and sometimes unpopular decisions.
Q.: The government says it has the courage and would like to take unpopular decisions but the president is an obstacle, announcing that he would veto bills.
A.: If the bills are deeply in contradiction with my convictions, as for instance the media bill, or the future bill on the prosecutor general, where I am convinced that the separation of these functions in Poland (...) means that the government cannot say with full sense of responsibility that it takes responsibility for the country's internal security.
Q.: The government has mentioned its successive flagship ideas from the election campaign; flat rate tax - the president will veto it, early retirement elimination plans - the president will veto it, an attempt to privatize hospitals - the president will veto it. Is there anything that you will not veto?
A.: The Sejm of this term has not passed too many bills, but among tens of bills I was given for signature, I vetoed one. (...) I sign a great amount of bills, and only one has been vetoed. President Kwasniewski during the rule of the Solidarity Election Action had 23 successful vetoes, let us not create fiction, this is my appeal to the media, then these were 23 successful vetoes relating to the most important issues: taxes, reprivatization, criminal law - these all are successful vetoes of President Kwasniewski and nobody blamed him about it, and I am blamed for the fact that I have my convictions. Yes, I do and with those convictions I was elected Poland’s president with the majority of over 54 pct of votes, more than for instance France's President Sarkozy, whom I like and value very much, who was said to have won an overwhelming victory. (…)
Q;.: And what about further lowering of taxes…
A.: Taxes have to lowered, but I am against flat rate tax, or the situation where somebody who earns 1 million zlotys a month, pays the same amount as somebody who earns 1,500 zlotys, as it is very unjust.
Q.: Mr President when you were taking you office you promised that you will be very active in domestic policy, but from my observations it follows that you are more active in foreign policy, why?
A.: I am active, since I managed to do something in foreign policy, especially on the south-eastern and north-eastern direction, but also with regard to the European Treaty, it is not optimal but is much better for Poland than its original version, I mean the Lisbon Treaty, we managed to win 11 questions in it. It was me who won, Ms Fotyga, the so called sherpas, that is Ms Osniecka and Mr Cichocki, we all won together. I took part in many negotiations, and so did they. Later I managed to carry out certain tasks south-east of Poland, and also north-east. As regards domestic policy, what are the president’s powers? Firstly, giving citizenship, bills – I always have much more of them than my distinguished predecessor…
Q.: But you said that you would be more active…
A.: I am more active: the order awarding policy, historical policy, bills, easing social conflicts which, especially during the rule of Law and Justice, I carried out on the large scale, various undertakings, where I can only advise, I can do nothing more, but connected with our economy, with the construction of powerful firms which would have significance in the scale of central and eastern Europe – all that is my activity.
Q.: But this activity is a little smaller, I cannot see these bills you are talking about….
A.: It is sad that you cannot see them but facts are facts. Today there are more bills that President Aleksander Kwasniewski had lodged over five years and this is not even a half of the term. (…)
Q.: Mr President why are you so strongly engaged in the defence of Georgia’s sovereignty. Why do you think Poland should be engaged in it?
A.: Firstly because we should defend the sovereignty of every country, in particular in the post-Soviet sphere, as we also have our past, w should not be ungrateful, shortly speaking, we have won and others have not. The second principle: Georgia is a key to a huge area, to Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Uzbekistan, if the world finds out that when fighting Georgia lost its real sovereignty, the sovereignty in other places will also be surrendered, shortly speaking we will have to do with the reconstruction of what is imperial thinking. Today I had a very interesting conversation with a very interesting man and he told me that there is no reconstruction of Soviet thinking in Russia and obviously there is not, they themselves were plagued by the system. There is no reconstruction of nationalistic thinking, the pure Russian-nationalist thinking, because of the fear of nationalism of smaller nations which live in today’s Russian Federation, but there is a return to imperial thinking. Poland is not interested in Russian nationalism, but Russian imperial thought is very much interested in Poland.
Q.: Does it interest anybody else except Poland, do you have such support in Europe on which you count?
A.: I partly do and I partly do not, I am fighting for it. But I have support in the state which is a NATO member, which is stronger.
Q.: Is the government support sufficient?
A.: I hope so…
Address by President of the Republic of Poland Lech Kaczynski during a visit to Warsaw by President of the Republic of Slovakia Ivan Gasparovic, June 6, 2008.
"I want to emphasise that we have held the first round of talks with President Gasparovic as we will have a lot of time for discussing a lot of questions in the coming days in Jurata. During this two-hour talk we addressed difficult questions. They are not linked with our relations as there are no difficult questions between Poland and Slovakia. We discussed difficult questions of the region, relations within the Visegrad Group, problems of Kosovo, situation of our Ukrainian friends and Ukrainian road to NATO and EU. We also discussed issues connected with the political change in Russia, which is the great importance as Russia is simply always very important. We also discussed what will happen after the elections in the U.S. This was a very interesting talk, a very interesting exchange of opinions on various issues. I am very satisfied with the meeting. We have come to the conclusion that our cooperation on the EU, UN and NATO forum is insufficient. And this situation must be changed step by step in the interest of our two nations and in the interest of a sort of democratisation of EU that today is a very powerful club of states. Such is my summing up of the talks with President Gasparovic.
Statement by President of the Republic of Poland Lech Kaczynski during his visit to Lithuania, June 16, 2008
"We have assessed the question linked with the referendum in Ireland. We have to respect what the Irish said and we must ask them about the reason behind such decision. We are ready to ask them this question and listen to the answers. Nothing can be forced here as EU is a union of free nations and free people. It is the union of smaller, bigger and big nations. And they all deserve the same respect and treatment. The success of the EU boils down to the fact that what had started 51 years ago ended in a great success, unknown earlier in the history. The Irish have the right to say what they said and we have the right to convince them. And we will convince them or not. And that was the first part of our talk.
We held a long discussion on Georgia. Here our attitude--that Georgia has the right to territorial integrity what should not change--is a common attitude. We have decided to go together to a GUAM conference in Tbilisi. I think it another step on the road of building closer relations between our nations, who are different nations as Lithuanians and Poles differ, but are linked with strong historic ties."
An interview with Prime Minister of the Republic of Poland Donald Tusk, 16 June 2008.
Q.: What issues will you raise during your Monday’s talks with German Chancellor Angela Merkel?
A.: Certainly the situation after the Irish referendum. So much the more that a dozen or so hours earlier I will be talking in Prague with prime ministers of Visegrad Group countries. We will be seeking there some ways of overcoming the present situation. As regards bilateral, Polish-German issues, we will certainly raise the important for me issue of Germany’s position on the Eastern European neighbourhood policy. I expect Germany’s support for our projects relating to EU’s eastern border. We will also discuss the so called climate package, or issues relating to carbon dioxide emission. At issue are big money for Poland. I am hoping for understanding of our partners that Poland, which wants to protect climate in global scale, needs more time – our energy production is based on coal. I will be convincing Germany to our point of view.
But let us return to the Lisbon Treaty rejected by Ireland.
It is in Poland’s and EU’s interest to find a good solution for Ireland, so that the Treaty’s provisions could be effectively implemented in the whole Europe despite the fiasco of the referendum. (…) I am convinced that from the point of view of Poland’s and EU’s interests the process of ratification of the Lisbon Treaty should be continued in those countries when it is still going on. That is why, without pushing anyone, I think it would be good for President Kaczynski to sign the ratification bill. I will be talking with him about it before leaving to Brussels. The Council of Europe will gather on Thursday and Friday. We have arranged our talks – either directly or by telephone we will discuss further action.
Q.: Is it possible that the idea of the “two-speed EU” can return?
A.: Always when there is a crisis situation, politicians appear – in various countries – who suggest that the European Union should be changed into the organization where countries will be treated differently. The EU of different speeds would not be good. Different speeds are characteristic for a transitional period. When Poland was not a Schengen member we had different speeds in a sense. When we are building a new organization – the EU is still in the phase of creation – it can be differentiated but this cannot be a political goal. Nobody should tell the Irish today: if you do not like the Treaty, you will be left on the EU margin or you will be in that second, worse speed. I would considerer such declarations to be unacceptable.
Q.: Mr Prime Minister, according to an OBOP poll 79 percent of Poles could not mention one issue which the government managed to cope with. Aren’t you worried about that?
A.: I would be worried if, in two-three years, at the end of the term in office, Poles thought that they saw no achievements of my government. But now when I am looking at public opinion polls which sometimes are better and sometimes worse, I can still see big confidence in us and the way we govern, in our intentions, and partly in what we have done during those first six months. (…)
Q.: Could you mention three priorities of the government and specify time limits for them?
A.: It is better to have one priority as when there are three, there is none. That is why, remembering about our commitments, for instance with regard to a health care system reform, or road construction, the first, most important is the reform of the old-age pension system. Not in order to save on people – I reject this point of view. Instead of early pensions, we want people over 50 years of age to remain on the labour market, the flexible market, friendly towards them and supported from the state budget. We want the number of working people to rise radically, instead of those living on a low pension, paid by the state. We will do it by the end of the year, we are looking for political ways.
We will probably be attacked by the opposition for that. It is not certain either whether the president will sign the adopted legislation but we have the bill ready, we are staring consultations. We will not give in to pressure, even if there are demonstrations or strikes, although I hope that there will be a significant group of workers which will understand that it is better to be earning for a longer time for a later, better pension than to escape from the labour market.
We estimate the expenditures for this project and its popularization at some 12 billion zlotys, but the profit from it, from lower burden of early pensions may reach even 20 billion zlotys. The budget effect is not the most important here. The point is that more people should work in Poland, so that people after 50 could have a life of dignity, which is not guaranteed by early pensions. Also at issue are benefits for the whole economy, for all people. Since lower state burdens will allow to gradually lower taxes. (…)
Q.: You have mentioned a possibility of a presidential veto.. Is the Civic Platform trying to convince the Democratic Left Alliance to back the government in the votes on the rejection of the veto, for instance in case of the media, health care or local-government bills?
A.: I do not participate in such talks. There are not any official negotiations with the Democratic Left Alliance, although there is work of parliamentary caucuses, contacts, discussions about specific issued. (…) The Left is broken, and it is difficult to expect a uniform position of its deputies. (…)
Q.: What will happen if the president vetoes all your ideas. What will Civic Platform do in such situation?.
A.: I remember my conversation with the president from nearly two years ago when he said bluntly: “If the Civic Platform takes over power, do not expect I will accept any bill. I will veto everything you prepare.” I believe that the president is consistent about such issue. We will see.
Q.: What Europe should do after Ireland’s rejection of the Lisbon Treaty?
A.: A position in Europe is not always decided by demography, although it is a very important factor. I would warn those who believe that after the fiasco of the referendum in Ireland, Europe should focus around the “hard core.” I do not like this idea, not because of the unfortunate wording, but because it is not an attractive prospect for those who would find themselves outside the group of European leaders. It is not certain whether Poland would find itself in the “hard core” if it is created. And this does not have to depend on our intentions.
A many-speed but balance political arrangement, within which everybody is respected and has equal rights, is in Poland’s and Europe’s interest. This means also that I respect the decision of the Irish. It cannot be ruled out that in some foreseeable future the Irish would decide to repeat the referendum, but if the rest of Europe exerts such brutal pressure it will not happen for sure. (…)
The Treaty is the Treaty, the accord has to be binding in Europe. We agreed that the Lisbon Treaty requires ratification of all member states and we knew this will mean a referendum in case of Ireland. A choice has a sense when it really is a choice.
Q.: What positive scenario do you imagine which will allow Europe to overcome the deadlock?
A.: The only optimistic, although difficult road is the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty taking into account certain conditions and reservations formulated by Ireland. Let us create the Irish such a chance without pressure and with calm.
The Lisbon Treaty is better the Nice Treaty, regardless of the issue of vote counting. It is better from the point of view of Europe as a whole and better for Poland. But obviously the EU will survive a year, two, three under the Nice Treaty. The process of ratification should last but Ireland has to have time for thinking things over and proposing Europe, without pressure on our part, a scenario of activity in Ireland.
The date 1 January 2009 as a date for the adoption of the Treaty in the whole Europe seems rather unlikely today, but if it does not take effect at the beginning of spring, it will not be possible to hold elections to the European Parliament under the new Treaty. I do not rule out they will be held according to the old electoral law.
Q.: Is it possible to continue EU enlargement without the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty?
A.: I proposed the Visegrad group meeting to adopt an unambiguous statement: the issue of the Irish referendum should not on any account be a pretext to express such judgments, as expressed by a German politician, who said that it should be thought over whether the enlargement, even to include Croatia which is closest to EU membership, has sense. I think it is an absolutely unacceptable and unlogical train of thought. What has Croatia’s effort to meet European standards to do with the Irish referendum?
Besides EU enlargement is one of significant reasons why Poland should calmly but persistently seek to adopt the Lisbon Treaty. Because it creates a distant but real European prospect to such countries as Ukraine.
Besides when we were taking a decision to recognize Kosovo, I proposed in a conversation with several European prime ministers to immediately say vary clearly about a European perspective for Serbia. I believe that such perspective can be the only key to put in order and calm down the situation in the Balkans. For that the Lisbon Treaty is also necessary.
Q.: How do you evaluate the relations of your government with the president in foreign policy. They are changing for the better or for the worse?
A.: The situation is not easy, although in key moments I have an impression that we are building a difficult understanding. On the one hand I can see efforts of President Kaczynski to present continuity of the state policy in foreign matters, and not only the Law and Justice’s point of view which is subordinated to internal relations. On the other hand I not always see justification for some presidential decisions or initiatives in the Eastern direction. I am not saying that these are erroneous initiatives, but I see certain disproportion. Under law and Justice rule Poland sometimes made an impression of a country which lies on the Atlantic Ocean and has only eastern neighbours. But we are not the second Portugal. The great, above-standard engagement of the president, especially in Georgia, Azerbaijan, is the reason why we have to put more and more effort in the reconstruction of our relations with our western neighbours.
The future of Poland, like that of every big state, will be played in several places. You cannot play one tune, but certainly more decisions of key significance for Poland will be taken with our participation in Brussels. It is easier to settle even some issues between Poland and Lithuania in Brussels than in Warsaw.
In this sense I feel certain disproportion or disharmony in president’s actions, although we can talk with each other as regards foreign affairs.
Q.: Will the president sign the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty?
A.: I think it would be better to ratify the Lisbon Treaty as fast as possible; Poland will gain rather than lose from it. So far the president has stressed that he will sing the Lisbon Treaty regardless of the outcome of the Irish referendum.
Q.: Does, in your opinion, the involvement of the president in eastern issues makes it more difficult to warm up relations with Russia?
A.: No. The president’s involvement in eastern issues is genuine and brings more benefit to Poland. I am only emphasizing that it is above-standard, which means certain disproportion.
As regards Polish-Russian relations, I do not think that the president’s activity harms these relations in any way. The fact that the president is engaged in the help to Georgia, that he could with such determination make European leaders more sensitive to these questions is to the president’s credit.
Q.: What is your personal attitude to the U.S. plans to place a missile defence base in Poland?
A.: (…) My personal opinion is identical with the official opinion. At issue is Poland’s security and as regards security I am not guided by sentiment but by public opinion polls. If I thought that the installation of the U.S. shield is good for Poland’s and Europe’s security, then even if 100 percent of citizens were against the shield, I would take a decision that it will be installed. Today I do not have that conviction.
What the Americans are proposing to us shows that they do not think about our safety intensively enough. If there are no signals that the United States is ready to help Poland in building a system of bigger security, then the balance of the “anti-missile shield” project will be negative in my opinion. I am stressing once again - our security hinges on strengthening our defence potential.
The change of the government in Poland brought warming up in relations with Germany. But the opposition says: we are smiling to each other but nothing much comes from it. (…)
Basically I believe that it is better to have good relations with other countries than bad relations. So I am building friendly relations with Angela Merkel. W returned to the tenor which was binding after 1989. We are trying to talk a normal language and resolve common problems. Is it bad or is it good? I believe that it is objectively good. But of course the fact that my predecessors talked with our biggest neighbours with their teeth clenched and I talk with them grinning does not mean that Germans will give up all their interests.
I only know that Poland’s interests in the European Union can be secured by talking and negotiating continuously, being a reliable partner, and not by shouting and shaking one’s fist. (…). That is why I believe that the potential of mutual trust between Poland and Germany can be invaluable. I will think so regardless of the impertinence of Jaroslaw Kaczynski towards me and Poland’s neighbours.
When I first went to Brussels as the prime minister of Poland’s government I had an impression that in crucial issues, where modern thinking is required, only burnt soil was left after Law and Justice governing. (…)
Q.: How is your cooperation with the National Bank of Poland?
A.: I am very attached to the independence of the central bank even in the situation when Mr Skrzypek is its president. That is why I am consistent in refusing to meet him. I believe that it is not the task of the prime minister to meet and talk with National Bank of Poland president.
I have my opinion about the effectiveness of the Monetary Policy Council and the National Bank of Poland. I share Finance Minister’s opinion, that they lacked reflex an the decisions to raise interest rates were taken too late. (…)
Q.: Won’t the lack of cooperation between the government and the National Bank of Poland hinder the adoption of euro in Poland?
A.: The flow of information between the government and NBP is normal,. I can see no problems here. As regards the prospect of euro introduction, we adopted documents connected with convergence. The ambitious plans of finance minister gives us a clear chance to reach the standards required in the euro zone in 2011 and then we will be taking a political decision. I do not think that Mr Skrzypek will be an obstacle her. It should also be remembered that euro introduction requires changes in the constitution.
Q.: Is there a chance that the problem of reprivatisation will be finally resolved?
A.: I would like to be no illusions or doubts here. So much the more that it arouses emotions of all those interested. Full reprivatisation in not possible.
The treasury ministry prepared a bill which foresees a partial compensation for the property seized after World War II. Responsible cost simpulations are still needed, but it can be expected that compensations will be between 10 to 20 percent of the documented value of the seized property.
First of all I want to thank you for today's meeting. I think that when we are talking about Georgia, about the country that regained independence a dozen or so years ago after several tens of years, we are talking about a brave and great nation. The nation that is especially liked here in Poland. But we are talking also about elementary values of our western civilisation. About whether those values are but declarations or whether they are being translated into concrete actions. The question of Georgia is now the question of the right of a nation to independence and democracy, the question of what is important in politics: particular interests of even the strongest groups, mainly of business, or seriously-treated system of values I mentioned before. If my country is so deeply involved in Georgia's affairs, it is not only friendship but also those values. I am convinced that all of you representing the Group of Georgia's Friends and your states, are being guided by such assumptions. This means that there is still hope in European, or Euroasian, policy. And we should cherish this hope, irrespective of changes of the administration in even the most powerful states in the world. And today's goals are concrete: the decision on MAP as soon as possible. And there cannot be any doubts as concerns this matter. The history of the recent dozen or so years shows that what is impossible in February is feasible in November. When a dozen or so years ago I tried to refer to the question of Poland's membership of NATO I met with no response, even in Poland. And a year or two years later the policy of joining NATO was an official policy of our country, and Poland has been a NATO member for nine years now. I believe that the situation can be similar as concerns Georgia.
