The Politics of Fear
The Politics of Fear: An interview with Roman Kuźniar
Michał Wybieralski: Should Poland grant asylum to Edward Snowden?
Roman Kuźniar: It’s an unrealistic idea. One can sympathize with Snowden’s stance, but from the American point of view he has committed treason because he disclosed secret material to the media and foreign countries. For this reason, countries that are U.S. allies — and this includes Poland — are not a good place to apply for asylum. It can be said with certainty that none will grant it. We are also bound by an extradition treaty. If America’s extradition demand is well-argued, it would be difficult to keep Snowden in Poland. People who support Snowden should wish him to find asylum in a country that will protect him effectively.
In applying for temporary asylum in Russia, Snowden argued that he could be facing torture and the death penalty in America. Are such fears justified?
Indeed, legal experts, human rights activists and certain international relations experts think that Snowden has no chance for a fair trial in the U.S. This conviction is based on America’s treatment of persons whom it considers enemies threatening its security.
Private Bradley Manning, who provided information about Army abuses to WikiLeaks, has met with inhumane treatment in the U.S.
That’s one example. Arguments about the threat of torture or capital punishment should be taken seriously, as this form of punishment has not been abolished in the U.S. If, during the course of legal proceedings, Snowden’s lawyers could demonstrate that what he has done can be qualified as acts punishable by the death penalty, no country that is a member of the Council of Europe and a party to Protocol No. 6 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms could turn him over to the U.S.
We could use this line of argumentation if we were to give him asylum.
We are a U.S. ally, and if the Americans undertook not to seek the death penalty, it would be difficult not to extradite Snowden. The question is whether they would not change their minds during the course of the investigation. I don’t know of a case in which a close ally stood up in such a resolute manner to the U.S. Asking “what if” on the subject of asylum is pointless.
Minister Sikorski wrote on Twitter that Snowden has no chance of being granted asylum. Prior to a government meeting, he joked in front of the cameras that Snowden had been “repulsed.” Should a diplomat behave in this manner?
Publicizing such scenes doesn’t do any good. It undermines public debate by concentrating it on mere incidents. Leaving aside the form of the foreign minister’s pronouncement, he expressed the essence [of the Polish position]: "Snowden can’t count on asylum in Poland any more than he can in other allied countries." Let’s not treat Poland as an exception in this matter.
What is your interpretation of Snowden’s actions? Were they actions in the public interest aimed at stopping abuse of power? Or were they a betrayal of his country?
Do you remember the essay by Zbigniew Herbert entitled “The Samos Affair”? [In it], the Athenians set out in a punitive expedition to tame the island of Samos. Many atrocities are committed during the expedition and information about them starts to filter back to Athens, whose citizens begin to doubt the sense of the expedition. The Athenian authorities then order, for the first time ever, that the news be censored.
Herbert drew a timeless moral from it: That soldiers returning home from such expeditions bring back, "in the folds of their uniforms, on the soles of the boots, the germ of a disease that will infect their own society, their own freedoms." It is a case of reverse feedback of a distorted security policy on [a country’s] internal system.
We have been observing such a process in the West and in the U.S. for over a dozen years and have been dealing with it since the administration of George W. Bush. A gigantic pyramid of lies was built to justify the war in Iraq. During the war on terror, deadly drones have been used — frequently against persons who we don’t know are in a position to threaten us. The institutions engaged in security policy have a tendency to abuse their role to the detriment of civic rights, the right to privacy, the right to information and the fairness of the justice system. Persons suspected of acting against U.S. security interests cannot count on getting a fair trial or being treated in keeping with U.S. law or international conventions.
Snowden’s act should be viewed in the context of the message contained in Herbert’s essay. People we see as dangerous terrorists or rebels are often the product of our policies and our military presence. It is worthwhile to consider whether the use of force within the framework of an excessively broad definition of security needs might generate “avengers” against whom we later have to defend ourselves. This is nothing new in history, after all. People like Snowden are opposed to this — they see the threat and try to warn their country [against it].
The U.S. authorities don’t see this threat.
The awareness that some measures aimed at ensuring security can be pushed too far will only come with time. This will be delayed by the group and corporate interests of those who are responsible for security policy and who make a living by it. In Poland also, many years had to go by before it was accepted that the presence of CIA black sites on our territory was unwarranted. Yet at the beginning we denied everything.
Not too long ago, Robert Kaplan — one of America’s best specialists on military affairs — wrote an excellent article entitled "The Washington Empire." In it, the author describes the emergence of a sizeable group of people who make a living from America’s military presence in the world. It includes arms manufacturers and analysts, as well as parts of the media they have corrupted. Together, they preach an unarticulated imperial mission for the U.S. and dissimulate it behind the rhetoric of human rights and democracy.
The British historian Niall Ferguson compared two statements. One was made by the British governor who entered Baghdad in 1920 following a cruel crushing of an anti-British uprising: “We bring you freedom.” George W. Bush used the same logic, and sometimes the same expressions, when he launched the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Snowden’s case should be seen in this wide context, something that rarely happens in Poland.
Is this inconvenient for us because we went to Iraq with the Americans?
Some people in Poland don’t understand this, but it must be said that the understanding of security in political discourse, the media, among the experts and in the public has been deformed. Three things took place: the marketization, the ideologization and the mediatization of security. These diseases influence how we think and talk about it. We overinterpret it under pressure from the market. This is not only influenced by defense corporations, but also by the military companies (paramilitary security agencies) of ill repute, which were the second largest military force in Iraq and were responsible for the death of many people.
The media set in motion a black-and-white view of the world. The ideologization consists of using an ideological narrative to justify actions that arise from ulterior motives. One talks of human rights or democracy to hide ad hoc economic or resource-based interests.
Several years ago, the British historian Timothy Garton Ash attempted to describe the thinking of people of the South about the West. He wrote that Westerners once spoke the word "Jesus" while thinking "cotton," and today they say "human rights" and think "oil." It’s an oversimplification, but it’s a little bit like that. Libya is a case in point.
On the one hand, the U.S. promotes the idea of a whistle-blower sounding the alarm when things go awry in an institution and, at the same time, they pursue the most famous of them?
The Americans’ first reaction is a desire to punish Snowden in an exemplary fashion so that he won’t have imitators. His information threw a shadow on America’s image, because one should not snoop on friends and allies. This most certainly led to unpleasant signals being sent to Washington.
Americans should reconsider whether everything is [truly] OK. I am absolutely convinced that the bulk of the information they collect by monitoring emails, portals and telephone conversations is entirely useless. Toward the end of the 1990s and during the so-called global war on terror there was a flowering of intelligence and other specialized agencies that are not subject to due democratic oversight and, therefore, are beginning to justify their own existence. This is potentially a threat to democracy.
Can PRISM prevent terrorist attacks?
Probably in some measure. But we also know that prior to Sept. 11, 2001, all American [security] agencies were in possession of all the information they needed to prevent those attacks, on the condition of effective integration. There are such a great number of intelligence institutions, generating such a quantity of information, that it is often impossible to make any operational use of it. It is also said that PRISM made it possible to avert terrorist attacks. It would be worthwhile to know which ones. It is known that the security services have at times sponsored attempted terrorist attacks in order to "prevent" them at the last moment and to punish the persons incited in this manner. This has gone too far — due to lack of democratic oversight.
The excess of information makes its use more difficult and, at the same time, can cause serious damage to democracy and human rights, which are being eroded. After all, we are not facing such an extraordinary threat that would justify the wide scope of surveillance Snowden has revealed.
How do such activities threaten democracy?
In many ways: Society, under the influence of the so-called politics of fear — the deliberate demonizing of threats — can acquiesce to limitations on its freedoms and to spending on armaments while, at the same time, maintaining in power people who promise they will defend that society. Why did George W. Bush win a second term? Because, with the help of a great number of think tanks, spin doctors and experts, and parts of the media, he managed to convince Americans that the threat was serious and that he — his policies and manner of conducting the war — was the only possible response to it. And then came Obama and the announcement of America’s withdrawal from Iraq. Did threats to America increase as a result? No, rather the opposite.
The degeneration of democracy that ensues from the activities of the intelligence services can also affect the economy. Information can be revealed to certain people or corporations; as a result, they are able to maintain their monopolies. A free market favors democracy and when certain sectors of the economy become monopolized, it has a feedback effect upon that same economy — through the corruption of politicians, for example. There is a rich literature describing the growing dependence of politics on business.
Why do Americans snoop on their allies?
This should not happen, and it’s not just a question of ethics. It’s a deeper, fundamental issue. Since we are allies, there has to be trust between us. I have the impression that certain pronouncements made by American officials tend to make light of the situation. One should not behave this way.
This shows how, by being stuck in certain mode of operation, we unwittingly begin to accept abnormal things as normal. It also shows the need for a civil society equipped with mechanisms of defense against excessive power and its eternal "natural" drive for omnipotence. Zbigniew Brzeziński, an insightful observer and great American patriot, wrote in his last book, “Strategic Vision,” that in some respects today’s United States is beginning to remind him of the Soviet Union. This is a worrisome diagnosis. It is the role of the media and nongovernmental organizations to make sure this doesn’t happen.
Will the U.S. curtail the abuses of its intelligence services?
Europe hopes so. After all, the U.S. is an important pillar of Western civilization. We can’t set negative examples for the rest of the world when we have the upper hand. But this is beginning to change. What if those whom we still dominate begin, in some 15 to 20 years, to behave toward us as we do toward them today? The balance of power is clearly changing to our disadvantage, so while we are still in a privileged position, we should strive to form just habits in international relations. If we disseminate negative habits, we set a bad example for those who try to emulate us in order to be as powerful and prosperous as we are.
Research shows that most societies value security above respect for privacy. How much surveillance should there be and how much protection for human rights?
Tension between security and liberty is a constant issue in democratic societies. Without a doubt, in the past decade or so since the beginning of George W. Bush’s term, we’ve seen a tilt toward security. The above-mentioned ideologization, mediatization and marketization of security have deprived societies of an understanding of what the cost of security should be, not only in monetary terms, but in terms of violations of our rights and freedoms.
This is convenient for the authorities, who have been able to create an effective threat narrative through the use of the media and experts. Societies accept it because they don’t have access to exhaustive information. In the case of Iraq, Polish society was initially divided half and half. Later, more people were against our involvement there, despite massive propaganda on the part of the authorities and the drowning out, and even deriding, of voices of opposition. But it turned out that society’s instinct was more realistic and more ethical than that of the authorities of the day.
But there are some in Poland who continue to think that we were right to participate in Iraq, despite the immense harm that was done and the even more lasting negative consequences.
The media is losing its independence and is also subjected to market forces. Even the more serious papers engage increasingly in entertainment instead of civic activeness. And it is the media that should be the shield protecting society from the appetites of the authorities. When this shield weakens, the public has less and less ability to assess the situation and speak out on how to maintain a balance between freedom and security.
The phenomena you describe relate to the debate on the CIA black sites in Poland. Are we not interested in shedding light on what happened at these sites and how they arose?
I don’t accept the arguments of those who would scare us by saying that if we speak on the subject, we will immediately become the target of terrorist threats. This is pure demagogy. We participated in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and this has not led to threats. The case of CIA black sites [in Poland] should be explained without compromising important and genuine state secrets. We already knew that they existed. It’s a pity that we didn’t find out from our own government because the issue was leaked in Washington during the Bush administration. What went on there should be explained. There are no reasons to keep it secret — we are entitled to this information. I’m not talking about the responsibility of those persons who authorized the CIA center [in Poland]. They were "intoxicated" by the general situation following Sept. 11 and by the pressure from our American ally — I can understand it. But I think that was not the only reason for our acquiescence. There was also a lot of opportunism in it, a desire to please the U.S., a conviction that this would somehow be beneficial to Poland or to themselves. This did not prove to be the case.
We are entitled to information about CIA prisons in Poland for the reasons Herbert wrote about and Professor Monika Płatek spoke of — for the health of democracy.
Isn’t it tragic that Snowden, who served democracy, received offers of asylum only from authoritarian countries or countries that violate human rights?
Democratic countries should be grateful to Snowden for pointing out the dangers democracy is facing. This includes countries that are not close U.S. allies, and which nevertheless appear to have decided that their political interests rule out granting asylum [to Snowden]. It is a source of great moral discomfort to me that Snowden will most probably find refuge in a nondemocratic country or one whose democracy is facade-like. This is our fault. We — the democracies — are unable to react and to offer him protection. This is yet another indication that we are not in very good shape.
In well-functioning systems there should be a place for a "devil’s advocate" mechanism. If it doesn’t kick in when something goes wrong and needs to be corrected, we derail. We are on a collision course with an iceberg; the orchestra plays the old narrative to the end, as onboard the Titanic. Snowden’s asylum situation may be a signal as potent as the information he revealed.
Can a great empire like the U.S. — with its entrenched defense industry lobby, its ties between government and business and so many enemies — change?
Sociologists and political scientists say that we are today living in post-democratic regimes, something they ascribe, among other things, to the extraordinary role of financial institutions. Take a look at the last economic crisis and its results. Those [whose actions] caused it have not met with any consequences and continue to dictate their principles to society. Neoliberalism, with its distortions, continues to function as a dogma, despite being responsible for the derailment of the West’s finances in 2008 and the greatest economic crisis since 1929. The world of finances continues to dominate over the real economy, and the entire cancerous derivatives industry remains untouched. Therefore, I too am not at all certain whether we are still living in countries that are democratic, or if we have entered a post-democratic stage with its numerous disorders, or what the nature of this stage truly is. This is unsettling, but I would like to think that democracy’s self-regulation and auto-correction mechanisms are still functional.
Professor Roman Kuźniar is a political scientist and diplomat. He holds the Chair of Strategic Studies at the University of Warsaw and is an international affairs adviser to Polish President Bronisław Komorowski. For many years, he was director of the Analysis and Planning Department of the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs (from which he resigned in protest against Poland’s involvement in the war in Iraq), and the director of the Polish Institute of International Affairs (from which he was dismissed by the Law and Justice party government for his criticism of the missile shield project). He has recently published “My, Europa” (We, Europe, Scholar, 2013, Warsaw).
Michał Wybieralski: Should Poland grant asylum to Edward Snowden?
Roman Kuźniar: It’s an unrealistic idea. One can sympathize with Snowden’s stance, but from the American point of view he has committed treason because he disclosed secret material to the media and foreign countries. For this reason, countries that are U.S. allies — and this includes Poland — are not a good place to apply for asylum. It can be said with certainty that none will grant it. We are also bound by an extradition treaty. If America’s extradition demand is well-argued, it would be difficult to keep Snowden in Poland. People who support Snowden should wish him to find asylum in a country that will protect him effectively.
In applying for temporary asylum in Russia, Snowden argued that he could be facing torture and the death penalty in America. Are such fears justified?
Indeed, legal experts, human rights activists and certain international relations experts think that Snowden has no chance for a fair trial in the U.S. This conviction is based on America’s treatment of persons whom it considers enemies threatening its security.
Private Bradley Manning, who provided information about Army abuses to WikiLeaks, has met with inhumane treatment in the U.S.
That’s one example. Arguments about the threat of torture or capital punishment should be taken seriously, as this form of punishment has not been abolished in the U.S. If, during the course of legal proceedings, Snowden’s lawyers could demonstrate that what he has done can be qualified as acts punishable by the death penalty, no country that is a member of the Council of Europe and a party to Protocol No. 6 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms could turn him over to the U.S.
We could use this line of argumentation if we were to give him asylum.
We are a U.S. ally, and if the Americans undertook not to seek the death penalty, it would be difficult not to extradite Snowden. The question is whether they would not change their minds during the course of the investigation. I don’t know of a case in which a close ally stood up in such a resolute manner to the U.S. Asking “what if” on the subject of asylum is pointless.
Minister Sikorski wrote on Twitter that Snowden has no chance of being granted asylum. Prior to a government meeting, he joked in front of the cameras that Snowden had been “repulsed.” Should a diplomat behave in this manner?
Publicizing such scenes doesn’t do any good. It undermines public debate by concentrating it on mere incidents. Leaving aside the form of the foreign minister’s pronouncement, he expressed the essence [of the Polish position]: "Snowden can’t count on asylum in Poland any more than he can in other allied countries." Let’s not treat Poland as an exception in this matter.
What is your interpretation of Snowden’s actions? Were they actions in the public interest aimed at stopping abuse of power? Or were they a betrayal of his country?
Do you remember the essay by Zbigniew Herbert entitled “The Samos Affair”? [In it], the Athenians set out in a punitive expedition to tame the island of Samos. Many atrocities are committed during the expedition and information about them starts to filter back to Athens, whose citizens begin to doubt the sense of the expedition. The Athenian authorities then order, for the first time ever, that the news be censored.
Herbert drew a timeless moral from it: That soldiers returning home from such expeditions bring back, "in the folds of their uniforms, on the soles of the boots, the germ of a disease that will infect their own society, their own freedoms." It is a case of reverse feedback of a distorted security policy on [a country’s] internal system.
We have been observing such a process in the West and in the U.S. for over a dozen years and have been dealing with it since the administration of George W. Bush. A gigantic pyramid of lies was built to justify the war in Iraq. During the war on terror, deadly drones have been used — frequently against persons who we don’t know are in a position to threaten us. The institutions engaged in security policy have a tendency to abuse their role to the detriment of civic rights, the right to privacy, the right to information and the fairness of the justice system. Persons suspected of acting against U.S. security interests cannot count on getting a fair trial or being treated in keeping with U.S. law or international conventions.
Snowden’s act should be viewed in the context of the message contained in Herbert’s essay. People we see as dangerous terrorists or rebels are often the product of our policies and our military presence. It is worthwhile to consider whether the use of force within the framework of an excessively broad definition of security needs might generate “avengers” against whom we later have to defend ourselves. This is nothing new in history, after all. People like Snowden are opposed to this — they see the threat and try to warn their country [against it].
The U.S. authorities don’t see this threat.
The awareness that some measures aimed at ensuring security can be pushed too far will only come with time. This will be delayed by the group and corporate interests of those who are responsible for security policy and who make a living by it. In Poland also, many years had to go by before it was accepted that the presence of CIA black sites on our territory was unwarranted. Yet at the beginning we denied everything.
Not too long ago, Robert Kaplan — one of America’s best specialists on military affairs — wrote an excellent article entitled "The Washington Empire." In it, the author describes the emergence of a sizeable group of people who make a living from America’s military presence in the world. It includes arms manufacturers and analysts, as well as parts of the media they have corrupted. Together, they preach an unarticulated imperial mission for the U.S. and dissimulate it behind the rhetoric of human rights and democracy.
The British historian Niall Ferguson compared two statements. One was made by the British governor who entered Baghdad in 1920 following a cruel crushing of an anti-British uprising: “We bring you freedom.” George W. Bush used the same logic, and sometimes the same expressions, when he launched the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Snowden’s case should be seen in this wide context, something that rarely happens in Poland.
Is this inconvenient for us because we went to Iraq with the Americans?
Some people in Poland don’t understand this, but it must be said that the understanding of security in political discourse, the media, among the experts and in the public has been deformed. Three things took place: the marketization, the ideologization and the mediatization of security. These diseases influence how we think and talk about it. We overinterpret it under pressure from the market. This is not only influenced by defense corporations, but also by the military companies (paramilitary security agencies) of ill repute, which were the second largest military force in Iraq and were responsible for the death of many people.
The media set in motion a black-and-white view of the world. The ideologization consists of using an ideological narrative to justify actions that arise from ulterior motives. One talks of human rights or democracy to hide ad hoc economic or resource-based interests.
Several years ago, the British historian Timothy Garton Ash attempted to describe the thinking of people of the South about the West. He wrote that Westerners once spoke the word "Jesus" while thinking "cotton," and today they say "human rights" and think "oil." It’s an oversimplification, but it’s a little bit like that. Libya is a case in point.
On the one hand, the U.S. promotes the idea of a whistle-blower sounding the alarm when things go awry in an institution and, at the same time, they pursue the most famous of them?
The Americans’ first reaction is a desire to punish Snowden in an exemplary fashion so that he won’t have imitators. His information threw a shadow on America’s image, because one should not snoop on friends and allies. This most certainly led to unpleasant signals being sent to Washington.
Americans should reconsider whether everything is [truly] OK. I am absolutely convinced that the bulk of the information they collect by monitoring emails, portals and telephone conversations is entirely useless. Toward the end of the 1990s and during the so-called global war on terror there was a flowering of intelligence and other specialized agencies that are not subject to due democratic oversight and, therefore, are beginning to justify their own existence. This is potentially a threat to democracy.
Can PRISM prevent terrorist attacks?
Probably in some measure. But we also know that prior to Sept. 11, 2001, all American [security] agencies were in possession of all the information they needed to prevent those attacks, on the condition of effective integration. There are such a great number of intelligence institutions, generating such a quantity of information, that it is often impossible to make any operational use of it. It is also said that PRISM made it possible to avert terrorist attacks. It would be worthwhile to know which ones. It is known that the security services have at times sponsored attempted terrorist attacks in order to "prevent" them at the last moment and to punish the persons incited in this manner. This has gone too far — due to lack of democratic oversight.
The excess of information makes its use more difficult and, at the same time, can cause serious damage to democracy and human rights, which are being eroded. After all, we are not facing such an extraordinary threat that would justify the wide scope of surveillance Snowden has revealed.
How do such activities threaten democracy?
In many ways: Society, under the influence of the so-called politics of fear — the deliberate demonizing of threats — can acquiesce to limitations on its freedoms and to spending on armaments while, at the same time, maintaining in power people who promise they will defend that society. Why did George W. Bush win a second term? Because, with the help of a great number of think tanks, spin doctors and experts, and parts of the media, he managed to convince Americans that the threat was serious and that he — his policies and manner of conducting the war — was the only possible response to it. And then came Obama and the announcement of America’s withdrawal from Iraq. Did threats to America increase as a result? No, rather the opposite.
The degeneration of democracy that ensues from the activities of the intelligence services can also affect the economy. Information can be revealed to certain people or corporations; as a result, they are able to maintain their monopolies. A free market favors democracy and when certain sectors of the economy become monopolized, it has a feedback effect upon that same economy — through the corruption of politicians, for example. There is a rich literature describing the growing dependence of politics on business.
Why do Americans snoop on their allies?
This should not happen, and it’s not just a question of ethics. It’s a deeper, fundamental issue. Since we are allies, there has to be trust between us. I have the impression that certain pronouncements made by American officials tend to make light of the situation. One should not behave this way.
This shows how, by being stuck in certain mode of operation, we unwittingly begin to accept abnormal things as normal. It also shows the need for a civil society equipped with mechanisms of defense against excessive power and its eternal "natural" drive for omnipotence. Zbigniew Brzeziński, an insightful observer and great American patriot, wrote in his last book, “Strategic Vision,” that in some respects today’s United States is beginning to remind him of the Soviet Union. This is a worrisome diagnosis. It is the role of the media and nongovernmental organizations to make sure this doesn’t happen.
Will the U.S. curtail the abuses of its intelligence services?
Europe hopes so. After all, the U.S. is an important pillar of Western civilization. We can’t set negative examples for the rest of the world when we have the upper hand. But this is beginning to change. What if those whom we still dominate begin, in some 15 to 20 years, to behave toward us as we do toward them today? The balance of power is clearly changing to our disadvantage, so while we are still in a privileged position, we should strive to form just habits in international relations. If we disseminate negative habits, we set a bad example for those who try to emulate us in order to be as powerful and prosperous as we are.
Research shows that most societies value security above respect for privacy. How much surveillance should there be and how much protection for human rights?
Tension between security and liberty is a constant issue in democratic societies. Without a doubt, in the past decade or so since the beginning of George W. Bush’s term, we’ve seen a tilt toward security. The above-mentioned ideologization, mediatization and marketization of security have deprived societies of an understanding of what the cost of security should be, not only in monetary terms, but in terms of violations of our rights and freedoms.
This is convenient for the authorities, who have been able to create an effective threat narrative through the use of the media and experts. Societies accept it because they don’t have access to exhaustive information. In the case of Iraq, Polish society was initially divided half and half. Later, more people were against our involvement there, despite massive propaganda on the part of the authorities and the drowning out, and even deriding, of voices of opposition. But it turned out that society’s instinct was more realistic and more ethical than that of the authorities of the day.
But there are some in Poland who continue to think that we were right to participate in Iraq, despite the immense harm that was done and the even more lasting negative consequences.
The media is losing its independence and is also subjected to market forces. Even the more serious papers engage increasingly in entertainment instead of civic activeness. And it is the media that should be the shield protecting society from the appetites of the authorities. When this shield weakens, the public has less and less ability to assess the situation and speak out on how to maintain a balance between freedom and security.
The phenomena you describe relate to the debate on the CIA black sites in Poland. Are we not interested in shedding light on what happened at these sites and how they arose?
I don’t accept the arguments of those who would scare us by saying that if we speak on the subject, we will immediately become the target of terrorist threats. This is pure demagogy. We participated in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and this has not led to threats. The case of CIA black sites [in Poland] should be explained without compromising important and genuine state secrets. We already knew that they existed. It’s a pity that we didn’t find out from our own government because the issue was leaked in Washington during the Bush administration. What went on there should be explained. There are no reasons to keep it secret — we are entitled to this information. I’m not talking about the responsibility of those persons who authorized the CIA center [in Poland]. They were "intoxicated" by the general situation following Sept. 11 and by the pressure from our American ally — I can understand it. But I think that was not the only reason for our acquiescence. There was also a lot of opportunism in it, a desire to please the U.S., a conviction that this would somehow be beneficial to Poland or to themselves. This did not prove to be the case.
We are entitled to information about CIA prisons in Poland for the reasons Herbert wrote about and Professor Monika Płatek spoke of — for the health of democracy.
Isn’t it tragic that Snowden, who served democracy, received offers of asylum only from authoritarian countries or countries that violate human rights?
Democratic countries should be grateful to Snowden for pointing out the dangers democracy is facing. This includes countries that are not close U.S. allies, and which nevertheless appear to have decided that their political interests rule out granting asylum [to Snowden]. It is a source of great moral discomfort to me that Snowden will most probably find refuge in a nondemocratic country or one whose democracy is facade-like. This is our fault. We — the democracies — are unable to react and to offer him protection. This is yet another indication that we are not in very good shape.
In well-functioning systems there should be a place for a "devil’s advocate" mechanism. If it doesn’t kick in when something goes wrong and needs to be corrected, we derail. We are on a collision course with an iceberg; the orchestra plays the old narrative to the end, as onboard the Titanic. Snowden’s asylum situation may be a signal as potent as the information he revealed.
Can a great empire like the U.S. — with its entrenched defense industry lobby, its ties between government and business and so many enemies — change?
Sociologists and political scientists say that we are today living in post-democratic regimes, something they ascribe, among other things, to the extraordinary role of financial institutions. Take a look at the last economic crisis and its results. Those [whose actions] caused it have not met with any consequences and continue to dictate their principles to society. Neoliberalism, with its distortions, continues to function as a dogma, despite being responsible for the derailment of the West’s finances in 2008 and the greatest economic crisis since 1929. The world of finances continues to dominate over the real economy, and the entire cancerous derivatives industry remains untouched. Therefore, I too am not at all certain whether we are still living in countries that are democratic, or if we have entered a post-democratic stage with its numerous disorders, or what the nature of this stage truly is. This is unsettling, but I would like to think that democracy’s self-regulation and auto-correction mechanisms are still functional.
Professor Roman Kuźniar is a political scientist and diplomat. He holds the Chair of Strategic Studies at the University of Warsaw and is an international affairs adviser to Polish President Bronisław Komorowski. For many years, he was director of the Analysis and Planning Department of the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs (from which he resigned in protest against Poland’s involvement in the war in Iraq), and the director of the Polish Institute of International Affairs (from which he was dismissed by the Law and Justice party government for his criticism of the missile shield project). He has recently published “My, Europa” (We, Europe, Scholar, 2013, Warsaw).
Next article![]( "US Will Pay a Price for Its Hypocrisy on Egypt")
