Barack Obama and the Poles
Barack Obama and the Polish issue.
When people in Poland ask me what Obamas politics will be towards Poland and other countries in the region, I tell them about two fascinating conversations that I had before the presidential elections with professors of international relations from the best American universities.
Both of my interlocutors worked in Bill Clintons diplomacy in the nineties. Both supported Obama and both now stand a big chance of going back to the Department of State in two months.
-The most important change of American diplomacy should entail breaking the habit of provoking Russians- said Professor X over wine during one cold October evening. We did it for ten years with the unnecessary expansion of NATO by other countries. We should not bother ourselves with Ukraine! We need Russia for more important matters such as Iran and the fight against terrorism. We finally have to accept the reality that big countries have their sphere of influence. Would we allow Russians to build anti-missile shields or form an alliance with Mexico or Canada?
After my insolent comment that there were certain differences between the USA and Russia, as the Americans did not try to control the elections results like Russians did in Ukraine and Georgia, Professor X said confidently: - Different regions of the world have their own specific character, we certainly should stop interfering in Russias backyard!
Professor X would have made me slightly frightened about the superpowers new logic, according to which, somebody who lives in Edmonton can enjoy greater voting rights than someone from Kharkov. It would have, if I hadnt spoken to Professor Y a few days before.
-The biggest dangers in Obamas team are our leftist pseudo-realists- said Professor Y who himself is a member of that team.- Their faith in big business with Russia is wishful thinking, however, by trying to put it into practice they might give Ukraine into Moscows hands for good. Fortunately- continued Professor Y- they are going to lose the fight for Obamas soul, just as they lost the fight for Clintons soul.
Fortunately, the fight for Obamas soul is still taking place not only on the Russian front, but also on the Iraqi, Chinese and Latin ones. Different schools of thoughts about the world and the role of America in it are trying to persuade the new president and the almost certain head of diplomacy Hilary Clinton into their views.
On the Russian-central European front, it is not just a simple division, as it is sometimes said in Poland, for pro and anti-Russian camps in the USA.
The division is deeper in fact, philosophically. It is a division between those who see the world as a game of superpowers that providing its played well might bring peace to the world and those who think that expanding the spheres of democracy and human rights is the most certain guarantee of peace and development in the world. In both camps there are smart and honest people. They just see the world and American interests in a different way.
The difference is best seen in the approach to Ukraine expressed by two statesmen who have advised Barrack Obama. Zbigniew Brzezinski was Jimmy Carters closets advisor, Brent Scowcroft, on the other hand, advised Gerald Ford and George Bush. They just published a book together in which they agreed on a lot of problems of todays world. Nevertheless, their disagreement on Ukraine continues. In 1991 Brzezinski was an enthusiastic supporter of Ukraines independence, Scowcroft, however, advised George Bush to convince Ukrainians to stay within the Soviet Union. In 2008 Brzezinski sees opening the NATO doors for Ukraine as a means of showing Moscow a possible way towards the West. Scowcroft, however, sees it just as provoking Russians.
Who will Obama and Clinton listen to? Scowcroft or Brzezinski? Famous leftist analyst Anatol Lieven who de facto agrees with Putins statement that the former Soviet Union is the Russian sphere of influence and whose book Clinton has recently praised in public?
Or experts like Ron Asmus and Michael McFaul who write that such an approach would be a catastrophe?
Today Washington resembles a pot into which many cooks throw their ingredients. We will get to know the taste of this soup in a few months. One should not forget the attempts of Polish diplomacys head Radoslaw Sikorski to add his own pinch to it when meeting with a couple of Democrats. It was said in Washington that Poles as usual were boxing above their category, but there is no need to be worried about it. What is important is the fact that at that time and in that place somebody asked a question crucial to Poland. It reads as follows: Is the West going to give Russia everything east of Poland or not?
How surrealist recent accusations towards Sikorskis contacts with Asmus by Polish President Lech Kaczynski sound. The president should not have asked Sikorski that accusatory question Do you know Ron Asmus?
The question that Kaczynski should have asked Sikorski ought to read as follows: Do you meet Asmus and other important Democrats at least once a month?"
When people in Poland ask me what Obamas politics will be towards Poland and other countries in the region, I tell them about two fascinating conversations that I had before the presidential elections with professors of international relations from the best American universities.
Both of my interlocutors worked in Bill Clintons diplomacy in the nineties. Both supported Obama and both now stand a big chance of going back to the Department of State in two months.
-The most important change of American diplomacy should entail breaking the habit of provoking Russians- said Professor X over wine during one cold October evening. We did it for ten years with the unnecessary expansion of NATO by other countries. We should not bother ourselves with Ukraine! We need Russia for more important matters such as Iran and the fight against terrorism. We finally have to accept the reality that big countries have their sphere of influence. Would we allow Russians to build anti-missile shields or form an alliance with Mexico or Canada?
After my insolent comment that there were certain differences between the USA and Russia, as the Americans did not try to control the elections results like Russians did in Ukraine and Georgia, Professor X said confidently: - Different regions of the world have their own specific character, we certainly should stop interfering in Russias backyard!
Professor X would have made me slightly frightened about the superpowers new logic, according to which, somebody who lives in Edmonton can enjoy greater voting rights than someone from Kharkov. It would have, if I hadnt spoken to Professor Y a few days before.
-The biggest dangers in Obamas team are our leftist pseudo-realists- said Professor Y who himself is a member of that team.- Their faith in big business with Russia is wishful thinking, however, by trying to put it into practice they might give Ukraine into Moscows hands for good. Fortunately- continued Professor Y- they are going to lose the fight for Obamas soul, just as they lost the fight for Clintons soul.
Fortunately, the fight for Obamas soul is still taking place not only on the Russian front, but also on the Iraqi, Chinese and Latin ones. Different schools of thoughts about the world and the role of America in it are trying to persuade the new president and the almost certain head of diplomacy Hilary Clinton into their views.
On the Russian-central European front, it is not just a simple division, as it is sometimes said in Poland, for pro and anti-Russian camps in the USA.
The division is deeper in fact, philosophically. It is a division between those who see the world as a game of superpowers that providing its played well might bring peace to the world and those who think that expanding the spheres of democracy and human rights is the most certain guarantee of peace and development in the world. In both camps there are smart and honest people. They just see the world and American interests in a different way.
The difference is best seen in the approach to Ukraine expressed by two statesmen who have advised Barrack Obama. Zbigniew Brzezinski was Jimmy Carters closets advisor, Brent Scowcroft, on the other hand, advised Gerald Ford and George Bush. They just published a book together in which they agreed on a lot of problems of todays world. Nevertheless, their disagreement on Ukraine continues. In 1991 Brzezinski was an enthusiastic supporter of Ukraines independence, Scowcroft, however, advised George Bush to convince Ukrainians to stay within the Soviet Union. In 2008 Brzezinski sees opening the NATO doors for Ukraine as a means of showing Moscow a possible way towards the West. Scowcroft, however, sees it just as provoking Russians.
Who will Obama and Clinton listen to? Scowcroft or Brzezinski? Famous leftist analyst Anatol Lieven who de facto agrees with Putins statement that the former Soviet Union is the Russian sphere of influence and whose book Clinton has recently praised in public?
Or experts like Ron Asmus and Michael McFaul who write that such an approach would be a catastrophe?
Today Washington resembles a pot into which many cooks throw their ingredients. We will get to know the taste of this soup in a few months. One should not forget the attempts of Polish diplomacys head Radoslaw Sikorski to add his own pinch to it when meeting with a couple of Democrats. It was said in Washington that Poles as usual were boxing above their category, but there is no need to be worried about it. What is important is the fact that at that time and in that place somebody asked a question crucial to Poland. It reads as follows: Is the West going to give Russia everything east of Poland or not?
How surrealist recent accusations towards Sikorskis contacts with Asmus by Polish President Lech Kaczynski sound. The president should not have asked Sikorski that accusatory question Do you know Ron Asmus?
The question that Kaczynski should have asked Sikorski ought to read as follows: Do you meet Asmus and other important Democrats at least once a month?"