Address of Prime Minister of the Republic of Poland Leszek Miller
at the Los Angeles World Affairs Council
Flying from Washington to Los Angeles, one can see how vast the United States is. Today California is a symbol of wealth and economic prosperity based on advanced high technology. California, as all of the USA, on the old continent represents dreams that come true. California represents those features of the United States, which fascinate other nations so much - here even the most daring, incredible ideas are realized. We admire the USA not just because it is the greatest power of contemporary times, but above all because that might was created for people who are free, people representing great ideas.
12 years ago Lech Wałęsa visited California. Invited by this distinguished Institution, he gave a speech as the President of a new Poland. President Wałęsa came here as a representative of a country, where great, previously impossible dreams were coming true. He symbolized the new developments in the history of our country - optimism, which resulted from the fact that the Polish people took responsibility for their country and took its matters into their own hands.
For Poland the transatlantic relationship is neither an empty slogan, nor a historic concept overtaken by recent events. It is a living thing, an evolving idea, which is still crucial for international security. The question is quite simple: how to prevent anti-Americanism in Europe and anti-Europeanism in America? To be more precise: for us in Poland the main task within transatlantic relations is to persuade Americans to stay in Europe. We in Poland deeply believe that it is in our mutual interest of Europeans and Americans to keep America in Europe, to consolidate our alliance, to be united in front of new threats and challenges. Thus it requires not so much theoretical redefinition, but rather practical transformation and adaptation to new realities.
Polish perspective on transatlantic partnership is different nowadays, too. For two main reasons:
First, it had another meaning for us in the Cold War era. However, from the moment we regained our sovereignty, it has become one of our guiding principles, for defining the security of Poland.
Second, the tragic events of September 11, underpinning the fundamental change in the perception of security threats, have also influenced our thinking on the transatlantic relationship.
It is not just Poland, it is the entire world community of democracies that has to revisit and reinvigorate transatlantic bonds. In the past, the transatlantic relationship was based on an overwhelming need to counter a common, Soviet threat. Because of that threat, which was real and imminent, no serious disputes within the transatlantic community were revealed, even if they happened. The strength of that community was considered to be in its unity, even if taken for granted.
What are the prerequisites and challenges for transatlantic relationship nowadays? What is its role today? Does it have a chance to survive the current dispute on Iraq?
First of all, let us try to say in clear terms what should the transatlantic relationship mean today.
It should mean a readiness of Europe and North America to follow a common strategy. Not just a common strategy to counter possible threats, but primarily a common strategy to promote common values - human rights, democracy, freedom, market-oriented economy.
It should mean a preparedness to harmonize European and American interests, and thus to compromise on unavoidable differences.
It should mean a determination to seek a common security agenda, despite obvious differences in security threat assessments between the US and Europe after September 11 events.
There is no one, single, common threat to our security, like we have had it in the Cold War era. However, we have new assets and new foundations on which we can base necessary transformation and adaptation of the transatlantic relationship.
The terrorist threat does not and will not substitute the overwhelming security threat from the cold war era. It is different in nature. It is overall in the sense that it may affect everybody. At the same time it is specific in the sense that terrorists’ targets are unpredictable.
There are people also in Poland who ask why we should get involved in Iraq. Why should we care ? The answer is that today we should fight for the security of your country also outside its borders. After September 11, the American Embassy in Warsaw was plunged in flowers. Thousands of candles were lighted. Flowers and candles were brought there by ordinary people as their expression of solidarity with America, as a loud NO to terrorist activity and a loud YES to fight against terrorism. This gives me mandate as the head of Polish government to support America. Yesterday when I talked with President Bush and Vice-President Cheney I said that America can count on us just as we counted on America throughout 20th century.
We must use now different ways and means to fight against terrorism.
The first asset in that regard is European integration and the evolution of the European Union. For years the United States was complaining about a lack of one, common "European telephone number". Even if it is still not enough to remember Javier Solana’s telephone number only, the US deals now more and more with an European partner rather than European partners. Europe still does not have one view on all issues, including on Iraq. But it is undertaking serious efforts with a view to integrate and define a common foreign and security policy.
Let us call things by their real names. The current dispute over Iraq is not necessarily weakening the transatlantic relationship. It is just showing that there might be different views within transatlantic community as to the methods of dealing with a problem at hand. Nobody is questioning the necessity for Iraq to disarm. There are, however, different views as to actual ways and means to achieve that goal. People say that Europe has got divided over Iraq. Half of Europe supports the United States and the other half does not. But why should only half of Europe or a quarter of Europe support the US policy, while it can be the whole Europe. And I think that eventually we in Europe will meet at the same point though Poland will be there earlier.
Let me illustrate my point by referring to the public letter, which I signed together with other colleagues - European Prime Ministers a few days ago. This letter was intended to stress overall unity and solidarity of Europe and America. It was fully in line with the earlier general EU position on Iraq. It was also intended to highlight the need for NATO cohesion in the face of clear security threat coming from unresolved problems in Iraq. It was, thus, a message of support for the US and UN efforts. The lack of some signatures should be interpreted though as meaning that Europeans still work on details of their position on how to deal with Iraq. At the same time nobody in Europe is questioning the urgent need to deal with it quickly and effectively.
It is, therefore, a tactical and not a strategic difference of views.
The problem we face is how to establish a community of interests, while perceptions of threats to security, and of international situation in general, are not similar today on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean. It is possible if we focus our thinking on four basic criteria for effective transatlantic partnership.
First, it must be based on the notion of solidarity of nations. Poland was benefiting from American solidarity throughout the 20th century, including the First and Second World Wars. So you may count on us, since we do know how important it is.
Second, it has to be a two-way street. In other words, it is to be beneficial for all nations involved. The United States should see mainly political and economic advantages of co-operative partnership with Europe. On the other hand, Europe should recognise both political and military, as well as security gains resulting from co-operative attitude towards the United States.
Third, it may not challenge the US clear leadership in the world affairs. Equally important, it may not downgrade the position of Europe as an independent international player. To put it in simple terms: American leadership, in order to be truly effective, needs a mechanism to recognise and respect interests of others.
Fourth, it should have its flexible, but proven institutional expression. One does not need to reinvent a wheel for that purpose. We have NATO and the EU at our disposal. Enlarging and evolving the North Atlantic Alliance still offers an excellent framework for transatlantic interaction. Also enlarging and deepening its internal ties the EU is aspiring to the role of the main partner for the United States. Actual construction of transatlantic partnership, in order to be stable, needs a solid economic foundation. American investments in European economy could only be helpful in that regard. We in Poland hope very much that offset investments, resulting from the Polish Government decision to buy American multi-role F-16 fighters, would help to establish long-term and strong American economic involvement in my country. And you know that Poles are a hospitable nation. The process of European integration in the long run will help to strengthen such economic foundations of transatlantic partnership.
Finally, let me stress that the process of globalization constitutes both a challenge and an opportunity for the future of the transatlantic relationship. A challenge - because we have to adapt our way of "transatlantic thinking" to the new realities, and it is always the way of thinking which is most difficult to change. An opportunity - because globalization as such necessitates joint action and common attitude towards international problems.