|
Lech Walesa
Former President of Poland; Nobel Peace Prize Laureate
Answers to Questions from the Audience
Q: Many Americans give President Reagan credit for building up military strength, for being tough on the USSR and causing the collapse of the Soviet Union. How do you feel about that, and what was your relationship during those years with him?A: Well, ladies and gentleman, communism collapsed because it was a bad system. And the higher the civilizational progress, the higher the technology, the more ineffective and inappropriate the system was. However, as we can see in Cuba and North Korea, communism could have persisted for a while longer. But actually, I think it's high time you did something about Cuba, because it resembles slightly a tiny mosquito biting the United States on the nose. I've already had my suspicions that you keep Cuba in place on purpose because you want to keep it as a kind of Jurassic Park of communism, where you have different icons of communists to be placed there. There is something to it.
But going back to the question, I said communism would collapse because it was a bad system, but it could have persisted longer. All the Western politicians and even the communists themselves knew that the end of the system was imminent, but no one knew how to end it. It coincided, at that point, that many different individuals around the globe - like President Reagan, President Mitterand, Chancellor Kohl, Mrs. Thatcher, Lech Walesa - they all thought around the same lines, aiming at bringing communism down, and almost without communicating between themselves, they acted along the same lines. Each of them did their own thing, but toward the same goal. At one point the Soviet Union, Gorbachev, really felt oppressed by the rest of the world and thought there was some kind of world conspiracy against them.
However, if we talk about giving credit to those who contributed to the end of communism, we mustn't forget one personality: the pope, the Holy Father. Ladies and gentlemen, let me deliberate a little bit longer on this figure. Before 1979, I had for 20 years been involved in a dissident movement against communism. Throughout those 20 years I had managed to group around me ten people - from among 40 million Polish people - who would be willing to oppose communism. There were other dissident centers around Poland, but certainly not very numerous. The rest of the Polish people were just scared, did not believe bringing down communism was possible at all; some of them were simply involved in the communist parties. I had the opportunity to have discussions with all the leaders of the world: presidents, prime ministers, even kings. They were all fed up with communism, but no one could see the actual end of it. And at that point something most incredulous happened. A Pole was elected pope.
A year after his election, he came to Poland, and suddenly millions of people flocked to the holy masses that he held. Perhaps you can recall those times. The whole world was astounded. What was it all about? What was happening in that country? There is this communist country and here are almost all of its citizens attending the meetings with the pope. During that first pilgrimage, the pope said many different things, but among them he said the following: He said, Don't be scared; transform the face of this land. And then he left for Rome. Within a year from that pilgrimage, I could not control all the people. Suddenly out of the ten people I had 10 million eager to fight. I didn't suddenly become any wiser, I didn't suddenly become any wealthier, but I had the 10 million.
What the pope actually did, he awoke the nation, the peoples. This coincided with this very basic organizational structure that we had. This all coincided with the favorable climate around the world, that is with President Reagan and many other factors. And we managed to organize this eagerness of the people in strikes, into negotiations, and this brought the downfall of communism. So if we are to talk about the truth: the pope contributed more than 50 percent to the course of the events; 30 percent would go to Solidarity and Lech Walesa and, of course, Solidarity - embracing many of you gathered here and many of the people around the world. Of course, I could have attributed much more percentage to myself. (The pope can't hear me right now. But I certainly want to be on good terms with the one up there.)
The process could have been reversed, and at this point we were lucky to have Yeltsin - not Gorbachev, but Yeltsin. Because Gorbachev, when he realized what was happening, made this attempt to reform communism. Perestroika and glasnost are nothing but a reform of communism. When I asked Gorbachev in public whether this is what he meant, he agreed. This is precisely what he admitted in the presence of President George Bush Sr., Chancellor Kohl, President Havel and others. But that was a time when Yeltsin was antagonistic with Gorbachev. As you may remember, the majority of you supported Gorbachev at that time; however, this antagonism allowed Yeltsin to prepare Russia and then withdraw her from the Soviet Union, which he actually did. I'm not sure whether he did it when sober or when drunk, but he did it. Had he not done it, I am sure that I myself, and Chancellor Kohl, would be rebuilding the Berlin Wall even faster than we had pulled it down sometime before, with strong encouragement from the United States. I am sure that would have been the outcome had Yeltsin not done what he did.
Q: What is your sense of President Putin and his current activities in Russia; are we moving back towards a dictatorship in Russia?
A: I can see two different Putins. There is one Putin who can control this huge country, and having had some experience in other countries like Germany and others, he is trying to reform this country - and this is the Putin we should provide assistance to. Yet there is still another Putin. This is the one who says, I am the one who will rebuild Russia, you will certainly remember me in the future - that's what he is saying. Right now I don't know which one of the two is winning; it's 50/50 between the two.
There is one thing certain: Whatever happens it will not be his victory, because whether we want it or not, the world in the 21st century is all standardized. Separate countries resemble Lego building blocks. And those standardized dimensions are freedom, democracy and a free-market economy. If you get a chance to observe children playing with building blocks, you can see that they can build up wonderful constructions with those blocks that fit. They can be really varied constructions. However, if they come across a block that does not fit, what do they do? They just throw it away. The same will apply to particular countries that do not adapt to those standardized dimensions. So the question is not really if but when and at what price. Russia is a country of enormous potential, and a Russia that is a democratic country and a country of a free-market economy can be a wonderful partner. I encourage you to support that kind of Russia. And I am sure we are able to control in which direction Russia is going.
Q: Who would be the best president for the world in the U.S. election - Bush or Kerry?
A: You Americans have always coped yourselves, and you will cope this time, too. Although I do want to interfere a little bit on this occasion, and I would like you to understand that Poland has always stood side by side with the United States and wants to continue to stand side by side. However, when we speak of the relations between Poland and the United States, Poland has always been kind of a patiently-waiting-in-line partner. Waiting like this in the line, patiently and quietly, Poland has turned to being a second-class citizen in the treatment by the United States. The others push their way through, and they have achieved a visa waiver, whereas do you realize that Polish citizens still have a visa requirement to enter the United States? I believe this is a shame on us; this is an infamy, really.
Here we have two nations that have supported one another strongly all along. I believe something has to be done in this respect, because we are really ashamed of such a situation. Do you realize how many other nations participate in a visa waiver program? This is really an offense to us that we are not a member of it. I suppose we could have put up with the visa systems when there existed two opposing blocs, different borders. Whereas now, retaining the visa requirement gives us an awkward position. For example, when I talk to the Belarussians or the Ukrainians - well, actually the Western world has already lost Belarus, because it has joined Russia, and tomorrow Ukraine will follow - when they talk to me they say the following: Look, you have been servants of the United States, always there to serve the United States. Shedding your blood for the United States. And what does America do in return? It maintains a visa system for you. Let us understand this point: If any problem arose in the United States today, actually Tadeusz Kosciuszko or a Casimir Pulaski would not be able to enter the United States because of the visa requirement. Therefore, let us do something about it.
I know that there is a need for a control system for security reasons; however, such a system that does not allow the whole nation to enter this country I think is wrong. And actually I will provide my endorsement to the candidate who will understand such a need. We need a lot of understanding in this new era. In this new era the United States' role is to eliminate senseless barriers. In this new era the United States has to select its friends and eliminate its opponents.
Yesterday I had an opportunity to meet with your different congresspeople, senators, and I made a commitment that I would provide ten different arguments to any objection against a visa waiver for Poland. There was not a single objection raised that could not be opposed. There is only one that is left, saying we mustn't make any significant steps now because of terrorism, let us isolate from the rest of the world - this is the way of thinking. However, I disagree with such an opinion; I don't think isolation will solve things. The solution against the war on terror would be to organize the world so that it can face the challenges of today's world.
For 15 years I have been propagating the idea that we should either re-orientate the United Nations or perhaps add a separate structure or a branch to the United Nations. The selection criteria could be whoever supports America and America's policy, and by that time we would have reorganized or established a global parliament complying with the United States' policy - meaning either reorganizing the United Nations or establishing a new body that would also imply a transformation of NATO into a security department or a separate body that would exert such a function. (The security council would be the global government and NATO the department of security.) We would only allow these global institutions to deal with three aspects of our lives: the first being border conflicts; the second being anti-Semitism, racism and ethnic cleansing; and the third being terrorism - with a short acclamation, We undersigned, under the patronage of the United States, or together with the United States we will not allow anyone, anywhere, to violate the three issues. Whoever dares to violate them, there will certainly be a globalized world that will oppose them. And of course there will be special logistics dividing the world into different sections for different generals to control the area. I am sure that the Palestine/Israeli conflict would be over in two months if we do such a thing - providing that we approach it globally. We have had enough wars, we've had enough fighting. And we global forces will not allow them to carry out such fighting even to Israel. Whoever, under such circumstances, decides to even think of arms or touches the arms, voluntarily removes himself to the Northern Pole.
I believe that it's best to look at nature as the best example. I once saw an American movie that showed two roosters fighting. It showed a very nasty fight between the two, one wanted to kill the other, there seemed to be no other solution. But there was someone who had the bright idea to pluck the feathers out of the roosters. Suddenly one rooster ended up in one corner of the room and the other found shelter in the other. When they looked at themselves they were even scared of themselves. So I think a solution is very simple: Let us pluck the feathers out. The feathers being money and arms, and then everyone will be peaceful and obedient. I suppose this is the way to solve many problems, it's easy and possible. Well, I've been talking too much, the topics seem to be so abundant - they will suddenly pluck my feathers out.
Q: During World War II, 2.5 million Polish Jews were murdered by the Nazis. Poland had a vibrant Jewish community before the war. Does such a community again exist in Poland?
A: Well, as it was said in the question, the Jewish people were murdered. And the truth is that the Jewish people have their homeland, so they have a land to go to now. And it is a great shame for Poland, because we miss the Jewish element very badly. I don't think we can do much about it to change the situation. Hopefully we can soothe the situation slightly better now in this world when there are no borders and no divisions. However, we mustn't forget one thing: The people who suffered most during the Nazi war was the Jewish people; the second to follow were the Polish people. And for this very reason, if only for this very reason, these two peoples should do everything they can so they could enjoy a peaceful relationship, great friendship and good community between the two. This is something I am hoping for very much and I am working towards it.
Q: Poland is a new member of the European Union. Is this going to be a good thing for the people and the farmers in Poland? Will Poland support the candidacy for Turkey to join the EU?
A: As I said, I always present those from the practical point of view. Look at Europe: so many separate countries, some of them small but wealthy. But do you realize that those wealthy countries are too tiny to have their own airlines because by the time the airplane takes off it already enters the airspace of the neighboring country? Therefore, we have reached the situation in which, due to our civilizational progress, we need to enlarge structures in which we are organized - and there is no question as to whether to enlarge but how to do it. And if we do not adopt a global organization on issues like ecology, sooner or later things like Chernobyl or acid rain will destroy all of us.
Information has already globalized itself. Look at cellular phones, television, the Internet. The European Union is a manner in which we can enlarge the structure in which we are organized. It faces two challenges, the first being to level the disproportions between the countries that resulted from the borders that existed in the past and caused an uneven development. It's not very profitable to the countries to have a neighbor in which there is a civilization of a camel or a horse because they will not be buying our Ford cars. The gearbox works differently. So we need to level the disproportions.
The second task: adopt a certain planned program for development, because the Lord has not given us all equal things. Some have been given such a good soil so as to grow oranges, wheat, bananas - and there is even oil hidden underneath; other countries have been given only soil to grow wheat. If the one who has a lot does not make concessions to that one who has less, the one will die out of overeating and the other one of starvation.
Now we are constructing the 21st century, and in order to survive in it, in order to secure our safety, we have to be in solidarity, realizing that each individual is essentially needed to the other, that each individual is a potential business - and we must help that other individual so that he or she can create business for us. Anyone that is jobless causes other individuals to pay taxes for him or her. That jobless person does not purchase goods because he or she has no money, and on top of everything else they can start up a revolution. This is this new era that you must realize the existence of - you especially, the superpower.
Using this question as a starting point, let me say the following: Make sure you encourage similar discussions elsewhere. I am not sure whether I am right or wrong. However, I am sharing with you my insights, my personal views, without much diplomacy. Let others also say the same thing here from this podium. And you, being the superpower, listen to what others have to say and select the best solutions for yourselves. Also I would like you to encourage the training and schooling system to be patrons - you being the superpower should be able to have your own people educated elsewhere in other countries, and perhaps help to educate other people in those countries so that they could control the development of things. I believe there is already a project of an international school of this type planned for Poland, there are some people who are already involved in it, so I hope for your support for the effort. This is exactly the kind of a school for the superpower - the school that will serve the challenges of globalization.
If anything of what I have said here can be of use to you, I will be more than pleased. If not, it means you would have wasted an hour of your lifetime. If you re-invite me, I will know if you have agreed with what I have said or not. Of course, I could have done a proper lecture going on for an hour. I have a hundred different lectures in my palmtop. But I believe that such an exchange of ideas is better, because this allows me to also take advantage of your knowledge, and we know what topics are of interest to us all. And I would like to join you and support you, the superpower, in facing the challenges of our times. People have always wanted to understand the threats and the challenges, and somehow they found it difficult to reach such an understanding. I believe we stand a better chance because we have computers, we don't have communism, we don't have apartheid, so this generation is faced with this opportunity of establishing peace and prosperity in this world - as long as we discuss a lot in order to reach the best possible conclusions.
Q: You once said, "Why don't you use the power of the computer and the Internet to search for the meaning of love?" How is your search going?
A: Well, I keep on searching. Once I thought that computers would not really fit my generation, but as it turned out, I got hooked on it. However, my computer is not really sentimental; I prefer my wife.
There might be important leaps ahead; I'm hoping for it. I sincerely would like to still accomplish something with your participation, because I fear one thing: that we have achieved so much, and when there is still so little left to be done we have decided to go on holiday. And tomorrow our children and grandchildren may reproach us and say, Hey listen, Daddy, Granddad, what did you do? How could you do it? You won such a tremendous victory, you opened the world all up, there was such an enormous opportunity, and whom did you elect to be the president? Why didn't you get involved and why didn't you commit yourself?
So here I am pleading to you. I believe that the next five to ten years will require our involvement in order to establish the order in this world after the downfall of communism. You need to participate more, instead of saying, They can do without me, my vote doesn't count. Well, they can do without you, but they will do it without your knowledge and wisdom. And if you fail to do it, tomorrow you will not have the right to complain, because you did not participate. That's why, since you did not participate, you might be facing different challenges and even different tragedies. I encourage you to participate. I encourage you to reform the world. In this effort you can always meet me, and in this effort may God bless us.
EAST OF THE EUROPEAN UNION
Steven Boyd Saum, Editor-in-Chief
Poland joined the European Union this year. More recently, Belarus and Ukraine held elections that have reminded the world that democracy is not well east of the European Union.
Europe's Last Dictator
On October 17, Belarussian President Aleksandr Lukashenko overwhelmingly won a referendum allowing him to run for a third term. Official results put 80 percent of the votes in the yes column. But the Election Observation Mission of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) noted the elections clearly "fell short from being free and fair." In the days following the referendum, thousands of protesters gathered in the Belarussian capital of Minsk and, on October 19, some 50 people - among them journalists and opposition leaders - were detained and beaten, according to journalists writing for Transitions Online. And on October 20, well-known Belarussian journalist Veronika Cherkasova was stabbed to death in her home.
Lukashenko's official web site notes, "Being the President, I sometimes have to take unpopular decisions," and "protect[ing] people is my main job." He has also accused opposition members of ties to international terrorism. Meanwhile, on October 26, President Bush signed the Belarus Democracy Act, passed unanimously by Congress to authorize U.S. aid to Belarussian political parties, non-governmental organizations and independent media.
Ukraine Is Not Dead Yet
So declares Ukraine's national anthem. The hopes of two presidential candidates are still alive as well, despite an October 31 election marked by "serious violations" in electoral procedure, according to the U.S. State Department and European observers. From a field of 24 candidates in which none won the requisite 50 percent to claim the presidency, the two top candidates to emerge were Viktor Yanukovich, the current Ukrainian prime minister, and reformist Viktor Yushchenko, a former prime minister. Each polled about 39 percent of the vote before the count was stopped (with some 94 percent tallied) by the Ukrainian Central Electoral Commission amid accusations of ballot box stuffing. Yushchenko supporters say a complete count would show their man ahead.
What's at stake in this nation of 48 million? Yanukovich offers a firm pro-Russia stance and is backed by the outgoing president, Leonid Kuchma, as well as "entrenched business interests," as The Christian Science Monitor has mildly put it in an editorial. Yushchenko offers a more pro-Western message. Weeks and even months before the election, observers expressed fear that the election would be stolen through fraud. State-run media strongly backed Yanukovich, opposition rallies were disrupted, independent journalists assaulted and media outlets shut down. Yushchenko even claimed someone had tried to poison him. The runoff election is slated for November 21.
Return to the Introduction >>
Marwan Muasher
Arianna Huffington
Ben Stein