Professor Adam Daniel Rotfeld, deputy minister for foreign affairs, talks to Witold Żygulski.

How would you describe the statements by the French president and the French minister of defense, criticizing candidate countries, including Poland, for becoming too close to the United States, a position manifested, for example, in the "letter of the eight"?

A lot has been said about recent unfortunate statements and public comments on divergence of interests and specific positions taken by different states within the transatlantic community. These comments have additionally aggravated the situation. Thus the rhetoric, frequently shaped by emotion, has made the situation so tense that in fact procedures rather than content were seen as the main problem. In effect, something self-explanatory as the letter of the eight European heads of government and one president have resulted in a political "uncommon disarray", as characterized later by The Economist. This letter was not meant to be directed against anybody specific; the intention of the authors was to express their solidarity, as Europeans, with the United States and to recall basic values underlying our transatlantic partnership. The content of the letter corresponded exactly with the resolution accepted earlier by the European Union on Jan. 27.

The whole uproar was not connected to the content of the letter, but to the fact that it was signed only by a group of Western and Central European leaders. Some people have seen and commented on the situation in the context of Donald Rumsfeld's words, who referred to what he perceives as a new division between "old and new Europe". While criticizing Germany and France he did not leave any doubts that the United States would establish a closer relationship with "the new Europe."

There is no need to say that the reason why Poland, the Czech Republic or Hungary joined NATO was definitely not to create a new line of division in Europe. In our view there are no significant differences between Poland and France or Germany on central issues of European security.

I can say frankly: Poland's opinion on the subject of use of military force in international relations does not differ from the position of France and the European Union as a whole. Both for Poland and France, as well as for all EU member states, war is a last resort. As long as there is the slightest chance of solving the problem without resorting to force, I assure you that Poland will do everything to avoid war.

The European Union declaration on Iraq, as defined in Brussels Feb. 17, is entirely supported by Poland. It is exactly what we expressed in the "letter of the eight" signed by Prime Minister Leszek Miller. That letter could have been signed by all European leaders.

So how will Poland react to statements such as those uttered by the president of France?

To make a long story short, I would suggest to follow the Hippocratic Oath addressed to doctors of medicine, Primum non nocere-First of all: Do no harm. Therefore, we should do our best not to harm the transatlantic relationship and solidarity between Europe and the United States. We're interested in deepening cooperation and integration both among Europeans and in their relations with the United States and not in responding to offend anybody. I think that mutual accusations and abusive language-apparently serving the purpose of clearly defining one's own views for public consumption-would illustrate a lack of sensibility in dealing with delicate issues. Diplomacy differs from propaganda in that you have to take responsibility for your words and listen to what your partners are saying and look for agreement. I have the impression that not everybody is demonstrating such an approach, which hopefully will prevail when a common position will have to be crafted.

Some European countries still have to abandon finally the stereotype and paternalistic treatment of the former Warsaw Pact states. However, we the Poles do belong to the European family of states from the very moment of establishing of the Polish state more than 1,000 years ago. Today, when Europe faces the historic challenge of finding a common path, taking into consideration both strategic interests and national ambitions, it's not possible to accept the stereotype of "poor relatives" who should behave themselves.

Some observers think that the current crisis in transatlantic relations is generated by different views on leadership...

True. One of the serious problems in transatlantic relations is the question of leadership. In his address to the National Defense University in Washington (Jan. 13, 2003), President Aleksander Kwaśniewski made an important comment how, in our understanding, the leadership should be exercised. He stated: "it should be clearly said that in order to be effective it has to be cooperative and based upon rules acceptable to all parties. If these rules are not applied, then leadership can be perceived as hegemony or domination. To avoid this," said President Kwaśniewski, "one should talk with others, listen to them and learn their arguments..." His message was addressed to the American leaders but it is applicable to the Europeans as well...

The rhetoric exemplified by Jacques Chirac's words incorporates some not-too-euphemistic warnings addressed to EU candidate countries that their stand may have a negative influence on the process of signing the Accession Treaty. Is such a course of events actually possible?

I hope that these are not the words which will define and determine France's stand towards Poland. Our choice to become part of the European Union is already now, and will be in the near future, even more beneficial not only to Poland but to the European Union as well. If members of the Union did not realize their own profits and advantages in the process of enlargement, they would not have decided to enlarge. It's thereby both in Poland's and France's interest for this process to proceed in an undisturbed manner.

As you know, in politics-it is not the words but deeds that define a state's position. This applies also to French policy towards Poland and other candidates to the European Union. In recent years, also thanks to a very clear and positive position of Germany and France towards the European Project, we have come to believe that the enlargement is perceived as a historic opportunity, beneficial both to newcomers as much as to existing member states-including France. Copenhagen only confirmed the determination to proceed with this once in a lifetime opportunity of uniting Europe under one roof.

France, rightly so, aspires to become the leader of Europe. These ambitions and aspirations are justified for different reasons: for the unique French contribution to European culture and civilization, for France's political and economic position in Europe and-last but not least-for the original French idea of Europe's unity and integrity. Therefore French aspirations should be referred to with attention and understanding. In my view, it is natural that great powers, like France or Germany, have a somewhat different role to play in Europe. They are therefore seen and perceived as performing the role of a locomotive or an engine of the train that is to take Europe into the future. The point is for the engineer to be friendly and cooperative towards the conductors of all cars attached to it and to see that the direction in which the train is heading to be agreed upon.


At a press conference following the European Union's extraordinary summit devoted to the Iraq crisis Feb. 17, Jacques Chirac criticized the pro-American policy pursued by Central European EU candidate countries. "They lost a good opportunity to be quiet... they acted somewhat recklessly, did not demonstrate good manners... their behavior was infantile," said Chirac, adding that this might obstruct the ratification of the Accession Treaty, as "European public opinion" in the countries of the Fifteen looks askance at this kind of policy.

Delegations from the countries attacked by Chirac were not present at the summit in Brussels, as France and Germany did not agree to invite EU candidate states, despite proposals put forward by, among others, Great Britain and Spain. The criticism voiced by Chirac was caused first of all by the "Letter of Eight," signed Jan. 29 by prime ministers of the following five EU countries: Denmark, Spain, Portugal, Great Britain and Italy, and of three EU candidate countries: Poland, Slovakia and Hungary; one day later, the letter was also signed by retiring Czech President Vaclav Havel. The letter, a declaration of solidarity with Washington's policy, triggered many sharply critical comments both in France and Germany.
"When you are in the family, you have more rights," said Chirac, when the fact was brought to his attention that the heads of governments of five EU countries also signed the letter. On the following day in Warsaw, French Defense Minister Michelle Alliot-Marie used the same rhetoric, comparing the candidate countries to a "daughter-in-law, only about to enter the family."
"In Europe, there are no better ones and worse ones; there are no children, or states too immature for partnership," said Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs Włodzimierz Cimoszewicz in Brussels Feb. 18, stressing that the idea of certain countries having more of a say is unacceptable.

Prof. Adam Daniel Rotfeld, deputy minister for foreign affairs, commented on this issue in an interview for The Warsaw Voice.