Jerzy Pomianowski: It is crucial that Belarus get actual support

• 5.06.2013, 13:46

The head of the European Endowment for Democracy does not support the loans to Lukashenka’s regime and urges to give Belarusian democrats real help.

Jerzy Pomianowski is a versatile and undoubtedly very interesting personality. He graduated from the department of social science of the University of Warsaw, joined the underground during the communist dictatorship, was a university instructor, obtained a master’s degree, worked at the Ministry of education and then in the Foreign Ministry of Poland. For a long time he was the head of the Department on Asia, Africa and Oceania and even was Poland’s Ambassador to Japan. in 2011 he took the position of the vice foreign minister of Poland. Jerzy Pomianowski is the president of the Polish federation of aikido, he has the 6th dan.

Today Jerzy Pomianowski is the Executive Director of the European Endowment for Democracy established after the violent events of December 19, 2010 in Belarus.

Jerzy Pomianowski told about his life, fight, career, and, of course, about how he sees the situation in Belarus to the editor-in-chief of charter97.org Natallia Radzina.

- Mr Pomianowski, let’s start with your biography. You are a graduate of the University of Warsaw, department of social science. Have you ever worked as a social scientist?

- In the 80s all my friends were members of the opposition, while I was working with samizdat. In 1980-1981 we founded an association of independent students. We were too young to join the trade union Solidarity so we founded our own organization. But the Solidarity helped us a lot.

I earned my living with music by playing oriental instruments and holding workshops where I showed how to play them, I even was a martial arts instructor. Those were my two biggest hobbies.

After graduation I spent one year in the army, and in 1988 I started to lecture in oriental cultures in the University of Warsaw. I finished my master’s thesis only in 1987.

In 1988-1989 I taught the modern culture of Asia in the Institution of Orientalism. It was a course in anthropology of culture. At those times I was very interested in studying the barriers between cultures, how they affect the lives of modern people in such big cities and London, Paris, New York, where several cultures have to co-exist.

- In other words, you didn’t work specifically with social research, but still you possess the competence to discuss the social science in the times of the communist dictatorship.

- This is an interesting question. Back then in Poland, the social science was a part of the political propaganda. Of course, the official powers didn’t work with real social science. But students like us tried to use official programs in their own interests. For example, when we were working with research officially called “Contemporaries of the People's Republic of Poland” we studied the biographies of the people who were born in 1945. But we asked them prime questions, like “What do you think about the communist party?”, and secondary questions like “What role does the Church play in your life?”. Our management didn’t care about the secondary data, but we still gathered it and could see the real situation!

- What professional advice can you give Belarusian social scientists that work in the society of fear?

- We have discussed this issue a lot. There is a methodology. For example, you cannot directly ask a person whether they beat their child, the answer will be negative. It is better to ask whether their neighbors beat the child. If the person answers positively, then they beat the child themselves.

The same thing is true about Lukashenka. If you ask a Belarusian directly if he or she likes Lukashenka, the answer will be affirmative. But when asked what the president of Belarus should be like, a Belarusian will answer: an intelligent, experienced person with good attitude to other people, who doesn’t put others in jail. Obviously, Lukashenka possesses none of these traits. So everything depends on how the question is formulated. Belarusian social scientists can be trusted only if they use this methodology.

- You were one of the founders of the association of independent students. What can you advise Belarusian students that are expelled from universities for mere presence at an opposition rally?

- In 1980-1981 for a short period of time we finally got a chance to act, just like in Belarus in 2010. The people thought that something could be changed. Then it was destroyed.

Every moment when an opportunity to act appears should be used. In our association, we worked with tourism, music, archeological research. We continued our political activity even after we were shut down in 1981. For example, I founded a club of martial arts at the university, and everyone thought that it made me completely harmless. Meanwhile, we had our “island of freedom”. People who knew, respected and trusted each other came to us. And we grew: 20, 40, 100 members. Maybe there was a KGB agent among us, but we didn’t care because we were simply friends with common interests. And friendship is dangerous for dictatorship. Authoritarianism always wants to have only one opponent, because you can do anything to a single person.

- Where does your interest in the oriental culture come from?

- I’ve always loved oriental philosophy, art and literature. It was interesting and exotic. Then I became interested in social science, but I never stopped studying the Orient. I wanted to find out how Asia, Europe and America can co-exist, how it affects economy and international relations.

Then I started to train aikido. Apparently, there was no aikido club in Warsaw. I had to found my own.

- Why aikido?

- Aikido’s philosophy is very special: don’t resist. The rival’s aggression will kill him. It can be perfectly extrapolated onto the politics. Give in wisely.

- When did you join the Foreign Ministry of Poland?

- In 1989, my friends already thought of me as of an expert in the Orient. Someone recommended to apply for a job in the Foreign Ministry. At that time they were looking for independent candidates without a communist biography who weren’t members of the communist party. And so I became an employee.

- Soon you became the head of the Department on Asia, Africa and Oceania, then – the Ambassador to Japan.

- It was a very interesting time, because Poland had just started to build relationship with these countries. It was difficult since the elites’ political focus was directed at Europe and the U.S. Poland’s membership in the European Union and NATO were on the agenda. Asia wasn’t in the center. When I started to work at the Foreign Ministry, I was nearly the only new person; all the others were old communist diplomats. The minister told me: “You, young man, will define the new Polish politics in Asia and Africa.”

I was just 32 years old, and it wasn’t easy. I had to work with actual transformations, not just the bureaucracy. I had to draw a new map of the Polish history in the context of these countries. And it made me consider what new embassies should be opened, what old ones should be closed, I started to restore diplomatic relations with South Korea, African countries, Japan. It was a very exiting work.

- Did the 6th dan in aikido help in your work?

- Yes, it did! The 6th dan helps more than the 5th, that helps more than the 4th. But it’s just a joke.

For a diplomat, it is crucial to have qualities, other than the professional experience, that make him or her interesting for other people. In Washington, London, Paris, where thousands of diplomats work, nobody pays attention to anyone. But a person with a passion is more interesting to talk to; such a person draws more attention. For example, at first I can talk aikido with another diplomat, but then I can tell about Poland’s concerns.

And, of course, the philosophy of aikido appeals to me. There is always a way out that doesn’t involve a fight. The rival’s strength can simply be directed against its source.

- You have been a deputy foreign minister of Poland since 2011. During this time, your politics regarding Belarus has become more rigid. Do you consider it a success?

- Yes, I do. It is very important that we decided to call things their true names, white is white and black is black. I’d say that this policy is the right one because Poland has become a successful democratic country, and democracy is a system that dies when isolated.

We cannot ignore what is happening across our eastern border. And we should speak openly about it, even if some elements of the politics will suffer. It is crucial that Belarus get actual support, and not just an illusion of support that some politicians in Europe create. They are not ready for a more serious sacrifice. Polish NGOs that come to Belarus to help Belarusian dissidents take a risk, but they are ready to do that because we are sympathetic, we remember our history. I believe that this is what differs us, Poles, from many other nations of Western Europe. They have lived too long with democracy and it is hard for them to understand what it is to live in a dictatorship.

- What initiatives in relation to Belarus were successful? What plans were not fulfilled?

- I was one of the authors of the Dialogue on Modernization. When I started to work at the Ministry, I invited Belarusian activists and asked them what can be done to improve the European politics. That is when the idea of the Dialogue on Modernization was born. It took me three months to convince the European Union to accept this idea as European politics.

Of course, for us Belarus is a complicated issue. We have to maintain a communication because we are neighbors, but Lukashenka doesn’t fit. His methods, his authoritarianism are wrong. We want to find balance between the need to communicate with the Belarusian diplomats and the word “no” in the relationship with the Belarusian powers. This is our biggest problem in the relations with Belarus. And there is no simple solution.

- Critics of the initiative Dialogue on Modernization are concerned that it will become a modernization of a concentration camp. Maybe we should talk about democratic reforms instead?

- When I created the initiative, I was thinking differently. It seemed to me that apart from the politics, we should talk about specific changes in Belarus, about something that common people can relate to: economics, education, municipal self-governance, or in other words, modernization of the day-to-day life. It doesn’t mean that we should forget about political reforms. Simply when we talk about reforming the bank system, no matter what party conducts it, it is still a reform of the bank system.

It we elaborate such reforms and then present them to the Belarusian powers, I know they will be incapable of fulfilling the reforms because of lack of will and personnel. Each of these well-written reforms means a transition to democracy.

But I believe that even those who today work in Lukashenka’s system want modernization. They should realize that they should team up with the opposition because the country needs reforms. If they can realize that then a dialog on modernization, not on conservation will be feasible. In several years, when democracy will come to Belarus, you will be asking what to do with the people that supported Lukashenka: should they be convicted? This is bad, too. It is better to start working with them already today.

- And you personally choose dialog or sanctions against Lukashenka’s regime?

- Both dialog and sanctions.

- How is that possible? Today we see that there are no sanctions, a new “dialog” is being resumed, although the political prisoners have been behind the bars for more than two years already.

- It is hard to answer that question. But here I see a weakness of Belarus, not Europe. I repeat: democracy cannot be brought from abroad. It is achieved inside the country.

- But without a rigid politics of the West changes inside the dictatorship are hard to accomplish. For example, Poland received much help during its fight for freedom.

- Private institutions did help. Countries, apart from the U.S.A and Great Britain, never ceased their trade with the People’s Republic of Poland.

When the West traded with Poland and gave it loans, we said: if you loan money because you feel sorry for the Poles, don’t pity us, we will survive even worse conditions. Don’t loan money to the communists, because when the power changes, the loans will remain and we’ll have to pay them back. And when the states gave loans, we condemned it.

- So you agree that Lukashenka’s regime shouldn’t get loans from the West?

- There shouldn’t be any loans. But changes in the country are the task for the Belarusians.

It is always more convenient to use conformist mechanisms. Time goes by, someone will say that the opposition doesn’t unite, the Belarusian society doesn’t get involved in the politics… But the harder the repressions get, the stronger reaction will follow. I believe that in Belarus more people should be urged to join the fight. And this problem should be solved, that is why we created the European Endowment for Democracy.

- What it is that you want to do as the Executive Director of the Endowment for Democracy, what you haven’t done as a diplomat?

- When I was a diplomat, I represented the interests of my country. I had to weigh every moment carefully, because Poland’s interests are the interests of the entire nation, and it is nothing to gamble with. In the Endowment, my interest is simple: to help people who need help. And moreover, it is a very pleasant assignment because I can once again become an ordinary person, not a bureaucrat or diplomat.