Bronwen Maddox
Hello, everyone, a very warm welcome to the awarding of the 2024 Chatham House Prize. I’m Bronwen Maddox, the Director of Chatham House. Thank you very much for coming. Thank you to those of you online who are joining us.
As you will have gathered from our London Conference, Prime Minister of Poland, Donald Tusk, has been awarded this prize this year in recognition of his commitment to restoring democracy in Poland, rebuilding institutions and upholding the principles of the rule of law. The Chatham House Prize is something that we take a lot of thought of – over every year. It’s voted for by Chatham House members, following nominations from the staff and it’s presented on behalf of the institute’s patron, His Majesty The King, which represents the non-partisan and authoritative character of the prize.
Donald Tusk, sadly, cannot be here this evening. Much engaged with the business of getting to Blenheim Palace for the great gathering that is going on. We’re really delighted to welcome in his place the Foreign Minister of Poland, Radek Sikorski. He’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, a post since – he’s held, this time, since Donald Tusk’s election victory in December last year. He was previously also Minister of Defence and then, held this post of foreign affairs for seven years, from 2007 to 14. He has also been a Member of the European Parliament until last year, sitting on the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Security and Defence Subcommittee, and chair the Delegation for relations with the United States. So, I’d like to thank him very much for attending today’s event and also, welcome our guest from the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs and from the Polish Embassy, alongside our other distinguished audience and guests.
We’re going to have an opportunity from hear – to hear from him in a minute. He is going to speak for a while, having received the prize, and – sorry, I beg your pardon. This was my first wardrobe malfunction at Chatham House. Has to be a first. And – but first, I’m going to welcome to the stage Sir John Major, who is President Emeritus of Chatham House and Former Prime Minister of the UK. And he is going to say some words and present the prize and then, the Minister will make his remarks. Then he and I are going to have a conversation up here on the stage, and I can confidently predict there is going to be time for questions, unless he speaks for a very long time, and I look forward to your questions. Thank you very much, indeed. Sir John [applause].
The Rt Hon Sir John Major KG CH
Well, Bronwen, thank you very much, indeed, and good evening, everyone. I have a very pleasant task of presenting the award in a few moments, but just a second or two to say a few words of my own. Firstly, it’s my privilege to welcome the Foreign Minister, Radek. It’s very – Radek, it’s very good to see you and I will be inviting him to accept the Chatham House Price – Prize on behalf of the Prime Minister.
I’ve no doubt that the Prime Minister is aware the recipient, he’s a lifelong supporter of liberal democracy, was, in his youth, an opponent of the former communist regime in Poland and also, a very active member of solidarity, for some of the time undercover because of the work he was doing. And of course, since then, amongst other eminent achievements in Europe, he has twice been Prime Minister of Poland and has been instrumental in building up a close and warm relationship between Poland and the United Kingdom.
Now, that relationship is valuable and it’s enduring. It comprises strong defence and security ties, as well as unwavering support for Ukraine in her present conflict against Russian invasion. So far, Poland has offered substantial humanitarian, financial and military aid and we in the United Kingdom thank Poland for that. We regard it as extremely important. I digress, but only for a second, to say that it’s important for this reason, because it’s vital that Russia gains nothing from this conflict, or the rest of Europe and perhaps beyond, will learn later that it is a mistake to have let them gain anything.
Now, members voted for Donald Tusk to receive the Chatham House Prize and I think they did so because of his commitment to restoring democracy to Poland, rebuilding her institutions and upholding the rule of law. Now, I cannot stress how important this work has been, not only to Poland, but as an example to a much wider world. We may not often acknowledge it, but democracy is in trouble. It needs to be nurtured and reinforced. We are very unwise to take it for granted. We live in a world in which democracy has declined in each and every one of the last 18 years.
In 1990, after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union, we were foolish enough to believe that democracy had won the battle of ideas. We were wrong in that, and as we look around the world today, we can see autocracy and populism growing at the same time as democracy retreats. Democracy doesn’t die easily, but with each single retreat, it withers away just a little. Step-by-step, democracy’s finest achievements, free societies, free markets, free choice and the rule of law, risk being eaten away by mistrust and malpractice and we, in this country, should never overlook that. Every single time that autocrats curtail or deny either civil or human rights, democracy shrinks just a little bit more. And so, we need men and women to fight against that, just as Donald Tusk has done for most of his life.
Today, in over 70 countries, the news media is holier – wholly or partially controlled by the state. That seems to me to be the very antithesis of democracy. Moreover, democracy faces countries, Russia, China, Iran, prominent among them, who do not only not themselves practice democracy, but are bitter opponents of it. They will destroy it if they can. It offends them and the freedoms it offer scare them, as they worry about what their own particular country may demand of them. And even in the most advanced democracies, we have seen populist action that undermines democratic norms and I hope we will see no more of them.
So, it’s against such a background that for many years, Donald Tusk has fought. He shone a light on antidemocratic practices and has been brave enough to reverse them in his own country against very hostile opposition, indeed. We need his brand of leadership in many countries in and beyond Europe. And so, for this and much else, in a life of fighting for what is demonstrably right and against what is demonstrably wrong, Donald Tusk is a worthy recipient of the Chatham House Prize, and it gives me very great personal pleasure to invite Radek Sikorski to receive it right now on his behalf. Radek [applause]. Well done.
Radosław Sikorski
Thanks.
The Rt Hon Sir John Major KG CH
There you are.
Radosław Sikorski
Oh.
The Rt Hon Sir John Major KG CH
It’s pretty heavy, be careful [applause]. I believe you need to hold it up [applause]. You might just want to [applause]…
Radosław Sikorski
[Pause] Thank you very much, Prime Minister. I shall convey your words exactly to Prime Minister Tusk. Distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, I’m sorry it’s only me who – but for me, it’s a great privilege and honour to be representing my Prime Minister here at Chatham House. It’s – Poland has a new government, Britain has a new government, but it’s rare that we have such a smooth transition in terms of ideas and policies between governments. Britain and Poland have excellent relations under the previous Polish and British governments, and they con – they will continue to have them under new governments in both countries.
I was very pleased to welcome Minister Lammy in Poland on the third day of his holding office. He came to Germany, Poland and Sweden. We already talked to Prime Minister Keir Starmer at the major summit in Washington and the two Prime Ministers will be meeting tomorrow at the – at Blenheim, at the European Political Community.
Let me – please allow me, first, to read out Prime Minister Tusk’s words and then I’m at your disposals – disposal. So, Donald Tusk says this. “To receive this award from you is truly a great honour. The laudation makes me very proud. You recognise my contribution to our common efforts in the fight for the rule of law, democracy and human rights. This is important to me personally because all my adult life, I have been obsessed by the values which many consider anachronistic.
The foundations of liberal democracy have recently been undermined by their external opponents and increasingly often, also by their internal adversaries. The renaissance of authoritarian ideas, the cult of violence, disregard for rules, for the international order, for laws and the constitution, contempt for the weaker, hatred towards others, have all materialised in many corners of the world. In both the East and the West, in America and Europe, not to mention the countries Anne Applebaum recently wrote about in her book, under the telling title ‘Autocracy, Inc’.” I stress, these are the words of Donald Tusk, but the book is on presale on Amazon.
“Today, we can see with clarity that the words of warning that came from people like you, from institutions like Chatham House, that democracy is under threat. That history has returned with brutality. That we need to take up the fight in defence of our values and principles, and today, also in defence of our borders and territory. I hope we now can see clearly that those warnings were not exaggerated, but they were often downplayed and even ridiculed.
As I go through my notes and speeches from the years 2015/2019, when I was President of the European Council, I find traces of my countless efforts to mobilise and alert other European leaders, countless and ineffective efforts. Frankly speaking, I can even say that I earned a bit of a reputation, quite ambiguous for a Politician, of an annoying and somewhat naïve idealist, a maniac fixed – fixated on threats coming from Russia, a Don Quixote tilting at windmills. Fortunately, I was not entirely alone, and the next months and years only proved that it was those of us who made the warnings who were right.
One of the greatest problems was the mood, which had long kept Liberal Democrats company. A combination of fear of confrontation with evil, of reluctance to call things by name and of a false balance between truth and lies, and fatalism, with a lack of faith in one’s own strength. I could see it virtually everywhere, during the migration crisis, in our trade talks with China, in election campaigns in the US and in the efforts to accommodate Russia. I could go on. What prevailed was the doctrine, the mood of capitulation, that “With no gas from Russia, the European economy will collapse.” “China is too big to introduce protective tariffs against.” “There are too many illegal migrants to stop them.”
It was the migration crisis in particular that showed the scale of weakness of the liberal democratic camp. People seek public authority that gives them a feeling of safety. A public authority that is able to protect the borders and the independence of the country. An authority that has the monopoly and is ready to resort to force in defence of its citizens and to enforce the rule of law. Politics without strength is a pathetic spectacle. An authority that is powerless or undecided in the face of evil, for ordinary people is contemptible. There is no objective reason why the advocates of freedom, of rule of law, of individual rights, should be weaker, less determined or less decisive than corrupt autocrats or political magicians.
When I returned, having fulfilled my European mission, to Polish politics, to stop the march of populists who had been in power for several years, I heard day in and day out those dreadful words, “You don’t stand a chance.” What is now happening in Poland and around Europe cannot be reversed. Luckily, I never forgot the words of Hannah Arendt, who said that “Things become irreversible only when people start to think so,” and I didn’t think so. I have always rebelled against the principle of submission and the view that good should not resort to force, that should turn the other cheek when you’ve already been slapped. Against non-violence and moral victories, which are nothing else but a play on words and only help to swallow a bitter pill of failure.
So many times in our history have moral centrist democrats abdicated in the face of extremisms, which all too often, led to catastrophes, misery and mass atrocities. Freedom, the truth and rule of law will not defend themselves, as the Prime Minister said. We must fight for them every single day and we must know how to win, even it – if it costs us a lot of our time, a lot of our sweat and sometimes our blood and tears.
Today, it is the Ukrainians who are paying the highest price. It is no accident that two heroic Presidents of Ukraine are the former laureates of your prestigious prize, Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Viktor Yushchenko. And this is why I feel – this is also why I feel so proud to me – to be among such remarkable people. Thank you for the honour. I accept your prize with gratitude. Donald Tusk, Prime Minister of Poland.” Thank you very much [applause].
Bronwen Maddox
[Pause] Thank you very much, indeed, for those remarks, or I can thank your Prime Minister, as well, for them. Now we’re going to have a brief conversation, but do think of your questions and online, as well, which I think you said you’re very happy to answer.
Let me start with one of the things that was very much central in those remarks and that is, of course, Ukraine. And John Major said, just before you were speaking, look, Russia must not win in any sense, or it will not stop there. This is fundamental to the security of Europe. What do you make of what is then happening in the US at the moment and the very good couple of weeks that Donald Trump has had? And I don’t – and I will say, I don’t mean in any way to treat it lightly, and also his survival of this assassination attempt. The possibility of a Trump Presidency second time round appears to be growing. The polls certainly point that way, and he and his new running mate say emphatically, “Look, we’re not so sure about the value to the US of defending Ukraine.” What would you say to them and what are the consequences in Europe?
Radosław Sikorski
Well, thank you for this invitation to interfere in the internal affairs of our great ally, but was it Sir Humphrey or Sir Frank first, and Sir Humphrey only repeated, “Once you interfere in the internal squabbles of other countries, you’re on a very slippery slope”?
Bronwen Maddox
Is that interfering, though, to express a preference for what US policy in the world is going to be?
Radosław Sikorski
Let’s…
Bronwen Maddox
And surely a direct relevance to Europe of what the US intends to do about Ukraine?
Radosław Sikorski
Well, let’s start with Ukraine. The war has been going on for two and a half years. Last year Ukraine was winning, recovering about 50% of its previously occupied territory. This year Russia has the advantage. It has regained the initiative on land. Ukraine, I think this is underestimated by our media, won the Battle of the Black Sea.
Bronwen Maddox
Hmmm hmm, it did.
Radosław Sikorski
And…
Bronwen Maddox
It, with huge effort, kept that corridor to the Black Sea.
Radosław Sikorski
A country with no navy has cornered the Russian Navy to the eastern side of the Black Sea, which means that Ukraine is now exporting its grain at pre-war volumes, which is not – which is important. It make – made a huge difference to our farmers, for example.
Bronwen Maddox
And to the…
Radosław Sikorski
Both European farmers…
Bronwen Maddox
…prices of food across Europe.
Radosław Sikorski
Quite.
Bronwen Maddox
Absolutely.
Radosław Sikorski
So – and in the air, it’s a mixed picture. So, on the one hand, the Russians don’t have air domination over Ukraine, which I think is amazing. If we were having this conversation three years ago and we said that there was a Russo-Ukrainian war, we would all assume, including me, that Russia would have total domination in the air. It has advantage, but not domination.
Bronwen Maddox
Hmmm.
Radosław Sikorski
So, it’s able to send missiles in and to use aviation for infantry support, but it can’t just fly as it pleases. And if you count drone warfare as part of the air war, there, I think, Ukraine has the advantage. It’s – and I believe – you know, at the NATO Summit, we’ve decided to create a joint analysis and training centre in Poland, actually in my hometown, which will analyse the effects of this war and train Ukrainians. I think it’s the Ukrainians who will be training us, ‘cause this is the most sophisticated war that’s ever been fought. You know, it’s the Ukrainians using Western, but also their own, IT techniques, can prioritise targets and use all kinds of weapons for targets according – in proportion to their economic value, which is amazing.
Ukraine will be under huge pressure, and this is also, I think, underreported, this winter, because the Russians have destroyed 70% of their electricity generating capacity.
Bronwen Maddox
Hmmm hmm, and then, they’re clearly targeting that repeatedly, yeah.
Radosław Sikorski
Which is a war crime. What is not remembered is that Ukraine, literally in the first weeks of the war, synchronised their electro – their power system with the EU. And actually, for most of the war, Ukraine has been exporting electricity to the EU. We now need to pay back the favour by sustaining them during a winter which is going to be really hard.
Bronwen Maddox
Hmmm.
Radosław Sikorski
So, first of all, where is the point at which Putin decides that the invasion was a mistake and that the costs in blood and treasure do not justify the ultimate prize? He’s clearly not in that.
Bronwen Maddox
He’s clearly not in that and…
Radosław Sikorski
In that place.
Bronwen Maddox
…just coming back to this question of the US, there is no reason for him to conclude that before the result of the American election, where he may get a US President distinctly more inclined…
Radosław Sikorski
No.
Bronwen Maddox
…to his point of view.
Radosław Sikorski
Sure. Let me just finish on this, because on this, I also stand corrected. I thought that if they lose 100,000 people…
Bronwen Maddox
Who, Russia or…
Radosław Sikorski
The…
Bronwen Maddox
…Ukraine?
Radosław Sikorski
The Russians.
Bronwen Maddox
Yeah.
Radosław Sikorski
They would give up, and clearly, that pain level is high, okay? But Putin clearly hopes that the – a change in the US administration will help him and will reset the calculus, but he has made these misjudgements before. He misjudged, first of all, the Ukrainians. He believed in his own propaganda. He believed that Ukrainians are just Russians who speak a funny – with a funny accent and was surprised that they fought back.
He misjudged Europe. He thought we would be divided and the best that we can come up with is maybe excluding from Swift. He misjudged the European Union and we misjudged ourselves. If you’d asked me three years ago whether the EU would be sending billions of Euros worth of arms to a third country, I would have said, hmmm, no, we’re not there yet, and yet, this is what we are doing. And he misjudged the United States. He did not expect that we would help Ukraine to the tune of €300 billion overall. And he may be misjudging American politics, too. You know, Poland has – like Britain, wants to have the best possible relations with whoever is in charge in Washington, so I’m very careful to be meeting with both the administration and the alternative administration. Every time I go, I meet with not just Republicans, but Trump’s Republicans.
Bronwen Maddox
Yes.
Radosław Sikorski
And I have no idea what they will do, but I – but what they tell me is that there are two schools of thought, and one of them says it’s not the Ukrainians who need to be brought to the negotiating table. It is Putin who needs to be brought to the negotiating table, and the only way to do it is to tell him that if he doesn’t, we will escalate our assistance to Ukraine. That – if that school were to win, then maybe we might get somewhere. You know, we’re – but at this stage, we’re speculating, both about the outcome of the election and about policies.
Bronwen Maddox
That is true and I could agree with pretty well everything you’ve said, that Ukraine has done astoundingly well and that even at this point when now, a lot of people have been describing how Ukraine has been struggling, it is still doing astoundingly well through that. And that is partly because of a surprising – or a level of European and American support that would’ve been surprising before this all happened. I absolutely take your point that we can’t speculate on the result of American elections, though there aren’t many possible outcomes. You know, there aren’t lots and lots of parties the way there are in other countries.
So, let me ask you just simply, do you think Ukraine can win in any sense without continued US help?
Radosław Sikorski
Well, hypothetically, if the US, for whatever reasons, either change of administration or a change in the Senate or – you know, because if we turn…
Bronwen Maddox
Whatever. It just hasn’t have to be just the President, yeah.
Radosław Sikorski
Yeah. What if – and the last – the Supplemental was delayed by six months, at least. So, say they can’t pass another Supplemental, right? It – entirely imaginable, unfortunately. I still think the – that the US would sell us their weapons for cash and then we, in Europe, would have the choice. Do we increase our commitment and buy the weapons, because that’s where the productive capacities are, or do we give up on Ukraine? And there is a – there’s 300 billion of Russian money sitting in Bru – in Belgium. So, we could use that to buy American weapons to help Ukraine.
Bronwen Maddox
I’ll feed that into the Chatham House debate, which is very lively, about how to use the Russian money. No, well, thank you for that interesting idea, because it plays to exactly the transactional nature that people talk about, about a possible second Trump administration.
Alright, let’s leave the US, turn to Europe and to some of the themes behind the award of this prize this year and that your Prime Minister was mentioning. And that – some of that is about what is going on in Europe. You, or rather he, I think you’ve fused for these purposes, were talking about migration and what that does to European politics. Do you think that what we’ve seen in response to migration and other pressures in terms of the rise of the right in Europe, is that – have we seen the high point or is that a sustained trend?
Radosław Sikorski
This is a whole – a tricky discussion, but let me say this. If we, in Poland, had not convinced our people that we will be as tough on protecting our external border as the previous government, we would not have won. Populisms arise when the establishment neglects an issue that people care about. You don’t get these movements from the left to the right. A wise establishment takes the sensible core of what the populists argue for and solves the problem and thereby, re-establishes a balance in the politics.
People feel that the – our right to travel over the Schengen zone, without visas, without passports, is an – is a generational advantage that we gained from the collapse of communism. You know, when I was born in communist Poland, to get a passport for travel abroad was a great privilege by the communist authority and then, even if you had your passport, you had – you needed visas. And for us, it was a really important generational experience when that barrier on the Polish-German border was raised when we joined the Schengen zone.
So, we are willing to make some sacrifices for the sake of the Schengen zone continuing, and we understand – in Poland we have consensus on this, that if the free travel area inside the EU is to be protected, the perimeter has to be policed effectively. That you can’t have freedom of travel internally and open border. And if you have passports, if you have visas, if you have consulates, if you have Border Guards, they all serve something. They – you – there is no human right of anybody living wherever they please.
Moreover, there is a billion people and look, you know, we are a nation that’s been a nation of refugees and migrants for 300 years. I was personally a refugee in this country, for which I am eternally grateful. I have come – I’ve gone back to my country, okay? But the solidarity wave of political refugees in this country in the 1980s was 400 people, not 400,000, 400 people. Numbers matter and we just cannot have millions, okay?
So, what we have on the Polish-Belarussian border is not really migration. It might have been so in the past, but today, this is an organised assault on the EU border. This is a – this is aggression by means of using these helpless – some of them are very aggressive, some are genuine refugees, no doubt. We now monitor it very quick – very closely. We have tapes of these groups, organised groups of migrants trying to reach the barrier and we catch them on our side. 90% of them have Russian visas.
These are people who are encouraged in Ethiopia or in Afghanistan, in Iraq, to come, first to Russia, then they are transported to Belarus and taken by buses paid for by the Belarussian Border Guards. They come to the local offices of Belarussian Border Guards, are then trained how to cross the border, we have them on tape of how to put a knife at the end of a stick and how to wound a Polish Soldier even if the Soldier has a – has body armour. And many of our Soldiers have been wounded. One was killed a month ago. So, this is a method of hybrid warfare, not migration, and as such, it has to be repelled. Just like we repelled the arsons, the death squads that you know so much – so well in Britain.
Bronwen Maddox
Hmmm.
Radosław Sikorski
And we would be ups – we would be failing in our duty if we were not protecting the border. That’s what the people demand and that’s what they will get.
Bronwen Maddox
Hmmm. There are many, many countries round the world, but certainly in the European Union, that would be delighted at what you just said, but there are some things emerging that the European Union is not entirely agreed on. And I come back to this theme, particularly of the, kind of, rightward strain of politics. We had your counterpart from Hungary, Péter Szijjártó, sitting on this platform at the beginning of the Hungarian Presidency of the EU, saying, “Look, we don’t” – so, it was like, “We’re going to be straightforward about this. We’re a conservative government. We don’t really share the liberal founding principles of the EU and what’s more, we’re going to use our veto, as Hungary, in our national interest.” What does – I’m not asking you to comment just on Hungary, but what does the European Union as a whole – how does it respond to countries within its club that may have very different views?
Radosław Sikorski
Well, look, the European Union has not abolished national interests. It’s just a mechanism for negotiating them by methods other than war. We are a confederation, just like the United States was before they adopted the Constitution. Which means that ultimate authority lies in the member states, and it means that member states have not lost their sovereignty. You, Britain, have finally proved the point. If you can leave, it means you’ve been sovereign all along [applause].
As I’ve mentioned already, I was born in communist Poland. If we tried to leave the Warsaw Pact or Comecon, we would have been invaded by Soviet tanks. In 56, in Hungary, they actually invaded and in Poland, they were on their way. I mean, that’s what lack of sovereignty means. You know, lack of sovereignty also means that the constitution of communist Poland, we have the original in the archives, was adopt – was drafted with Stalin’s personal corrections. Okay, that’s what lack of sovereignty means, not disagreement on some minutiae of a directive. That’s narcissism of small differences, not lack of sovereignty [applause].
Bronwen Maddox
I hear the applause, but I wonder whether the European Union’s differences, for example, with Hungary, are of narcissism of small differences or something more profound.
Radosław Sikorski
When you announce that you’re not interested in the interest of the community that you represent, that all you’re interested in your national – is your narrow national interest, you’ve already lost the authority to lead that community and you’ve lost your followers. You know, to lead, you need followers and if someone is unashamedly shi – selfish, you’re not likely to follow that person. Plus, a confederation only works as long as all its members have the propriety to respect the rules. Because on the basis of this, kind of, hard-headed national interest, which plays so well in the populist press, you couldn’t actually form a confederation, and if everybody else follows that logic, the confederation has to break up. Which is why if a member state were to abuse the rules in that way, only that that leads eventually to exit or to the paralysis of the whole confederation, which is why it’s ultimately a constitutional problem.
Bronwen Maddox
Hmmm, I’m not disputing that for a second. Let me ask you one final thing, before we go to questions. Let’s jump to the scene at Blenheim Palace and the UK, brand new government, delighted to be hosting this gathering, big gathering of European leaders from across the continent. Keir Starmer has made clear he would like Britain to have a closer relationship with the EU. Do you think that is possible in practical terms?
Radosław Sikorski
Well, first of all, I’m delighted to be going to Blenheim tomorrow, not only because it’s a beautiful place and the birthplace of Winston Churchill, but also because I made a speech there in 2012 warning Britain not to have a referendum.
Bronwen Maddox
You know, we don’t give awards at Chatham House for being right in hindsight, but if we did, alright, you and others would get one.
Radosław Sikorski
If I didn’t go.
Bronwen Maddox
But I’m asking you about the future, not the past.
Radosław Sikorski
Sure. David Lammy told me two things, that Britain would like to reset its relationship with the EU and that Britain would like to have some form of an agreement to regularise its relationship with the EU, at least in the broadly understood security sphere. And I personally think it’s a great idea and I will work to persuade the rest of the EU to – of that idea during our Presidency. Presidencies are not what they used to, particularly, as you know, in the foreign affairs sphere, which is why Viktor Orbán sending a letter about his trip to Moscow on the Presidency letterhead raised some eyebrows. Because since the Treaty of Lisbon, in foreign affairs, the Presidency is the President of the Council and the High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy. But we will be these – discussing these issues and I think a new British Government is an opportunity to have a reset.
Bronwen Maddox
Okay, on that note, let’s go to questions. If we can have the lights up a bit. Okay, lots of hands going up. Let me take them in pairs. One right in the middle, there. Yes, I think you were the first, and then, behind you.
Isabel Hilton OBE
Thank you very much. Isabel Hilton, Chatham House member. I think that Putin’s position would look very different without the support of Xi Jinping. China keeping the industrial economy going, buying the energy, moral and diplomatic cover. Do you think that Europe could, or would, raise the price to China of that support and if so, how?
Bronwen Maddox
Thank you, and – I’m going to take them in pairs…
Radosław Sikorski
Right.
Bronwen Maddox
…just so we get a variety of things.
Thomas Cole
Thomas Cole, former European Commission Accession Negotiator. Do you think that the EU should speed up accession negotiations of the countries of the Western Balkans, taking into consideration President Ursula von der Leyen’s belief that the EU should be a more geopolitical actor? Thank you.
Radosław Sikorski
The speed of negotiations depends on the speed of accepting the Acquis Communautaire. Since you deal with these things professionally, you might agree with my view that the word ‘negotiations’ is a very polite one for the process, because the EU has existed for decades. We have a body of laws and standards and procedures, and a new member state has just to accept them as their own. And when people think it’s some kind of meeting halfway, then they will unnecessarily delay their accession. But Western Balkans is unfinished business, provided they commit themselves not only to the acquis, but also to Europe’s external policy. And as you know, not all countries have synchronised their foreign policies with that of the EU. But yes, nex – the next Enlargement Commissioner will have, for a change, an ambitious task. So, for – I think we might get another enlargement, possibly a big enlargement, at the end of the decade.
On China, let’s grant it to the People’s Republic that they do respect our thickest red line, which is not to supply arms to Russia, unlike Iran or North Korea, or some others. They do supply components and they – and you didn’t mention a nefarious aspect, namely they parrot Russian propaganda narratives, not only in China, but also in Chinese owned media in the so-called Global South, which is where they’ve gained a lot of influence. But I think China is getting what it wants, which is to – which is a vessel for free. Actually, not for free, even making money on it. So, you know, the Russian market for motor vehicles, for apps, for white goods, it has been taken over by China. That’s not necessarily our victory.
Our biggest sanction that has worked is that the Russians have lost their most lucrative market for energy. They were getting serious prices for their oil and gas in Europe. They are now selling it at huge discounts to India for rupees and to China at an even bigger discount. So, from China’s point of view, they – it’s a pretty advantageous situation.
What we tell Chinese comrades is that Poland and China have a few things in common. First of all, we only have one neighbour between us. Second of all, and I know where I’m saying this, we were both victims of European colonialism in the 19th Century, and that therefore, they should be telling the Russians that the time of European colonialism is over. And China, I believe, is the only country could – that could not just be a peace messenger or interlocutor, that could actually enforce peace, you know. There are plenty of other intermediaries. You know, there is Turkey, there is the UN, the Swiss. The Hungarians are making themselves available. But China would have the power to actually force Putin to moderate his demands and therefore, make the Ukrainian and Russian red lines come together.
I draw your attention to a little incident that’s been forgotten in January 22, before the Russian invasion of Ukraine. There was a changeover of power in Kazakhstan and Russia intervened militarily in Kazakhstan on behalf of the new leader, the current leader of Kazakhstan, Mr Tokayev. And China told them after a week to get out or else they would sever trade links, and they did. My friend and mentor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, told me that “The choice for Russia strategically is to be either an ally of the West, but then some rules apply, or to be a vessel of China.” I believe Putin made the wrong – he made the right choice for himself in the course of holding onto power, but the wrong choice for Russia.
Bronwen Maddox
Great. Let’s have another couple. There’s someone incredibly keen right at the back, with a hand up further than anyone else. Yes. Ah.
Ahmed Shebani
Ahmed Shebani, President of the Democratic Party of Libya. I see you speak very proudly of how your country have managed to stop the illegal migration. Recently, there has been a programme on the BBC where an official from the Greek Government acknowledged what they do is a crime against humanity by throwing the refugees back to the sea to die, and the Prime Minister of Italy, Giorgina [means Giorgia], has given similar directives not to assist any ships in distress. I would love to hear – I mean, sadly, perhaps 70% of the refugees come out of from then, my country, what would be your solution to solve this conundrum?
Bronwen Maddox
Thank you very much for that, and I’m going to take one online from Trevor Clark, who says, “What can the West do to maintain truth?” And uses a lovely metaphor from Dominique Rolin of a – of spreading – an spreading ink cloud in a glass of water to describe how truth, I guess, dissipates.
Radosław Sikorski
Well, I’ll take the last one first. I have a controversial view on social platforms, which now – which is now where most people get their news from and whose business model it is to attract our attention and make us angry and make us excited. I would ban algorithms on social media. There is nothing sacred about exploiting our anger, ex – undermining our democracy and screwing up children’s minds. If something is bad for us, in our judgment, we can ban it.
I’m old enough to remember that in the 1970s, TV companies experimented with these flash ads. Do you remember, sub…
Radosław Sikorski
…conscious ad? There is…
Member
Subliminal.
Radosław Sikorski
Subliminal ads, that’s right. You can’t actually see it because it’s too brief, but it affects your consumer preferences. What did we do? We just banned them. Whatever is illegal in the real world, should be illegal in cyber. We regulate newspapers, we regulate radio, we regulate TV. Why can’t we regulate social media when they spread…
Bronwen Maddox
Hmmm.
Radosław Sikorski
…disinformation, when they don’t maintain standards and when they destroy the lives of our children [applause]? But I’ll tell you who can do it. Humanity’s last hope to do this is the European Parliament, ‘cause we are big enough and your – not yet captured by the companies to actually do it.
Bronwen Maddox
That is the most – the nicest and the most reser – resonant phrase about the European Parliament I’ve heard for a long time, “Humanity’s last saviour.”
Radosław Sikorski
But I didn’t answer the question on Libya.
Bronwen Maddox
Libya and migration.
Radosław Sikorski
Let me preface by saying I was the first Foreign Minister of the European Union to visit Libya during the revolution, when Gaddafi was still on the run, okay? I went to Benghazi, and it was quite risky, and we were hoping, of course, that Arab Spring would be your 1989. We made a bet that you would succeed in building stable democratic societies and it’s one of the bets that we lost, unfortunately. You are now prey to these unscrupulous people smugglers. Some of – some in the audience may have noticed that Wagner Group has now been renamed, wonderfully, ‘Africa Corps’ and Africa Corps is trying to take Tobruk again.
But seriously speaking, the real issue is on your shore, but your migration policy has been hijacked by criminal gangs and that’s where the solution is. Look, as I said before, I’m a refugee myself. I will not do this business of dehumanising refugees. People and goods flow to where they command a higher price. People want a better life for themselves, for their kids. They take desperate measures, we get that. But smuggling people is criminal activity and criminal activity should not be enabled or supported. Enabling or supporting criminal activity is also criminal activity.
It’s one of the reasons I’ve been advocating European defence at the – in my role as MEP, even before the Ukraine War, because sorting out Africa Corps in Libya so that they don’t endanger these poor people to set out in these dinghies across the Mediterranean should not be a task beyond our capabilities. And so, this is something we should do, and we should be able to do it as Europe. We should not be so pathetic as to always call on the United States to solve the problems on our – in our immediate neighbourhood. They also have a southern border that they come – you know, that there’s a big problem for us and they don’t call on us to help them.
So, you know, Libya is in the fortunate position, you have money to pay for better policies, but you should not be prey to these criminal gangs, and we need to help you.
Bronwen Maddox
Thank you. I might be able to squeeze in, really, really quickly, one here in the middle.
Brian Koo
Thank you very much. I’m Brian Koo, a Chatham House member and also, a student in diplomacy at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. So, my question is, if a Russo-Ukrainian dialogue happens under a Trump administration, like, what role or position would your – what Pol – would Poland or your administration take? Thank you very much.
Bronwen Maddox
Thank you, and I’m going to take that as simply the last question. There’s quite a lot of demand to hear a bit more about Ukraine and deals on Ukraine and so on. So, let’s take that as the last one.
Radosław Sikorski
Sure. Well, look, the original formula for discussing the – first, the actions of Crimea and then, the Russian assault on Donbas, was the Geneva formula, which was Russia, US, EU and Ukraine, obviously. That seemed to me to – a good formula. Certainly, it has to include Ukraine. You know, we think about the present with the templates of the past. Some people still think that the – you know, World War I and World War II are the – are typical wars. Actually, they were quite unusual. How did the Winter War, where Russia invaded Finland, start – end? With direct negotiations between Stalin and the Prime Minister of Finland. Irani – think re – Iran-Iraq War. Sometimes you cannot find a solution, which is why we have a – we don’t have a peace, we have an armistice on the Korean peninsula, and by the way, Poland is on the Neutral State Supervisory Commission of the Armistice.
But for talks to have any chance of success, you – the aggressor has to moderate his demands and it’s happening. You know, Putin’s original aim was to take over all of Ukraine, and he thought he would do it through a coup in Kyiv and appointing a puppet President and so on. Paradoxically, when he now says, “I just want all of the provinces, parts of which I’ve occupied,” he probably thinks that – of that as a concession. The war will end the sooner, the more we help Ukraine, so that – the sooner Putin understands that he cannot achieve his war aims.
Bronwen Maddox
Thank you. We’ve just been recording the Independent Thinking Chatham House podcast today with one of the people on the panel, David Sanger of The New York Times, who was musing on whether the Ukraine-Russian border would, in the end, look something like the Korean border, frozen…
Radosław Sikorski
Oh, that would not be…
Bronwen Maddox
…and…
Radosław Sikorski
That would not be stable.
Bronwen Maddox
Yes.
Radosław Sikorski
Because then there would be claims and then, there would be a possibility of a future war. The only stable solution is to return to the observance of the Ukraine – of the Russo-Ukrainian Treaty on the Border, negotiated, signed and ratified by President Vladimir Putin in 2004, and…
Bronwen Maddox
The Chatham House team writing on this absolutely agrees with you, but David Sanger didn’t on the podcast today. Do listen. Out on Friday morning. I think we’re going to have to leave the discussion of Ukraine there. We have run out of time. We could clearly go on with many, many more questions and thanks to your interest and stamina, many more answers, perhaps. But we’re going to have to stop then. So, many thanks, indeed, for coming [applause], and I enjoyed – thanks for coming [applause]. Thank you.
