JACEK CHAPUTOVICH: THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL CAN NOT FORCE RUSSIA TO ORDER

It is necessary to apply a certain moral pressure, to emphasize that Russia violates the principles defined in the UN Charter. It is reported by Upmp.news with reference to Polish Radio.

We would like to present you a conversation with Polish Foreign Minister Jacek Chaputowicz, who took part in a ministerial summit in New York devoted to the use of the UN Charter in order to preserve peace and security in the world. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and his predecessor Pan Gi Moon also took part in this meeting. Also, the head of the Polish diplomatic service held talks with foreign ministers of Slovak, Côte d’Ivoire. Right before his departure from New York to Poland, Minister Jacek Chuputovych gave an interview to Marek Vulkusky, the correspondent of the Polish Radio.

– Mr. Chaputowicz, during your speech to the UN Security Council on the resolution of international conflicts, you gave positive examples of the activities of the United Nations – in particular, Kuwait and the former Yugoslavia. But you also mentioned the unresolved conflicts among which was Ukraine – the annexation of the Crimea, as well as Syria, where Russia is also very active. Do you think Russia causes instability in the international arena?

– Yes, Russia is a permanent member of the Security Council, it has the right to veto, and all of us should respect it, even though Russia acts in contravention with the principles set in the Charter of the United Nations, because it does not recognize the inviolability of the territories of other states. This is evidenced by the annexation of the Crimea, the support of separatists in the Donbas, as well as its actions in Syria, which go against the directional policies of the Western powers. In other words, this is a problem that a permanent member of the Security Council with the right of veto is a party to the conflict, the Security Council itself can not force it to order because it will always veto this resolution. That is why it is necessary to apply certain moral pressure here, to emphasize that Russia violates the principles defined in the UN Charter. That`s why I did in my statement. And it was clearly done by other states, such as the representatives of Great Britain.

– At what stage is the resolution of the conflict in Ukraine? Do you see any chance that the situation will change?

– First of all, the Minsk agreements must be fulfilled. The end of the conflict doesn`t seem to be close, and the United Nations itself is not sufficiently involved with this. Within the framework of the United Nations, a discussion is continuing on whether to enter a peacekeeping mission to Ukraine, and Russia opposes it. In other words, the situation is rather complicated. But, on the other hand, Poland always emphasizes on the principle of respect for the sovereignty of Ukraine and its territorial integrity, on the bilateral relations, supports Ukraine’s steps in international relations. From the perspective of the European Union, there is the Norman format dealing with this issue, though it is ineffective today. However, on the other hand, this conflict does not spill over further, that is, one can speak about a certain phase of the freezing of this conflict.

– You arrived at New York at a time when the controversies became actual due to the updated law on the Institute of National Remembrance. When you spoke on the Security Council, a film was prepared by the American Jewish Family Fund, which urged the United States to break diplomatic relations with Poland. How serious is the Poland’s film and does there really be any threat to Polish-American relations?

– I would not pay much attention to this. We cannot respond to every movie that appears on the Internet. Instead, in general, there is a problem. The United States has come up with some suggestions on the interpretation of the updated law on INP, underlining that freedom of speech prevails in the United States and represents certain fears. Andrzej Duda made a decision to transfer this law to the Constitutional Court. Let’s see what a conclusion they will make. And I think that here it is not so much about the content as about the interpretation of certain fears on which, of course, the Constitutional Court will find an answer. The relations between our countries are good, we develop them in many spheres, and first and foremost, thanks to the United States, our sense of security has increased, because US troops are stationed in Poland and other countries. We recently hosted Rex Tillerson, US Secretary of State in Warsaw. He emphasized the support of Poland, our region, the initiative of the United States of Trimonia, and also emphasized their desire to take part in the modernization of the Polish Army, to guarantee security, including energy through the export of liquefied natural gas to Poland. So our relations are developing well. Of course, there is a problem interpreting the provisions of the law on INP. But, I think, in terms of its content, we have no differences. Both parties are talking about not falsifying the truth about the events of the Second World War. Instead, clarifications, in my opinion, are possible.

– And how could one clarify these provisions so that they, on the one hand, defended the good name of Poland, and on the other hand, would not cause contradictions? You mentioned that Americans pay attention to freedom of speech …

– Such an argument appeared in my conversation with the ambassador. And I will probably not reveal the secrets, because I answered him on the question of how they react to similar provisions in Israeli law that allow for 5 years of imprisonment for denying or reducing the blame for the Holocaust. So, our legislation is not something special, because the same exist in other states. Therefore, it is likely that the United States will respond in the same way as in relation to those cases. I do not see any reason for fear. We have the right to defend a good name and do not want to be perceived as a special state that does not have the right to protection against slander from the deliberate attribution of crimes committed by Nazi Germany, the Polish state or the Polish people, which is understood as a whole.

– And how could such provisions sound? Or, for example, as in the Civil Platform proposal, in order to include in the law a ban on the use of the words “Polish death camps” or “Polish concentration camps”? Would this be a good decision? Do you think something more needs to be done?

– I would not want to speculate. I think we have to wait for the Constitutional Court’s conclusion, which is appropriate for this institution. In his presentation, the president noted where doubts might arise regarding interpretation. I think that the Constitutional Court will make a good decision. Let’s wait, this is the question of its competence.