Interview: Radoslaw Sikorski

Foreign Policy: Shortly after the Obama administration's reversal on the missile defense system in Central Europe, you were quoted as saying that you hoped this would disabuse Polish leaders of the "dream of basing everything on a bilateral alliance with the United States." Do you still feel that way?

Radoslaw Sikorski: The administration has now explained its position more thoroughly, and we are now satisfied and want to go where the U.S. is leading, toward a more adaptive and more proven system. [The new system] will take longer to construct, but will create fewer tensions in our region. I think we're now on the same page with the U.S., and we are ready to address the details and the amendments to the agreements I signed with the previous administration.

FP: What was the reason for your initial dissatisfaction with the change?

RS: The news management and the decision-making management could have been better, but it was not unanticipated. We knew when signing the agreement with the previous administration that the new one would take a fresh look at it. So, that's been done and we now think that missile defense will be a fruitful but not exclusive part of the U.S.-Polish relationship. If the new system gets built, we like it more than the previous one.

FP: There had been reports of a probable change in strategy for months. How much of a surprise was the announcement on Sept. 17?

RS: We were not surprised by the content of it, but we were surprised by the timing. I spoke to senior administration officials on the first of September, and we agreed on a timetable for reaching the decision. It included a pre-decision consultation. We expected to jointly handle the news management of it. That did not come to pass.

FP: The announcement came on a very sensitive date for Poland, the anniversary of the Soviet invasion in World War II. Do you think the administration is committed enough to researching and understanding your region?

RS: We had a visit by the vice president since then, a good visit. We have a rich calendar of contacts over the next few weeks. Now that the administration has found its feet and listened to our concerns, I have every confidence that we will be working with this administration as we have with every previous administration.

FP: Are there differences in the tone or approach of the Obama team, as opposed to the last administraion?

RS: One thing I would say is that in the previous administrations, there were more people who knew and had served in our region for part of their career and knew our region from firsthand experience. But there is plenty of time to correct that.

FP: What's on the agenda for your meeting with Secretary Clinton this week?

RS: We have issues to discuss having to do with our region. President Obama has invited our prime minister to a disarmament conference in April. We think that should deal with not only intercontinental ballistic missiles, but also tactical. I hope to persuade Hillary Clinton to come to Poland next year to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the Community of Democracies, which was a program of support for democracy launched by our predecessors. We need this program even more than we did 10 years ago. Ten years ago it looked like history had a direction toward more democracy; today the trends are much more ambiguous.

Of course, we are also partners in Afghanistan. Poland has 2,000 troops. We are responsible for Ghazni province -- 1.1 million Afghans. And this is, I understand, a crucial decision-making time for what we are going to do in Afghanistan. I have some personal perspective because I've been involved with Afghanistan for 25 years. I wrote my first book in Afghanistan. I spent six weeks in Tora Bora. I brought out the first pictures of stinger missiles from Afghanistan. So I'll be giving her a piece of my mind.

FP: So what is it you're going to recommend?

RS: If you'll allow me, I'll tell her first.

FP: From what I understand, there's growing opposition in Poland to the mission in Afghanistan. What, in your view, is Poland's strategic interest in keeping troops there?

RS: I haven't met any enthusiasts for the war in Afghanistan in the United States either! It is, like all missions, expensive and risky, and the public doesn't usually like it. In Poland, the opposition is quite wide, but not very deep. That's because our interest in Afghanistan is really our interest in NATO succeeding. We invoked Article 5 in defense of our ally, the United States, and so we want NATO to succeed so as to maintain conviction for future challenges. When NATO goes to war, NATO wins. We have no selfish national interests in Afghanistan. Just a general Western interest in keeping terrorists far from our borders.

We also feel some solidarity with Afghanistan. They defied the Soviet Union in the 1980s at the same time we defied the Soviet Union, but we've been more lucky. We would like them to be able to benefit from democracy and a free market economy, just as we have. But we have to take a fresh look at this mission because our resources are not limitless.

12NEXT