Archive for October, 2009

U.S. Embassy blames diplomatic gaffe on a Polish translator but a problem runs much deeper

U.S. Ambassador to Poland Lee A. Feinstein being interviewed by TVN24.TedLipien.com TedLipien.com, SAN FRANCISCO — Bill Clinton might have asked what the “enhanced” definition of  ”to enhance” IS?  The U.S. Embassy in Warsaw is busy blaming a Polish translator for mistranslating U.S. Ambassador Lee Feinstein’s TV interview answer about Polish troops in Afghanistan,  which caused a diplomatic uproar in Poland. In an interview broadcast last Saturday,  Ambassador Feinstein  thanked Polish prime minister and president for their “commitment to being in Afghanistan, and actually to enhance its [sic] presence,”  only to be chastised two days later by the Polish defense minister for making a claim that the Polish government had not agreed to.

 

Most Polish media interpreted Ambassador Feinstein’s comments as revealing that Polish leaders may have told U.S. officials, specifically Vice President Biden, that Poland would increase the number of  its soldiers in Afghanistan. Such secret commitments, if they were indeed expressed, would not be at all well received by the Polish public opinion. This might explain the strong reaction of Polish government officials to Ambassador Feinstein’s public  comments, which most experts would view as ill-advised and undiplomatic in the current political climate in Poland, no matter how they were translated.

 

The presence of Polish troops in Afghanistan is a delicate issue in Poland, where support for keeping them is steadily declining. To compound this problem, Polish-American relations took a major turn for the worse after President Obama did not show up for the 70th anniversary observances in Poland of the outbreak of  World War II  and later canceled the Bush Administration’s missile defense plans on September 17, the day when the Poles were commemorating the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of their country.

 

These decisions by the U.S. president were seen as a major affront to the historically-minded Poles. They are also upset over the need to secure visas to visit the United States, a policy that continues from previous U.S. administrations, but the main reason for the growing  opposition to keeping Polish troops in Afghanistan is a realization that the U.S. has seriously mishandled the war.

 

Reacting to Ambassador Feinstein’s remarks,  which clearly indicated that the Polish government was committed to staying in Afghanistan and possibly planning “ to enhance its presence,”  Polish Defense Minister Bogdan Klich said that “the ambassador committed a blunder, since neither the prime minister, nor the minister of foreign affairs, nor the minister of national defense made any declarations to the American side about an increase in the contingent.” But, please remember that these are the ambassador’s first days at a new post,” Polish Defense Minister Klich added. 

 

The English-language newspaper Krakow Post ran an online headline “U.S. Ambassador to Poland ‘Committed a Blunder’.” Polish media reported extensively on Ambassador Feinstein’s and Minister Klich’s comments, although surprisingly this story has received very little attention in the U.S. media, possibly because of the confusion of what it really means for the continued presence of Polish troops in Afghanistan.  The Washington Times reported that the State Department spokesman Ian Kelly on Tuesday night attributed the controversy to an incorrect translation Saturday made on Polish television station TVN24. Ambassador Lee A. Feinstein, speaking in English, actually said that Polish officials planned to “enhance their presence” in Afghanistan and not send additional troops, Mr. Kelly said. As someone who has done thousands of translations from English to Polish, I can honestly say that the mistranslation was minimal and did not distort what Ambassador Feinstein really meant. Had it truly been a serious mistranslation, the embassy would have posted a correct translation on its website. It did not because it would show that Polish media reports about the essential meaning of the ambassador’s remarks were generally correct.

 

Blaming a translator is in this case a very ungracious way of trying to compensate for the ambassador’s diplomatic mistake. Other ambassadors might have received a rebuke from the Secretary of State for embarrassing their host government, but Ambassador Feinstein is very well connected within the Obama administration. His defense by the State Department adds to a series of offending statements and actions taken in recent months in Washington vis-a-vis Poland and shows a level of arrogance that was not seen even during the Bush administration, which was not known for being overly diplomatic in dealing with other countries.

 

Despite all the insults, it does not appear that Poland will withdraw its troops from Afghanistan. In fact, while being snubbed and embarrassed by the Obama Administration, Poland is planning to send  to Afghanistan additional 200 soldiers as an emergency reserve contingent. The Polish leaders understand that regardless of who is currently occupying the White House, to protect its independence Poland must have good relations with the United States.

 

Taking a lead from the State Department and Ambassador Feinstein, who is now in Washington for consultations prior to Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski’s visit, U.S. diplomats in Warsaw are now engaged in a  counterproductive effort of trying to put the blame for a diplomatic faux pas on Polish media and the  Polish translator, instead of admitting a mistake and moving on. Contrary to common sense and the often stated desire of the Obama Administration  to see more Polish troops in Afghanistan, these public diplomacy ”experts” are suggesting to their media contacts that Ambassador Feinstein’s words ” prime minister’s and president’s commitment” and  ”to enhance its presence” did not mean that he was talking about sending more Polish troops to Afghanistan. In an attempt to rescue the reputation of the new U.S. ambassador, they have painted themselves into a corner by implying that President Obama’s representative in Warsaw does not know what  the president and the United States want Poland to do.

 

This is only the latest  in a series of  the public diplomacy disasters in Poland created by the Obama White House and the State Department. The U.S. Embassy’s lame attempts to salvage the reputation of a novice American ambassador, who apparently did nothing to prevent the September 17 missile defense announcement, actually made the controversy worse by exposing a certain lack of sincerity on the part of the Obama administration.

 

Ambassador Feinstein’s nomination to be Ambassador to Poland was not yet confirmed by the U.S. Senate on September 17, but as an advisor to Hillary Clinton during her presidential campaign and later to the Obama White House, he had excellent contacts that could have helped him to prevent the embarrassment of  having the president announce the missile shield decision on the worst possible day for Poland.

 

Ultimately, however, the public diplomacy disaster ironically worked to the advantage of Central Europe. Stung by media criticism, the White House had to send Vice President Biden on a face-saving mission to Poland, Romania, and the Czech Republic, where he made a number of statements committing the U.S. to the defence of the region, which President Obama will now find difficult to ignore in his drive to “reset” relations with Moscow.  

 

Still, the Poles, most of whom had grown up being exposed to communist propaganda and are quite cynical  about exaggerated declarations from government officials, had a good reason to be sceptical when Vice President Biden insisted in Romania that President Obama’sdecision to cancel the missile defense system in Central Europe had nothing to do with Russia and was not meant to appease the Kremlin.  Central Europeans who have experienced life under communism like to match words with actions.

 

During his trip, Mr.  Biden was also effusive in his praise of the courage of Central and East European freedom fighters who had faced tanks and the threat of death or arrests as they were bringing about the fall of communist dictatorships 20 years ago. Yet today’s Central Europeans  knew from news reports, that a few days earlier merely a threat of displeasing aging Chinese communist leaders thousands of miles away in Beijing persuaded President Obama not to meet in Washington with the highly-respected Tibetan spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama. Some also knew that President Obama had canceled his plans to participate in the ceremony to mark the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall.

 

These additional public diplomacy blunders deepened a major crisis of confidence in the Obama Administration among the Poles and other Central Europeans, which Vice President Biden’s high declarations were not able to erase. Overall, however, his trip to Central Europe was helpful, as the former Bush-era ambassador to Poland Victor Ashe told a New York Times reporter. My own observation is that, if nothing else, Biden’s exaggerated statements have bound President Obama to a more cautious approach toward his rapprochement with the Kremlin.

 

In handling, or more accurately, mishandling the controversy over Ambassador Feinstein’s remarks, the State Department diplomats could have learned from what a Polish dissident writer said when he was living in Poland under communism. When you find yourself in a difficult situation and don’t know what to say, tell the truth.  They should also pay attention to what former Czech dissident, human rights activist, statesman, playwright, and Nobel Prize winner Vaclav Havel said after learning that President Obama had refused to meet the Dalai Lama.

 

“It is only a minor compromise,” Mr. Havel said of the nonreception of the Tibetan leader. “But exactly with these minor compromises start the big and dangerous ones, the real problems.”

 

The State Department and U.S. diplomats in Warsaw want journalists to believe that Ambassador Feinstein was not talking about more Polish soldiers in Afghanistan. What else could he have meant when he talked about “enhancing”  Poland’s presence in the Afghan war zone? Polish experts on crop rotation?

 

The following is the Polish-language corrected transcript of the TVN24 interview with  U.S. Ambassador to Poland Lee A. Feinstein. You may also follow this link to view a video of the interview, in which the relevant comments in English can still be partly heard in between the voice of the translator.

Maciej Wierzyński (in the early 1990s, Mr. Wierzyński was director of  the Voice of America (VOA) Polish Service in Washington, D.C. VOA no longer broadcasts radio programs to Poland or has any other news content in Polish, neither does the State Department nor Radio Free Europe Radio Liberty, RFE/RL) : Skoro mowa o Afganistanie, z pewnością wie Pan, że w Polsce poparcie dla obecności polskich wojsk Afganistanie słabnie. Niektórzy politycy otwarcie wzywają do wycofania polskich wojsk. Jak pan odpowiedziałby na takie obawy.

 

Lee A. Feinstein: To świetne pytanie, tak naprawdę to jest problem nie tylko w Polsce ale i w Stanach zjednoczonych. W Stanach poparcie społeczne dla narażania ludzi na niebezpieczeństwo to zawsze delikatna kwestia. Chcę więc powiedzieć o tym kilka rzeczy. Po pierwsze – Stany Zjednoczone są zdecydowane zostać w Afganistanie i co do tego nie powinno być żadnych wątpliwości. Prezydent, jak Pan zapewne wie, rozważa różne opcje w Afganistanie – dokładniej jak iść z misją do przodu. Jedna rzecz jest poza dyskusją – wycofanie. Prezydent jest zdecydowany zostać w Afganistanie i zwyciężyć. Mam nadzieję, że to daje trochę pewności, oczywiście to ciężka walka, jesteśmy wdzięczni polskiemu premierowi i prezydentowi za zobowiązanie by być w Afganistanie, w istocie, żeby wzmocnić obecność w Afganistanie. Jesteśmy niezwykle wdzięczni Polakom za wspólne poświęcenie.  

  • Share/Bookmark

More diplomatic confusion between U.S. and Poland

Polish Soldier in AfghanistanOpinia.USOpinia.US SAN FRANCISCO — U.S. media has not yet picked up on the latest diplomatic controversy between Poland and the U.S. But the public disagreement between president Obama’s new ambassador in Warsaw Lee A. Feinstein and the Polish defense minister over plans to send additional Polish troops  to Afghanistan is drawing media attention in Poland.

 

Ambassador Feinstein made a public statement, in which thanked the Polish government for planning to enlarge its military contingent in Afghanistan, but Polish Defense Minister Bogdan Klich has denied that a decision to increase Poland’s troop deployment in Afghanistan had been taken.

 

U.S. Ambassador to Poland Lee A. Feinstein

On Saturday, Ambassador Feinstein said on the TVN24 Polish television channel that Poland’s president and prime minister “declared that not only would they be keeping Polish soldiers in Afghanistan, but they would also enlarge the contingent. This is something for which we are very grateful.”

 

Speaking Monday morning at a press conference, Bogdan Klich denied such claims and suggested that Ambassador Feinstein may have been guilty of a diplomatic faux pas. Mr. Klich said “The ambassador committed a blunder, since neither the prime minister, nor the minister of foreign affairs, nor the minister of national defense made any declarations to the American side about an increase in the contingent. But, please remember that these are the ambassador’s first days at a new post.”

 

Picking up on the Polish defense minister’s comments, the English-language newspaper Krakow Post ran an online headline “U.S. Ambassador to Poland ‘Committed a Blunder’.” The Polish Radio’s International Service posted on its website a report under a more diplomatic headline “Confusion over Poland’s Afghan deployment deepens.”

 

Polish Radio quotes Mr. Klich as saying “There is no such decision, nor plans.” The Polish defense minister added that the contingent of 2,000 Polish soldiers in the Ghazni province in Afghanistan will not be enlarged unless it is absolutely necessary. He did confirm, however, that 200 soldiers would be going to Afghanistan to be held in strategic reserve in case of emergencies.

 

Responding to questions about Ambassador Feinstein’s comments, President Kaczynski’s office said that no detailed plans had been sent by the defense ministry on the issue of enlarging the Polish military contingent in Afghanistan, and that it was far too early to make such a decision.

 

Surprisingly, U.S. media, which has been lately reporting extensively on Afghanistan, has not yet picked up on this story. It was reported by the Chinese news agency Xinhua. A brief summary of the Xinhua report was placed on The USA Today website.

 

Whether other U.S. media outlets report on this story will become clearer on Tuesday. An earlier diplomatic blunder between Poland and the U.S. over President Obama’s announcement about the removal of the U.S. missile defense shield system from Poland and the Czech Republic, which he made on the day of the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland at the beginning of WWII, received considerable U.S. media attention.

 

Media criticism may have forced President Obama to send Vice President Biden on a face-saving mission to Central Europe. During the visit, Mr. Biden made several strong comments in support of U.S. commitments to the defense of Poland and other Central European nations, which President Obama may now find difficult to ignore in his attempts to improve relations with Russia.

 

Koniec wiadomości/analizy Opinia.US. Można ją opublikować z powołaniem się na Opinia.US. End of Opinia.US report/analysis. Opinia.US reports/analyses may be republished with attribution.

 

Creative Commons License

 

Ten tekst by Opinia.US is licensed under a Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa 3.0 Stany Zjednoczone License.

 

Creative Commons License

 

This work by Opinia.US is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License.

 

Subscribe to TedLipien.com

 

Your email:

 

 

SourcedFrom Sourced from: Opinia.US

  • Share/Bookmark

New York Times covers Biden in Warsaw from Berlin

Vice President Joe Biden with Prime Minister Donald Tusk, Oct. 21, 2009.Opinia.USOpinia.US SAN FRANCISCO — It is not a good time for Poland in Washington and in U.S. media. The New York Times covered Vice President Biden’s visit to Warsaw from Berlin. It could have been worse; the report could have been filed from Moscow or the paper could have used a short AP story, as did The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, The Chicago Tribune, and almost all other major U.S. newspapers.

The fact that Vice President Biden went to Warsaw to reassure the Poles about American security commitments to Poland was partly due to earlier negative media coverage in the U.S. of President Obama’s decision to scrap missile defense plans in Central Europe initiated by President Bush. Thanks to the ineptitude of the White House and the State Department public relations experts and diplomats, the announcement of the decision by President Obama on the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland actually helped to elevate U.S. media coverage of the whole issue and may have resulted in Biden’s trip to the region.

But U.S. media interest in Biden’s trip is limited. There is still a great reluctance on the part of liberal papers like The New York Times and The Washington Post to engage in any serious questioning or criticism of of President Obama’s foreign policy. Also, in general, U.S. media does not pay much attention to vice presidents.

A visit by the vice president was the best Poland could hope for. Biden is far more interested in Central Europe than Obama, but the president is likely to continue his rapprochement with the Kremlin. It’s difficult to say whether his worldview will allow him to conclude at some point that Moscow is not interested in improving relations with the U.S. or in helping him in Iran. For now, he is using Biden to prevent a major loss of electoral support for himself and the Democratic Party from Americans with Polish and other Central European backgrounds, while still trying to implement his policy toward Russia.

Poland, of course, has no choice but to wait out this difficult period in relations with its only real political and military ally. American presidents do not govern forever, and American people would not tolerate a major sellout of Central Europe to Russia, as they did during President Roosevelt’s last years in office. What Poland needs is more critical U.S. media coverage of President Obama’s foreign policy and much greater involvement of the Polish American community in the public debate of these issues.

Polish Americans can only feel sorry for Prime Minister Tusk who had no choice but to repeat Vice President Biden’s undiplomatic talking points, which bordered on being offensive. Poland cannot afford not to have a good relationship with the U.S., particularly with the president who has very little interest in Poland and in Central Europe but is quite focused on Russia.

Some U.S. analysts, who may have been briefed off the record by the Obama White House, have suggested that Vice President Biden’s visit to Central Europe was meant as a subtle warning to Moscow. That is highly unlikely judging from on the record comments to reporters by Biden’s national security advisor Tony Blinken. His remarks were clearly designed to let the Poles know that they should not try to interfere with President Obama’s attempts to improve relations with the Kremlin.

During the trip, Europe will mark the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall that effectively signaled the beginning of the end of the Cold War in Europe and around the world. Adding to his earlier problems with comprehending European and world history, President Obama cancelled his plan to attend the anniversary ceremony in Berlin.

“The vice president’s going to mark the moment, but his focus is going to be much more on the future than on the past,” Biden’s aide Tony Blinken said before the vice-presidential trip to Poland. “In his view, the real validation of 1989 is less in what we took down and more in what we built and continue to build together: strong democracies, strong partnerships that deliver for people in all of our countries and beyond.”

This comment reflects the Obama Administration’s thinking that Central European leaders and societies are too focused on history and are too fearful of Russia. Sounding more like an “Ugly American” than a member of the administration that promised a new, sensitive approach to dealing with other nations, Blinken also said that “The United States is thinking about the region less in terms of what we can do for Central Europe and more in terms of what we can do with Central Europe.”

“The countries are no longer ‘post-communist,’ or ‘in transition’; they are full-fledged members of the NATO alliance and the European Union, with serious and substantial responsibilities,” Blinken said. He failed to mention that while Poland has carried a heavy burden for the U.S. in Iraq, in Afganistan and in Central Europe, President Obama refused a Polish invitation to attend the ceremony marking the 70th anniversary of the outbreak of World War II, made repeated comments about “resetting” relations with Russia, and made many Central Europeans highly nervous by cancelling the Bush missile plans.

Poor Prime Minister Tusk repeated Biden’s talking points almost word for word. He had no choice.

Contrary to news reports, Vice President Biden did not come on a fence-mending mission. He and his security advisor told the Poles to expect less from America, to get over Cold War and World War II history, and on top of it, to accept more responsibilities for supporting democracy in the region because President Obama does not want to look bad to the Kremlin by doing it himself. Hence his decision not to go to the fall of the Berlin Wall commemoration.

Critics had said that the Bush Administration was harsh and undiplomatic in dealing with other countries. It did not even come close to the level of arrogance shown by senior Obama Administration officials in dealing with Poland. Unfortunately, due to limited interest and limited U.S. media coverage, most Americans are still not aware of this shameful treatment of one of America’s closest ally.

Koniec wiadomości/analizy Opinia.US. Można ją opublikować z powołaniem się na Opinia.US. End of Opinia.US report/analysis. Opinia.US reports/analyses may be republished with attribution.

Creative Commons License
Ten tekst by Opinia.US is licensed under a Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa 3.0 Stany Zjednoczone License.

Creative Commons License
This work by Opinia.US is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License.

Your email:

 

SourcedFrom Sourced from: Opinia.US

  • Share/Bookmark

Obama’s bad foreign policy decisions may have good unintended consequences for public discourse in the U.S.

The Dalai LamaTedLipien.comSAN FRANCISCO — Sometimes really bad decisions produce some unintended good results. Two recent public diplomacy disasters caused by President Obama’s questionable judgement — where was Judith McHale and the State Department diplomats? — had some unexpected good consequences, as did the winning of the Nobel Peace Prize despite his lack of any concrete foreign policy accomplishments. Some of his recent foreign policy decisions that were particularly ill-advised finally prompted the liberal media in the U.S. to start doing some critical reporting, albeit still far too limited, and may have forced President Obama himself to begin questioning his own thinking about the realities of international politics.

 

When the president chose to make his announcement of canceling the Bush Administration missile defense plans in Central Europe on the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland, both The New York Times and The Washington Post published op-eds criticizing his lack of historical sensitivity in dealing with U.S. allies and his handling of other foreign policy isues. This level of criticism of President Obama has not been seen before in liberal U.S. media.

 

Conservative and independent media reporters have been doing their job of questioning and criticizing the Obama Administration, but their loud voices do not count for much among the current Democratic Party governing establishment in Washington. In fact, prior to the missile defense announcement debacle, the White House had ignored numerous criticisms and suggestions that might have averted the latest foreign policy and public diplomacy disasters.

 

When rumors started the day before the announcement that it was imminent, I had warned that making it on September 17 would expose the United States to international dismay and ridicule that would not be limited only to Poland. But President Obama was going to scrap the missile shield no matter what, apparently in order to please the Kremlin in the vain hope of getting Mr. Putin and Mr. Medvedev to help him in Iran. In retrospect, therefore, the fact that he made the announcement on the anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland was a fortunate one, despite the fact that the decision itself was a very bad one for America’s reputation among its friends abroad, and in terms of how Barack Obama will be perceived by America’s potential enemies and rivals.

 

In finally forcing liberals and Obama supporters to engage in admittedly limited public discourse, but still better than the previous near total admiration for the president and lack of any critical discussion, the missile shield announcement on September 17 produced a good outcome that the administration and its critics had not expected. These decisions exposed the incompetence of the White House and the State Department public relations officials and diplomats. This turned out after all be a good thing for the American people despite the terrible message of President Obama’s decisions for those small nations that count on America’s commitments to defend human rights, democracy, and independence from bullying by authoritarian powers like Russia. The controversy finally prompted even the most liberal media in the U.S. to start doing its journalistic job of questioning some of the foreign policy decisions and actions of their favorite president.

 

President Reagan with Pope John Paul II in Fairbanks, Alaska, 1984The second bad Obama decision that potentially can have equally negative repercussions around the world for a long time to come — again where were the State Department public diplomacy experts? — was the banning of the Dalai Lama, the highly-revered Tibetan spiritual leader, from visiting the White House. Why was the Dalai Lama snubbed? Because President Obama did not want to offend a bunch of aging Chinese communist leaders before his presidential visit to Beijing. Can you imagine Ronald Reagan refusing to see Pope John Paul II because the then Soviet leadership might have been upset?

 

By the way, the Norwegian Nobel committee never gave the Peace Prize to John Paul II or to Ronald Reagan, even though they both contributed greatly to ending the Cold War. Perhaps the Cold War was not hot enough, but more likely the Left-leaning Nobel committee members did not like the politics of these two leaders. Their decision of giving this year’s prize to President Obama again focused media’s attention on his lack of foreign policy accomplishments and his questionable judgement on Poland, the handling of other U.S. allies in Central Europe, and the Dalai Lama’s visit.

 

Former Czech President Vaclav Havel, another famous international figure who has never received the Nobel Peace Prize although he clearly deserved one, simply could not believe that the U.S. president would decline to see the Dalai Lama out of fear of how such a visit might be received by the Chinese communists. This former human rights activist and inmate of communist prisons, who was among international supporters of Barack Obama’s campaign for the U.S. presidency, had this to say:

 

“It is only a minor compromise,” Mr. Havel said of the nonreception of the Tibetan leader. “But exactly with these minor compromises start the big and dangerous ones, the real problems.”

 

Is President Obama listening? He might be to some degree after the latest barrage of criticism of his foreign policy decisions that is no longer limited to conservative U.S. media. Vice President Biden is being dispatched to Poland, the Czech Republic and Romania to engage in damage control. It’s too bad, however, that the liberal U.S. media did not consider it necessary to look critically much earlier at some of the naive assumptions behind President Obama’s foreign policy statements. Perhaps the United States would have been sparred international embarrassment and the loss of trust among its allies and among human rights supporters around the world.

 

Your email:

 

  • Share/Bookmark

Ambassador Arthur Bliss Lane’s warning about naive idealism in foreign policy should be a lesson for Obama

I Saw Poland Betrayed by Arthur Bliss LaneTedLipien.com SAN FRANCISCO — Arthur Bliss Lane (16 June 1894–12 August 1956) was the United States Ambassador to Poland (1944–1947). He served earlier as the U.S. Ambassador to the wartime Polish government-in-exile in London and was with the U.S. diplomatic mission in Poland in 1919. During the interwar period, he had a number of other diplomatic assignments in Western Europe and Latin America.

 

Arthur Bliss Lane served as Minister to Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania from June 1936 to September 1937, and was later transferred to Yugoslavia. He remained in Belgrade until the German occupation of April 1941. Later during the war,  he was Minister to Costa Rica, October 1941 to April 1942, and Ambassador to Columbia, until October, 1944.

 

From October 1944 to May 1945, he was Ambassador to the Polish government-in-exile in London.  In May 1945, he became Ambassador to the Polish Government in Warsaw after the United States and the United Kingdom transferred their recognition to the Soviet-dominated regime in Poland.

 

Ambassador Arthur Bliss Lane resigned from the State Department in 1947, after a distinguished career in U.S. diplomatic service, in protest against what he saw as the betrayal of Poland by the United States and other Western allies toward the end of World War II and in the immediate period after the war.

 

In his book I Saw Poland Betrayed An American Ambassador Reports to the American People, he criticized President Roosevelt’s naive trust in Stalin and his concessions to the Soviet Union at the expense of Poland and other East Central European nations. The cost of Roosevelt’s deals with Stalin was not only decades of Soviet domination and communist repression in Europe but ultimately the Cold War, wars in Korea and Vietnam, thousands of American lives lost and billions of dollars in U.S. defense spending.

 

Roosevelt’s intentions, however, were not evil. In fact, they were noble and idealistic by the standards of international politics of his time. Roosevelt refused to see Stalin for what he really was, a ruthless dictator who had earlier made a deal with Hitler to divide Poland and take over the Baltic states (Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia) and parts of Finland and Romania.

 

Naive idealism combined with appeasement are dangerous qualities in any U.S. president. Former Czech president, playwright and human rights activist Vaclav Havel, who has been a supporter of Barack Obama, had this warning  in response to the U.S. president’s refusal to see the Tibetan spiritual leader the Dalai Lama:

 

“It is only a minor compromise,” Mr. Havel said of the nonreception of the Tibetan leader. “But exactly with these minor compromises start the big and dangerous ones, the real problems.”

 

Appeasing the Kremlin and the Chinese communists in the hope of winning concessions makes such concessions far less likely, as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton found out during her humilating visit to Moscow last week.  Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and President Medvedev couldn’t be more brutal in telling her that putting pressure on Iran to end its nuclear programs was not in Russia’s national interest, when in fact they meant their own interest. Prime Minister Putin went to China and was not around to receive her.

 

In fact any Russian scholar with a good sense of realism could have told President Obama that the current leaders in Russia want the U.S. out of Eastern Europe but don’t believe that they owe America anything if the Americans leave. They will also continue to rely on anti-Americanism to consolidate their power internally. They want oil prices to be as high as possible, and therefore want tensions to be high in the Middle East. For that reason, they want the United States to be bogged down both in Afghanistan and in Iraq. The only thing that the Obama Administration should expect from the Kremlin are Russian concessions that would allow the U.S. to continue and expand military operations in these two Muslim nations.

 

During World War II, when the stakes were still much higher than they are now, Arthur Bliss Lane was not the only one to see the danger in Roosevelt’s policy of appeasing the Soviet dictator. In 1942, another American diplomat, U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union William Christian Bullitt Jr. accurately predicted the “flow of the Red amoeba into Europe“. Roosevelt responded to Bullitt, Jr. with a statement summarizing his rationale for war time relations with Stalin:

 

I just have a hunch that Stalin is not that kind of a man. . . . I think that if I give him everything I possibly can and ask for nothing from him in return, noblesse oblige, he won’t try to annex anything and will work with me for a world of democracy and peace. Franklin Delano Roosevelt

 

Since President Obama’s vision of U.S. foreign policy seems to resemble to some degree President Roosevelt’s worldview — as seen by Obama’s unilateral concessions to Russia on the missile defense, his often expressed hope for a “reset” in relations in Moscow, as well as his refusal to see the Dalai Lama at the White House in order to appease the Chinese communist leadership — the following excerpt from Ambassador Arthur Bliss Lane’s I Saw Poland Betrayed book, might be relevant to any media discussion of current issues in U.S.-Polish and U.S.-Russian relations:

 

The public has a right to know when the executive branch of the government makes far-reaching commitments which affect millions of persons and which might seriously endanger the security of the United States. (…) The peace of the globe itself calls for the maintenance of a policy of firmness by the United States backed by military strength. History has already proved that such a policy is a far more effective deterrent of international aggression than a policy of inertia, vacillation or appeasement. Arthur Bliss Lane in “I Saw Poland Betrayed”

 

Ambassador Arthur Bliss Lane’s book was published in 1948.  

 

A book about Poland which Arthur Bliss Lane had with him while serving at the U.S. diplomatic mission in Warsaw in 1919. The book is now in my library.

A book about Poland which Arthur Bliss Lane had with him while serving at the U.S. diplomatic mission in Warsaw in 1919. The book is now in my library.

 

 

The Yale University Library, where Arthur Bliss Lane’s private papers and documents are archived, has on its website additional information about his diplomatic career and his public activities after he resigned from the State Department.

 

“From April 1947 until his death in August 1956, Arthur Bliss Lane undertook a number of lecture tours, radio programs, articles and letters by which he worked to stimulate public opposition to the activities of the Soviet Union, particularily in Eastern Europe. In his speeches and writings, … Lane denounced both the spirit of the Yalta Agreement and the manner in which it was carried out. He became a critic of the Roosevelt Administration and of the Democratic Party.

 

During this period, Arthur Bliss Lane was a member and participant in many Polish charities and anti-Communist organizations, including committees supporting the investigation of the Katyn Forest Massacre. Lane campaigned vigorously in 1952 among the Slavic ethnic groups for the Republican Party and Dwight D. Eisenhower. After 1952, he urged diplomatic relations with the Vatican.”

 


As the Wikipedia article about this remarkable American diplomat correctly points out, while in Poland, “Lane was so saddened” by the Soviet domination of the country and the communist suppression of Polish patriots and democrats that he resigned his post on February 24, 1947. He wrote I Saw Poland Betrayed, “which detailed what he considered to be the failure of the United States and Britain to keep their promise that the Poles would have a free election after the war. In that book he described what he considered betrayal of Poland by the Western Allies, hence the title, I Saw Poland Betrayed.” The book was translated into Polish and published  by an underground publishing house in Poland in the 1980s.

 

The Polish Wikipedia has a much longer and more detailed biography of Arthur Bliss Lane.

 

If any relatives or friends of Ambassador Bliss Lane would like to contact me with more information about his life and diplomatic career, please send an email to mail@tedlipien.com.

  • Share/Bookmark

Pro-Western Ukraine would be good for Russia

Dr. Zbigniew BrzezinskiOpinia.USOpinia.US SAN FRANCISCO — Without naming Russia, Dr. Brzezinski said that an outside power is trying to undermine the electoral process in Ukraine before next year’s presidential elections. He concluded that a pro-Western Ukraine would be good for Russia. The interview was conducted by Myroslava Gongadze for the Voice of America Ukrainian Service.

 

 

 

Koniec wiadomości/analizy Opinia.US. Można ją opublikować z powołaniem się na Opinia.US. End of Opinia.US report/analysis. Opinia.US reports/analyses may be republished with attribution.

 

Creative Commons License

 

 

Ten tekst by Opinia.US is licensed under a Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa 3.0 Stany Zjednoczone License.

Creative Commons License

This work by Opinia.US is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License.

 

 

SourcedFrom Sourced from: Opinia.US

 

 

ГоворитАмерика.us GovoritAmerika.us Выбор ГоворитАмерика.us GovoritAmerika.us. Вы можете скопировать и использовать эту статью.

Подписка на рассылку ГоворитАмерика.us по электронной почте. Подписка на рассылку ГоворитАмерика.us.

 

 

SourcedFrom Sourced from: ГоворитАмерика.us

  • Share/Bookmark

Kryzys dla nowego ambasadora USA

Lee A. Feinstein, the new U.S. Ambassador to PolandOpinia.USOpinia.US SAN FRANCISCO — Lee A. Feinstein, nowy ambasador Stanów Zjednoczonych w Polsce, przybył do Warszawy 13 października. Rozpoczyna on pracę w atmosferze poważnego kryzysu, wywołanego decyzją Prezydenta Obamy o wycofaniu  z Polski antyrakietowej tarczy obronnej. Obawy i podejrzenia w Warszawie znacznie pogłębiło dyplomatyczne fiasko ogłoszenia decyzji 17 września, w 70-tą rocznicę inwazji ZSSR na Polskę.

 

Brak wystarczających konsultacji i wykonywane  w środku nocy telefony Prezydenta Obamy do przywódców środkowoeuropejskich można uznać za dodatkowy dowód, że był to jednen z najbardziej niefortunnych błędów dyplomacji amerykańskiej w ostatnich latach.

 

Ambasador Feinstein ma przed sobą niełatwe zadanie naprawy stosunków polsko-amerykańskich. Jeszcze przed jego przyjazdem do Polski, w geście bezprecendensowej śmiałości jak na amerykańską placówkę dyplomatyczną, Ambasada Stanów Zjednoczonych w Warszawie przyznała w wiadomości opublikowanej po angielsku i po polsku na swej oficjalnej stronie internetowej, że zdaniem Polaków wybór “tak niezręcznej pory” — jak to określiła ambasada — na ogłoszenie decyzji Białego Domu o zmianie podjętego przez prezydenta Busha planu budowy tarczy antyrakietowej w Polsce świadczy o tym, że “Obama nie rozumie Polski.” Read more…

  • Share/Bookmark

Lee A. Feinstein Senate Video

U.S. Ambassador to Poland Lee A. Feinstein Senate Foreign Relations Committee Confirmation HearingAmbassador Feinstein was nominated by President Obama on July 20, 2009 and was confirmed by unanimous consent by the U.S. Senate on September 22, 2009. As it came just two days before President Obama’s controversial announcement on removing the American missile shield from Poland, his confirmation hearing before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee on September 15, 2009 did not include any pointed questions from either Republicans or Democrats. He was sworn in on September 28, 2009. The video of his testimony can also be accessed here. The text of his Senate testimony can be accessed here.

 

Had he been scheduled to appear before the committee after September 17, he would have presumably faced tough questions, at least from Republican  senators. As it was, his confirmation hearing was merely a formality. Ambassador Fenistein’s statement comes toward the middle of the video.

 

SourcedFrom Sourced from: Opinia.US

  • Share/Bookmark

New U.S. Ambassador in Poland Faces Crisis

Lee A. Feinstein, the new U.S. Ambassador to PolandOpinia.USOpinia.US SAN FRANCISCO — Lee A. Feinstein, the new U.S. Ambassador to Poland, arrived in Warsaw on October 13, 2009. He faces a serious crisis in U.S.-Polish relations, precipitated by President Obama’s decision to remove the American missile shield from Poland. Warsaw’s fears and suspicions have been made far worse by the clumsy handling of the decision’s announcement on September 17, which coincided with the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland. Read more…

  • Share/Bookmark

Barred from the White House, the 1989 Nobel Peace Prize winner sends Obama a letter with congratulations

President Barack Obama, Sept. 26, 2009TedLipien.com This year’s Nobel Peace Prize winner would not receive at the White House the 1989 Nobel Peace Prize winner, Tibetan spiritual leader the Dalai Lama, who was on a visit this week to Washington. President Obama apparently wanted to avoid upsetting Chinese communist leaders before his official trip to China. 

 

Unwelcome at the White House at this time, (White House officials said that the Dalai Lama would meet with Obama after the presidential trip to China.) the Dalai Lama sent the US president a letter, congratulating him on being awarded this year’s Nobel Peace Prize and praising his work toward world peace.

 

In his letter, the Dalai Lama also urged the US president to be a champion of liberty. “I have maintained that the founding fathers of the United States have made this country the greatest democracy and a champion of freedom and liberty,” the Dalai Lama wrote.

 

“It is, therefore, important for today’s American leaders to adopt principled leadership based on these high ideals. Such an approach will not only enhance the reputation of the United States, but also contribute tremendously to reducing tension in the world.”

 

A letter with a similar message, signed by another Nobel Peace Prize winner, Poland’s former president and Solidarity leader Lech Walesa, former Czech president Vaclav Havel and a number of other Central European leaders, had been delivered to the White House earlier and was promptly ignored.

 

In a statement released on October 5, human rights organization Freedom House warned that Dalai LamaPresident Obama’s apparent decision to postpone a meeting with the Dalai Lama sends the wrong signal to the Chinese government at a time when the authorities in Beijing are intensifying efforts to silence peaceful critics at home and abroad.

 

The NGO noted that Obama reportedly delayed meeting the Tibetan spiritual leader this week to win favor from China’s leaders ahead of his first visit to Beijing as president next month. It will be the first time since 1991 that the Dalai Lama has not met with the U.S. president while visiting Washington.

 

“The doors of the White House should always be open to a globally-revered advocate for peaceful efforts to secure fundamental human rights,” said Jennifer Windsor, Freedom House executive director. “It is hard to see how shunning the Dalai Lama will advance American interests. The Obama administration is presenting an unfortunate profile by putting human rights so conspicuously on the backburner in its relations with repressive regimes.”

 

Freedom House also pointed out that already this year, the administration has given only muted support to pro-democracy activists in Iran and has withdrawn funding from independent, pro-democracy activists in Egypt. On China, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said earlier this year that human rights would not “interfere” with the U.S. dialogue with China on other global concerns. READ MORE

 

There is a danger that the decision of the Nobel Peace Prize committee will further convince President Obama  that his approach to international politics is the correct one.  The largely friendly, often admiring,  and mostly uncritical  media in the US  –  with the exception of  the conservative TV and radio channels, which most of  his supporters view with disdain – are not likely to examine his decisions to any great depth and offer constructive criticism.

 

This may further convince President Obama that he knows how to achieve world peace. He may, however, turn out to be more like President Roosevelt than President Kennedy. The former thought that he could win over Stalin by accepting his demands to change Poland’s borders and place Eastern Europe firmly within Russia’s sphere of influence.  FDR once said “I just have a hunch that Stalin is not that kind of a man. . . . I think that if I give him everything I possibly can and ask for nothing from him in return, noblesse oblige, he won’t try to annex anything and will work with me for a world… of democracy and peace.”

 

Several American presidents who followed Roosevelt, including Kennedy – also a young and progressive Democrat like Obama – had to defend the United States at a great cost to the American people from the results of the decisions and the deals made by Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill at the Yalta conference.

 

If one compares the content and the tone of Roosevelt’s statements on world affairs with Obama’s, they are strikingly similar.  If one compares Obama’s statements with Kennedy’s – starting with their inaugural speeches – they are strikingly different. There was no doubt whatsoever that President Kennedy was fully committed to the cause of defending human rights, and would not sacrifice the interests of America’s allies to win favors with the Kremlin, the Chinese communists, or Fidel Castro. If anything, he may have been initially too willing to use the CIA and military force in defense of freedom rather than rely on more indirect means like sending the right messages and backing them up with America’s strength as a nation willing to stand by its democratic ideals and its friends.  

 

Kennedy would have never barred from visiting the White House an important religious leader representing an oppressed nation. Knowing that,  Soviet leaders still thought – mistakenly,  as it turns out – that Kennedy was naive and weak, because to them he appeared  idealistic and inexperienced.

 

President Reagan with Pope John Paul II in Fairbanks, Alaska, 1984Even if today’s dictators and authoritarian rulers are not to be compared to Stalin, it is because they are far more sophisticated and can take better advantage of their opponents’ misconceptions and weaknesses. Sending the right moral message to them and to pro-democracy forces, which they try to suppress, can determine the course of history, as President Reagan aptly demonstrated with his right balance of principles, strength and flexibility in dealing with America’s enemies.

 

By unilaterally deciding to withdraw the US missile defense system from Poland and the Czech Republic, and announcing his decision on September 17, the day of the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland at the beginning of WWII, President Obama left an impression in East Central Europe that his worldview is much more similar to that of President Roosevelt than to Kennedy’s, Reagan’s or most other US presidents after 1945. 

 

Poland and the Dalai Lama have become a nuisance for President Obama, just as Poland had became a nuisance for President Roosevelt. It seems that from now on, Chinese communists will determine when President Obama can meet with the Dalai Lama. If President Obama chooses the same approach in dealing with Prime Minister Putin and President Medvedev – and all indications are that he has already moved firmly in that direction – Lech Walesa may be sending more letters to the White House, which will have no effect whatsoever.

 

The uncritical media will cheer on, and President Obama may never learn an important history lesson. Shunning allies who share your values for a promise of a deal with those who don’t at the expense of the former may be very costly for the American people long after he leaves office.

 

 

Speech of Senator John F. Kennedy,
Polish-American Congress, Chicago, IL
October 1, 1960

  • Share/Bookmark