“Tusk’s coalition today bears full responsibility for appointing a post-communist with Russian ties as Marshal of the Sejm. […] We must not forget this or whitewash Tusk’s role in this affair exposed by free media, by Gazeta Polska,” says Mateusz Morawiecki, former Prime Minister of Poland, in an interview with Niezalezna.pl.
Niezalezna.pl: The strong reaction from the United States to Włodzimierz Czarzasty’s actions shows that Polish-American relations, as a result of the actions of the December 13 Coalition, are becoming increasingly difficult. Donald Tusk, however, continues to support the Marshal of the Sejm. What will the consequences be?
Mateusz Morawiecki: Czarzasty as Marshal of the Sejm of the Republic of Poland is a mockery and a disgrace to free Poland – regardless of the American opinion on this matter. We really should not need Americans to send people as deeply embedded in the structures of the Polish United Workers’ Party (PZPR) as Czarzasty to the dustbin of history. We know perfectly well that one could not build a career in the PZPR without Moscow’s approval.
The security of the Republic of Poland is not a party issue. It is not a tool of short-term political struggle or an element of a media dispute. It is the foundation of the state – its sovereignty, institutional stability, and citizens’ trust in authority. And today security is truly threatened by the fact that the Marshal of the Sejm of the Republic of Poland is a post-communist with unclear ties to Putin’s Russia.
Of course, relations with the United States are the foundation of our security – militarily, politically, and economically. The consequences may be serious – weakening the trust of our strategic partner, less willingness by the United States to engage in military and political cooperation, which in the current international situation is simply irresponsible. The consequences may go beyond the current political dispute. In today’s geopolitical situation, Poland needs maximum credibility. Any signal of chaos, ambiguity, or disregard for security issues can be read as weakness. And that is something we simply cannot afford.
When should the change of the Marshal of the Sejm take place? Because the question “whether it should” seems rhetorical. Does Szymon Hołownia return to the post, or perhaps a candidate from the Polish People’s Party (Polskie Stronnictwo Ludowe, PSL)?
Tusk’s coalition today bears full responsibility for appointing a post-communist with Russian ties as Marshal of the Sejm. Poland today needs people who build trust, not those who generate tension around key international relationships.
Prime Minister Tusk’s current support for Czarzasty can be interpreted as an attempt to wait out the crisis. The problem is that in matters of security there is no room for political calculations. This is about the credibility of the state and whether the national interest stands above the current coalition game.
In your opinion, is the government’s silence regarding Włodzimierz Czarzasty’s ties to Russia, which so irritate the Americans, a deliberate strategy by Donald Tusk to cool relations with the United States, or rather proof that the Prime Minister is a hostage to post-communists in his coalition?
Donald Tusk is a man who will do anything to stay in power. In this context, the motivation behind his silence is secondary. What matters to him is the goal: to remain in office. And it matters little to him whether this goal is achieved over the dead bodies of Polish-American relations and at the price of clinging to post-communists.
It is Tusk’s personal decision that the Marshal of the Sejm is a disgraced apparatchik of the PZPR. We must not forget this or whitewash Tusk’s role in this affair exposed by free media, by “Gazeta Polska.”
Tusk gave the communist Czarzasty access to information of strategic importance for the state. Such access must be subject to absolutely airtight procedures. State security cannot be based on assumptions or on automatisms resulting from office.
What is most troubling, however, is the government’s silence. In a state responsible for its own security, such matters are not swept under the rug. Citizens have the right to know whether all security and transparency standards have been upheld. The lack of clear explanations raises questions and undermines trust – both at home and abroad.