Although President Karol Nawrocki’s speech at the UN, delivered on September 23 of this year, drew some reaction from the Polish media, it needs, in my view, deeper understanding and analysis. This interest was rather superficial and was prompted, first, by current issues that are at the center of public attention in our country, and second — at times in a somewhat sensational tone — by President Nawrocki’s raising of the issue of the disregard for the right to life of all people from conception to natural death. This problem affects virtually all countries worldwide. Abortion is the most egregious, scandalous, and globally widespread violation of the human rights that the United Nations and its members should safeguard.
Poland, or Anti-Russia
The current, vital issue for Poland was, of course, Russian aggression, which is beginning to spill over beyond the war the Kremlin is waging in Ukraine. The Russian drone attack on Poland had to be met with a response from the Polish authorities — not only at the bilateral level, but also at the international level. That’s what happened too.
“Russia has not abandoned its centuries-old tradition of conquests, wars, partitions, deportations, rapes, and crimes,” said President Nawrocki during the General Debate of the 80th session of the United Nations General Assembly. “Russia invokes an imperial vision that treats entire nations as colonial property, regularly denies them agency by claiming that they are artificial constructs, and justifies the invasion as a ‘historical correction’” — the president continued.
In this matter, representatives of the Polish authorities spoke with one voice. Both the president, who seeks to be the leader of the confederated opposition forces representing the traditions of the Republic of Poland’s political and moral sovereignty, and the foreign minister, who is a representative of the government of “militant democracy”. This is, after all, just another name for the liberal revolution that the left-wing faction of the anti-communist opposition, together with the post-communists, began implementing in Poland from 1989 onward.
„To the representatives of Russia, I will only say this: we know that you do not care about international law and are incapable of living in peace with your neighbors. “Your deranged nationalism contains a lust for domination that will not relent until you realize that the age of empires has passed and your empire will never be rebuilt,” said Poland’s foreign minister, Radosław Sikorski, who was taking part in an extraordinary session of the UN Security Council.
„I have one request for the Russian government: if another missile or aircraft enters our airspace without authorization and is shot down, and the wreckage falls on NATO territory, then please don’t come to us to complain. “You’ve been warned,” Sikorski told the Russian representative.
These are not, after all, the first harsh words from our country’s representatives addressed to Russia at the UN. One can certainly say today that many politicians around the world view Poland primarily as a country that, for specific political and historical reasons, is consistently critical toward Moscow. It’s not a bad identification; you could say it serves our regional interests today. The fact that Nawrocki and Sikorski speak with one voice reassures the capitals of NATO’s eastern flank that the Republic of Poland — despite strong internal conflicts — maintains political unity on international issues. Undoubtedly, such a clear stance by Poland toward the Russian empire boosts its visibility on the international stage.
This position may be viewed differently, because many countries continue to cooperate with Moscow in the hope of possible benefits arising from it. No doubt, to many capitals—especially those farther from us geographically—we are a loudly barking bull terrier—or a miniature pinscher—of Washington, Brussels, the wealthy North, or, as Russians like to say, the “collective West”. This reputation would likely have been strengthened this time as well, had we been represented at the UN only by the liberals from the “militant democracy” coalition. As is well known, they are incapable of political autonomy even to a limited extent and constantly see Poland merely as a junior partner that must conform to the will of the Western European political oligarchy.
Besides, the current anti-Moscow stance of Donald Tusk’s government should also be regarded more as the result of a political situation that Poland had, in part, brought upon itself in previous years. There would have been no harsh statements by Sikorski against Moscow if Warsaw had not persuaded Western countries inclined toward pro-Russianism to get involved on Ukraine’s side in 2022. One need only recall how the “militant democracy” liberals, who were in opposition a year before the Russian invasion, sabotaged the Polish government’s measures designed to protect us from hybrid aggression on our eastern border, orchestrated from Minsk and Moscow.
Poland: Another Europe
However, President Nawrocki did not stop at this fairly well-established but, in the long run, globally unappealing view of Poland as the anti-Russia. In his speech, he also criticized European Union policy, thereby showing countries around the world that the Republic of Poland has a better grasp of geopolitical affairs than the European powers. Even if Poland doesn’t yet have their capabilities. The lecture on this matter was simple and clear: we are the world’s twentieth-largest economy, even though after 1989 we started almost from scratch; despite participation in the European political project, we maintain our distinct outlook on the world and our sovereignty as regards political reality. It is no coincidence that, just a moment earlier, President Nawrocki had acknowledged the growing role of Asian countries as well as the “efforts of proud African nations.” The President also recalled that the Republic of Poland was not historically a colonizer, unlike many other European countries.
I want to say openly, as the President of Poland, among you, in the international community, that we are also deeply concerned and we are also aware of the mistakes made by our Western partners, friends, and neighbors. Yes, I agree with President Donald Trump that in recent years — which we, as Poles, warned against, and the same warning also came from Central and Eastern Europe — Europe has plunged into an ideological frenzy that led to bad decisions on migration, to green madness, and to the Green Deal, which is destroying economic and commercial markets, including agricultural markets. Yes, that same Europe—our friends and partners with whom we want to build a common EU—subsidized the Russian Federation for many years by buying cheap Russian gas,” the president said.
Wasn’t this part of the speech directed at our stronger allies, who are still trying to keep Poland in the position of an outsider? Partly, probably yes, but—if it was meant seriously—it should also be addressed to various countries around the world that, because of their own goals, may be interested in the emergence of a new assertive player in Europe. A player that would enable them to reorient their policy in dealings with European countries. The reasons for such a reorientation may vary. In both the ideological and the more material spheres, the Republic of Poland should have its own proposal for the world.
After gaining momentum in the unrealized third term, the prime minister of a government from the United Right camp could probably have presented such a stance toward the UN. The foreign policy of this political formation between 2015 and 2023 was largely based on attempts to restore dignity and secure restitution of property with respect to states that had acted to Poland’s detriment in the past. Anti-establishment slogans were also part of the political rhetoric of the governments of Beata Szydło and Mateusz Morawiecki, though they fared much worse when it came to putting them into effect. But could such verbal nonconformity really redirect political attention toward Poland? Basically, no, because without a positive proposal it would be perceived merely as a maneuver for intra-European political purposes. Besides, the slogan of “getting up from our knees” promoted by politicians of Law and Justice (PiS), especially in the early period of their eight-year rule, essentially conveyed to the world little more about Poland than the liberals’ “return to Europe”.
“And indeed, PiS’s goals are short-term, hard to specify in the medium term, which seems politically the most important. We see short-term goals and an overall modernization goal couched in the slogan ‘getting up off our knees’. This, however, is rather a distinct expression of the Hegelian struggle for recognition,” I wrote in my 2018 book A Kingdom Not of This World. On the Principles of Catholic Poland Based on More Recent and Earlier Events. It can be assumed that Jarosław Kaczyński and his circle have never managed to break free from the political ruts imposed on Poland, in which modernization means imitating the Germans, the French, or the Americans, and into which ever more effort and national energy are poured. The United Right forgot that you can’t win a game against someone who controls the rules of the game itself. The undeniable development success achieved by the United Right did not translate into political success for Poland.
“If we want to catch up with the European core and become an equal country, we must withstand pressure from the EU; if we don’t, we will become a peripheral country of the Community.” “This is a difficult situation, but we need to be clear: if we want to secure full independence, if we want, within a relatively short time, e.g., one generation, to catch up with the European core, become an equal partner, and equalize not only the level of GDP but also the level of wealth, then we must be aware that we have to withstand pressure, and even tougher action [against us],” — said Jarosław Kaczyński in an interview with the weekly “Sieci” in 2017.
At the same time, although material development is necessary to strengthen the power of the state, true independence and sovereignty—and even more so international influence—cannot develop without intellectual, political, and moral distinctiveness. This, in turn, is contained in the traditions of historical nations that have developed their own voice in their outlook on the world. Both the liberals, who were unwilling, and the center-right that emerged from the Round Table political settlement (the settlement between the communist regime and the opposition that led to the democratic, free-market transition of Poland in 1989-90) who were unable, failed to offer a positive vision of Poland’s mission in the world. They couldn’t understand that Poland must begin to play its own original game, insofar as possible. This kind of game doesn’t come about alongside the expansion of road infrastructure, new airports, or nuclear power plants. Resources only serve to achieve goals that are beyond the ability to manage effectively.
That is precisely why it is worth paying closer attention to Karol Nawrocki’s speech at the UN, because President Nawrocki managed, at least verbally, to overcome the narrative paralysis of our representatives that had separated Poland from serious thinking about sovereignty on the international stage.
A Polish proposal for the world
Karol Nawrocki’s proposal for the global community was clearly grounded in the Polish experience of a Christian republic that existed for many centuries. It is worth citing the most important passages of the president’s speech.
Human rights are one of the three main pillars on which the United Nations system is based. We cannot speak of true peace if we do not protect the human rights of every person, without exception. “Peace is not only the absence of armed conflicts; it is also justice, equality, and respect for human dignity,” said Karol Nawrocki, explicitly invoking the classical understanding of peace, which goes beyond the mere absence of outward manifestations of conflict. Behind an apparent peace, covert violence or domination may lurk, and the absence of signs of conflict may be enforced.
A moment later, the President of the Republic of Poland added:
We must also firmly defend human rights in their most fundamental dimension – the right to life of the defenseless from conception to natural death. We protect our families as places of happiness, love, and child-rearing. We, as Poland, speak out loudly about the plight of one of the most persecuted groups in the world – Christians.”
Before we comment on this, let us quote one last passage:
„Let me remind you that after World War II, there was no room for relativizing crimes, at least for the highest-ranking commanders who issued orders. There was Nuremberg. There was a court. There was a name, a charge, a sentence. It wasn’t just about revenge—it was about principles. And today, it’s also about principles. Here’s to crime not being rewarded, and to the law never being replaced by force.
Today we must return to that spirit. Build an international system of accountability that will not hesitate to call evil by its name—regardless of the flag it wears on its sleeve. We must make it clear: there are borders, human rights, and international law. And anyone who breaks them should face severe consequences.
But that won’t happen on its own, of course. For the order of the world is not given once and for all. It depends on us – on governments, institutions, but above all on societies.
As one of the Nobel Peace Prize laureates once said: ‘Neutrality always helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented’.”
Karol Nawrocki’s message seems clear. In Europe, a political center is emerging that does not intend to limit its activity to criticism, but stands in solidarity with those who believe that injustice has begun to govern international relations. At the same time, this center holds that the fate of the world should be determined not by the rule of force, but by the force of principles. Of course, this concerns Poland, which does not seek to dominate anyone, but is interested in ensuring that the global common good, the principles of solidarity, the rights of nations, political and cultural sovereignty, and prosperity are enjoyed by as many states, nations, and individuals as possible.
Polish soft power
In this context, one should also see President Nawrocki’s elevating the issue of protecting human life to such prominence. It is a key point of reference for every political and social actor who holds the conviction that human rights cannot truly survive unless they are grounded in natural law. This, in turn, ultimately has religious and supernatural legitimacy. Thus, Nawrocki opposed both the religious indifference of the dominant actors in international politics and a reductionist conception of peace that ignores mass killing insofar as its effects are hidden from the public.
However, Karol Nawrocki’s speech was something more than moralizing. An outside observer might conclude that Poland used the United Nations forum as an open platform for putting forward proposals to other states, particularly those from the Global South, bypassing—at least to some extent—the views of actors in international politics who consider themselves patrons of the Republic of Poland. And it was a proposal for a strategic agreement made to all those who believe that a return to the original intent of the United Nations is necessary.
Similarly, one can interpret Karol Nawrocki’s advocacy on behalf of persecuted Christians. This truly opens up the possibility of building around Poland a network of Christian states and organizations that could begin to view the Republic of Poland as a Western/Northern advocate for the rights of the faithful. Words should, of course, be followed by Polish funds and other resources, as well as cultural and economic cooperation. It cannot be ruled out that, over time, we might expect to reap political dividends thanks to such activity by our state. What would we need them for? Above all, to reduce the instances in which Poland is a supplicant to stronger partners from the civilizational “center”. The Republic of Poland should, within its means, strive on its own to become a local “center”—in Europe, within the eastern flank of the defense alliance, and globally through ties also with geographically distant Christian political and social centers. The possibility of orienting itself toward its own political network—a micro-civilization—rather than constantly remaining in the grip of Moscow and Berlin would make Poland a player of an entirely different category.
It’s worth adding one more point here. Poland could, by leveraging its membership in the European Union as a tool to strengthen its own agency in this area—acting as a global advocate for Christians and for the natural-law order, and working closely especially with the Christian South—challenge Moscow, which, after all, sometimes quite effectively, claims the right to be the worldwide patron of conservatism—albeit a toxic kind, Kalashnikov in hand—and the defender of Christians, as was the case in Syria in the past decade.
Only a chance at a fresh start
In the end, however, it must be said that this one speech will not change much if it remains alone. It alone will not elevate Poland to a new role. Moreover, it will increase the vigilance of those who are hostile to the Republic of Poland. At the same time, its content must be recognized within the proper, broad perspective, because in its own way it is something new in Polish politics. During his presidency, Andrzej Duda did not make similar declarations. Even during what seemed, after all, to be a good speech before the National Assembly on the occasion of the 1050th anniversary of the Baptism of Poland, the president referred to Christianity only as “roots,” with which we have an “indissoluble bond,” as an inspiration for creators of culture, as a heritage to which we should be faithful. It was hard to discern from President Duda’s words—even when he said that Christian civilization “is developing” and “is not a fossil”—how it could connect with the functioning and life of today’s Republic of Poland. At that time, even for the right-wing government, Catholicism was merely an identity that could still be regarded as fuel for political mobilization.
Meanwhile, with utter simplicity, Karol Nawrocki expressed the spirit of Christian republicanism in the Polish tradition at the United Nations.
Of course, it should be said that without further work on Poland’s part, nothing will come of this speech. That is why the broadly defined Right should already be thinking about a future program of effective governance for Poland and its soft power, drawing, among other things, on the work of centers such as the Ordo Iuris Institute with a program proposal titled “Poland – Reactivation.” 10 pillars to restore the state: a response to the national crisis (2023-2025)” and others. On the other hand, the president’s very voice—such as it is—is itself a sign that the liberal revolution of 1989 is weakening. And this despite the fact that, in the dialectical convulsions of party democracy, it has regained some power, which, as revolutions do, it consistently uses for destruction.
By the same author: Liberals testing “militant democracy” against right-wing populists and sovereigntists in Donald Tusk’s Poland
Tomasz Rowiński – senior research fellow in the “Ordo Iuris” project: “Civilization” of the Ordo Iuris Institute, editor-in-chief of “Christianitas,” historian of ideas, columnist, author of books; he has published, among others, “Dante’s Bastards.” Sketches on the Disappearance and Revival of Visible Christianity”, „A Kingdom Not of This World. “On the Principles of Catholic Poland Based on More Recent and Earlier Events”, “Turbopapacy. On the Dynamics of a Certain Crisis,” “Anachronistic Modernity. Essays on the Civilization of Violence”. He lives in Książenice near Grodzisk Mazowiecki.
Source of cover photo: iStock
