The concept of "good neighbourhood" has ancient pedigree in political rhetoric, but until the early 20th century it afraid alternatively a moral postulate alternatively than a legal principle. The neighbourhood in global relations is conditioned by national borders.
However, it was only in the late 19th century that geographical space was completely divided between the various geopolitical units (primarily empires), which inevitably condemned them to “physical contact”, “interference” and the increase of squad emotions associated with the concept of “defence” of borders. The flourishing of modern nationalisms fostered the spread of the political principle, postulating the imposition of national-ethnic units (etnos) on territorial units. These "ethnic purity" efforts within territorial boundaries have led to the escalation of disputes and conflicts witnessed by the full 20th century. In fact, in all past there was no shortage of rulers whose only dream was to conquer their neighbors, not necessarily for cultural reasons.
Against the background of this experience, the legal and treatative rule of the "good neighbourhood" was born, in which the Bolsheviks and the Americans took part, paradoxically. The rule of same - determination of nations was similar. Well, Lenin rejected “unaligned treatises” in defence for purely cyclical reasons “good neighbourly treatates”. With their help, he began to remove russian Russia from global isolation (Persia, Afghanistan, Turkey). On the another hand, Franklin D. Roosevelt, beginning the alleged Good vicinity Policy to Latin America on 4 March 1933, he declared that he wanted to "direct the nation on the way of a good neighbour's policy – a neighbour who firmly respects himself and due to the fact that he himself does so respects the rights of others – a neighbour who respects his obligations and respects the sanctity of his agreements in the planet and with the planet of his neighbours." In December of the same year, the 7th Pan-American Conference passed the Convention on the Rights and Obligations of States, prohibiting intervention in interior or external affairs of another State (Article 8). These principles were confirmed by the Inter-American Conference on Peace Strengthening in December 1936 in Buenos Aires.
The experience of the interwar period influenced the conceptualization of the objectives and principles of the United Nations Charter. Her preamble clearly states: “We, the peoples of the United Nations, determined... to act tolerantly and to live together in peace as good neighbors...”. This evidence clearly shows Roosevelt's inspiration, but besides generality and deficiency of precision as to the meaning of "good neighbours". It seems that all subsequent provisions of the Charter concerning the objectives and principles of the UN (Articles 1 and 2 and Article 74) should be read as a improvement of this general postulate. It contains a timeless message, referring to all states that "love peace" to effort to "live each another in peace like good neighbors."
In the American doctrine of that time, global peace and safety was explicitly linked to the "cooperation between nations in the spirit of a good neighbourhood", which was intended to foster the economic, social and cultural prosperity of the nation (American) and of all nations (Cordell Hull). These expressions are an expression of a certain idealistic doctrine, as well as a rhetorical pathos, which accompanied the creation of the normative foundations of postwar global order.
Even though the UN founding conference in San Francisco did not bring out circumstantial rights and obligations of neighbouring countries from the general provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, it was pointed out, however, that global trade and peaceful coexistence are heavy dependent on geographical factors (limology, orography, hydrography, etc.). Geographical proximity, form of borders, surface formation, distribution of waters, overlapping, cross-interference are determined by solving common problems specified as setting boundaries along rivers or mountain ranges, dividing natural resources or protecting the environment (climate, water, ecosystem).
After planet War II, terms specified as “good neighbourhood”, “good neighbourly relations”, “atmosphere and spirit of good neighbourly” appeared in many global documents—in resolutions and declarations of states and global organisations, in the preambles and dispositions of treaties, as well as in rhetoric of public leaders and in public affairs. It can be concluded that the word “good neighbourhood” has become permanent part of the repertoire of alleged courtesy standards (comitas gentium), or global courtesy.
"Good neighbourhood" has become 1 of the ideals of "community" after the war – "nationals of folk democracy" and "Atlantic community". It is now recalled in many regions of the globe. The word “friendship”, “cooperation”, “help”, “solidarity”, as well as “peace” and “security” was associated with the “good neighborhood”. All these deadlines let to express the general aspirations of close countries, not necessarily straight adjacent, to make friendly relations. The "good neighbourhood" was to be their catalyst, at bilateral and multilateral levels. It was a kind of spell to forget the bad memories of the times of enmity and “eternal” wars. This was best done by the French and Germany thanks to the wisdom of 2 giants of European politics – Charles de Gaulle and Konrad Adenauer, who in 1963 concluded the celebrated Treaty of Elise.
The Conference on safety and Cooperation in Europe (1972-1975) supported the spread of the good neighbourhood formula. Conference papers clearly link good neighbourly relations with respect for the principles of independency and national sovereignty, equality, non-interference and common benefit. The CCE Final Act from the "spirit of a good neighbourhood" produced values specified as solidarity between nations, indivisibility of safety in Europe, respect for diversity and diversity of traditions, regimes and positions of the parties.
At the heart of the European Union is the call for "unity in diversity". He besides points out that a "good neighbourhood" is the right consequence to cross-compliance requirements in the only yet diverse global environment. By promoting various aid schemes (funds, grants, subsidies), the immense possible of a “good neighbourhood” has been built, which are now percentages in cultural education, technological exchange, entrepreneurship promotion or communication development. All these projects are carried out at border, regional and sub-regional levels, on a national scale and in continental links.
Looking at the achievements in the implementation of the "good neighbourhood", there is, on the 1 hand, an increase in awareness of global cooperation towards the implementation of this principle, which promotes the search for universal solutions and safeguards for all mankind. On the another hand, the axiological, geopolitical and economical divisions between the most crucial power players and groups of states, which encourage the practice of a alternatively "bad neighbourhood". The deficiency of "good faith" and "good will" by states, or more specifically political leaders, leads to a recurrence of non-compliance, interference in interior affairs, restrictions on trade, communication, yet reaching for coercion to violate territorial integrity and sovereignty. Bad neighbourly intentions besides service intellectual manipulation and cheating of partners.
Any exaggerated rhetoric in determining neighbourly ties is spurred by falsehood and raises suspicions if it is decorative and façade-like. This is the situation in Polish-Ukrainian relations, which since the outbreak of the war in Ukraine began to be called "extraordinary". Snuto on the growth of the visions of a “special covenant”, referring to the declared "strategic partnership" century in the 1990s. “Dreams” have this to do with each another that they usually fail. So the resurrection of any myths about the “unifying” Poles and Ukrainians of the Republic had nothing to do with reality. And at political level, and at social level, Polish-Ukrainian relations are based on a fragile basis of hostility to Russia. Saturated with utmost emotions do not take into account the actual, frequently divergent, interests of the parties.
The dramatic costs of the “cereal crisis” put “good neighbourly” relations at issue. The authorities of both parties, despite the fresh demonstration of an “unparalleled friendship”, decided to yet uncover what it truly is. I think he put it best. Mikhail Podolak, advisor to the president of Ukraine, who pointed out the “seasonality of feelings” of both parties: “As long as there's a war, we'll have a friendship. After it is finished, we will become rivals.”
Such announcements (and there are more and more of them) do not scope the Polish electorate, which does not request candidates to the parliament, nor the state officials in office, to clearly specify themselves on the issue of the “border” of selfless “service” of Ukraine. After all, the authorities in Kiev do not hide that from the function of the recipient of aid from the West they want to decision after the end of the war to a clear commitment as a quarterback state in the Euro-Atlantic space. They intend to win the world's highest and rather selfish goals of trust and sympathy, competition for export markets (especially for agricultural products) and large abroad investments.
Not yet subject to any "conditional" or even more force from the Polish side, nor do they intend to "contribute" to the uncounted "sins" of historical sins, the crimes of Ukrainian nationalists on the people of the Polish East Borders. Polish diplomacy cannot, or does it in a pathetic way, disprove Polish self-sacrifice for Ukraine. If he does not get the desired gratitude now, he will not get it in the future.
The good neighbourly relations of Poland require a certain remanent besides on another azimuts. The state is strong “friendly borders”, not erstwhile it becomes a “besieged fortress”. In the policies governing Poland, it is clear, especially in the Belarusian section, that absurd walls and fences overturn the full "cross-border cooperation" acquis. It is not known where the “euroregions” which were fed to Poles by propaganda of the first decade of the 3rd Poland. The elimination of the "small border traffic" with Kaliningrad Oblast (for the Polish side, I think, Królewiecki) means cynical and to the detriment of self-interest to get free of all the advantages of permeability and permeability of borders, serving border communities. In addition, neighbouring openness allows us to realize the diversity of opinions and discourses, build an atmosphere of common respect and peaceful coexistence. All the work in these cases is lost.
If in the election run the ruling organization emphasizes so powerfully the strength of a strong army to defend against enemies from the east, it may be worth asking publically its promoters, why the common safety is not built besides by Polish diplomacy, why the art of communication has been abandoned, building cross-border ties, which, as the experiences of Western European countries show, are an crucial reason for eliminating fears and building safety comfort. erstwhile societies and governments are friendly, it is not essential to spend billions on military iron.
None of the countries of Central and east Europe "earth" specified hatred of Russia as Poland. It is adequate to go to the Czech Republic, Slovakia or Hungary during the holiday, and even a small further south and perceive to how people relate to Russians. In the case of Poles, the stubborn adherence to the Ukrainian flag has taken on the character of a "lost" attitude, that even against and against the ruling in Kiev Poland will be ready to devote its resources and national interests. In this way, Polish political elites compromise the spirit of the "good neighbourhood", which is based on common respect for the values and interests of the another party. Ukrainian authorities are clearly violating this reciprocity, and the authorities in Warsaw are doing everything not to see it.
Poland has reached records in fresh years in worsening the standards of coexistence on all sections of its borders. With Germany, he creates and provokes artificial disputes, and this is against the background of historical accounts, which stigmatizes Polish and German politicians for the anti-Polish conspiracy. The worst part is that many average citizens share this primitive anti-Germanism by submitting to the regime's tv broadcasts.
The dispute over the Turów mine has damaged relations with the Czech Republic. Saxon Rytawa besides complains about the effects of the exploitation of lignite. The collapse of land, the decline in levels and contamination of groundwater, the emanation of fine dust and noise, yet the deficiency of land reclamation and expansion plans origin natural neighbourly unrest, as well as claims for compensation. Only compliance with good neighbourly standards can reverse the deterioration of relations, which can be seen even in regular contacts with Czech and German citizens.
In this respect, it is worth addressing the letter and spirit of bilateral treaties with all the neighbours that Poland concluded after 1989. Treaties with 7 neighbours (after the division of Czechoslovakia since 1993, the treaty concluded with it was considered binding besides in relations with Slovakia) provided a framework and guarantees for the comprehensive improvement of common relations. Unfortunately, many regulations, specified as respect for the rights of national minorities on the basis of reciprocity and equality, have never been reflected in a fair implementation.
A drastic example is the avoidance of treaty liability, and even acting against legal provisions as regards the protection of cemeteries, burial sites, memorials and another memorial sites (military and civil) which are the subject of worship and remembrance of citizens of 1 of the parties. Many highly hostile steps were taken above all on the Polish side against commemorations of the “liberating” Red Army. It is not better on the Ukrainian side to commemorate victims of the Volyn genocide. Interestingly, the demolition of monuments of the same "liberators" did not affect Hungary (although in the context of the 1956 russian intervention they would have more reasons), Slovakia, the Czech Republic and even Germany.
It seems that Poles are experts in revenge on historical memory, connected with a hard neighbourhood. After all, modern life cannot change its history. Of course, they can effort to compose it again, deny it or deny it. Therefore, the desire for revenge and retaliation on neighbors for past harm should be converted through education and pedagogy into a human, humanitarian attitude of forgiveness. The word "forget or forgive" is recalled in Western literature for a reason in the context of Polish-German reconciliation (Annika Frieberg). Poles themselves should not forget about this world-famous achievements.
Matters related to the protection of values, monuments and objects related to the historical and cultural heritage of neighbouring nations are bad. It was besides forgotten about the consistent implementation of the Treaty provisions on the disclosure and return of cultural goods, including archival materials. Paradoxically, it is considered hostile Belarus that cares most about traces of cultural Polishness on its lands.
In the face of the war in Ukraine, Poland is the strongest solidarity with Lithuania, which is possibly the most proatlantic of the tiny Baltic states. For a reason, both countries were called “warlords of the fresh Cold War” in the West. Meanwhile, the issue of the protection of the rights of the Polish national number (bilinguality of topographical names, spelling of names) was forgotten. The Lithuanian authorities inactive do not implement the provisions of the 1994 Neighbourhood Treaty (the most hard to negotiate), but besides violate the provisions of global conventions (Council of Europe and the European Union). However, the paradox is that the unwanted and displaced Russian language, along with the displaced people from Ukraine, again visited Lithuania in everyday life.
Poland threatens to alienate among all its neighbours. Parliamentary elections are an chance to change the attitudes of the future government from hostile to friendly. The fresh authorities should carry out deep reassessments of the Polish "good neighbourhood", in building which should not be hindered by bad intentions, historical idiosyncracies, or the quarries and provincial trenches in their anachronistic fortress.
Prof. Stanisław Bielen
photo public domain
Think Poland, No. 35-36 (27.08-3.09.2023)
