Does the West really need autocrats to counter Putin?

(VIENNA) In their fight against the murderous revanchism of Russian President Vladimir Putin, Western leaders seem increasingly open to the idea of ​​making a pact with the devil, by negotiating with other authoritarian regimes.

Maciej Kisilowski
Lecturer in Law and Public Management at Central European University

Thus, on March 16, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson traveled to Saudi Arabia to meet its de facto ruler, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman – thus being one of the few Western leaders to visit the Kingdom from horrific murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi in 2018.

Focusing on finding alternative supplies to Russian oil, Johnson’s trip was similar to a previous trip by the top US National Security Council official for Latin America, Juan Gonzalez, who visited the Venezuela to discuss with the regime of Nicolás Maduro. The United States has also given its blessing to Turkey, a NATO member with a dismal democratic record, because that country is mediating the talks between Ukraine and Russia.

Most surprising of all was the willingness of the European Union and NATO to give an outsized role to the authoritarian government of Poland. Poland’s de facto leader, Law and Justice (PiS) party leader Jarosław Kaczyński, recently made global headlines when he joined a delegation of leaders from the Czech Republic and Slovenia that traveled to War-torn Kyiv, where his “brave gesture” was hailed by the Western press.

Yet to see Kaczyński speak out on behalf of Western democracy is surreal. Here is a man whose entire political life since 1989 has been a manifest challenge to the European democratic order.

Over the past seven years, his regime has transformed Poland from once one of the democratic jewels of Central and Eastern Europe into a country that was one of the fastest in the world to descend into “autocracy “.

The West’s new reliance on Poland is eerily reminiscent of its reliance on Turkey during the 2015 refugee crisis. Much like Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who agreed to Preventing Syrian refugees from reaching Europe in return for 6 billion euros (over $8 billion) in financial aid, Kaczyński became the latest autocrat responsible for solving the West’s problems. The underlying cause is the same: the irreconcilable contradiction between the principled rhetoric of the West and what the West is prepared to do.

In 2015, Europeans’ patience in welcoming asylum seekers had reached its limit, but the unambiguous wording of the 1951 Refugee Convention compelled them to welcome anyone facing “serious threats to his life or his freedom. The agreement with Turkey then seemed to solve the problem. Instead of openly flouting the Convention, the Europeans preferred to let Turkey take care of the dirty work: ensuring that the refugees remained in the area where they were.

A similar “extrajudicial transfer” of moral commitments is underway in Poland. Unwavering in its support for Ukraine’s territorial integrity, the West sees Russia’s attack as a threat to the whole European order, but does not want to deploy military personnel on the ground for the defend.

Hungary, another quasi-authoritarian NATO member state, has refused to allow its territory to be used to transport military aid to Ukraine. Therefore, a narrow part of Polish territory remains the only passable road to access it. In rendering this service, Poland faces a significant risk, as Russia has designated military convoys as legitimate targets. Moreover, like Turkey in 2016, Poland will certainly host a large part of the millions of Ukrainian refugees trying to escape the war.

The West is asking Poland for a favor and the rapprochement serves here as a down payment. While U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris taunted Kaczyński’s puppet President Andrzej Duda, saying, “It’s in need that one recognizes one’s friends,” Georgette Mosbacher, former ambassador of Trump in Poland went further, arguing that “Poland deserves an apology” from the European Union (EU) and the United States for their past criticism of the country’s democratic backsliding. Rumors are circulating that Poland is currently receiving EU funds which were rightly frozen due to flagrant violations of the rule of law in that country. These funds are likely to be made available to him in exchange for some cosmetic changes to Polish law.

Far from making the Polish government more committed to European values, these measures will encourage it and strengthen its power (in particular by providing new funds with which the PiS can buy electoral support). It should be recalled that just months after reaching his agreement with the EU, Erdoğan continued to purge Turkey’s judiciary, civil service, media and universities after the failed July 2016 coup. The EU largely stayed away when nearly 40,000 people were imprisoned.

A similar dynamic is already perceptible in Poland. On March 10, the Polish Constitutional Court, a fictitious institution with many Kaczyński supporters, declared key provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights unconstitutional. Poland has thus become the only European country – with the exception of Russia – to disavow the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) of 1950. The next decision of the government will probably consist in organizing early elections to consolidate his hold on power until 2026.

The ordinary citizens of Poland, Turkey and Venezuela will not be the only ones to pay the price for the West’s decision to include unsavory authoritarian regimes in its coalition of countries willing to act. Deals with the devil often have unintended consequences, and autocrats are the wrong people to solve problems. As Kaczyński and his entourage were en route to Ukraine, EU officials in Brussels reportedly fumed that the visit risked being “the spark that would ignite World War III”. These fears were not allayed by Kaczyński’s later remarks about the deployment of NATO troops on the ground in Ukraine.

Yet Western politicians need not curry favor with autocrats to show a united front in the face of a crisis.

Given that support for Ukraine within Poland was already widespread and spontaneous, Kaczyński would never have dared to block aid from the EU or NATO. Any further praise or generosity sent to him amounts to an undeserved political windfall.

In addition, there are almost always other solutions. In 2016, prominent figures like George Soros suggested serious proposals for the creation of a sustainable European refugee system – which would have mitigated the need for a deal with Erdoğan. Likewise, Europeans need not accept the inevitability of a protracted war in Ukraine. Instead, Europe and the United States could do everything in their power to support the government of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in its repeated attempts to find a negotiated solution with Putin.

If we have to make moral compromises with bad actors, we should rather focus on negotiations that can resolve the crisis, rather than agreements that will only create problems in the future.