Day: October 20, 2023

There is no question that Sunday’s surprising vote in Poland is going to be the most consequential election in Europe this year. It is a game changer for Poland’s democracy and a tipping point geopolitically for the European Union, the Ukraine war and for Russia. 

The ouster of the PiS, as the governing party is known, after an 8-year run in office means an end to Poland’s embrace of social Catholic conservatism, nationalism bleeding into jingoism and state patronage. The angst over the perceived existential threat to Poland’s post-cold war democratic fabric is dissipating. 

Poland may seem in some ways similar to India and Turkey, where too,  politics is loud and breaks through rather easily but loses appeal if the people feel inspired to make serious, rational choices. But where Poland is different lies in that albeit run by populists on the political right at high decibel levels, it is still hardly an autocracy. True, PiS used state media and coffers to swing voters and exploited the usual advantages of incumbency, but democracy worked, nonetheless. 

Rising inflation, slowdown in growth and corruption scandals — and backlash from a bizarre government move to impose draconian restrictions on abortion which alienated younger and female voters — made a combustible mix and worked against the PiS. The alliance of three opposition parties walked away with 54 percent of the vote (as against 35% secured by PiS.) 

The clincher possibly was the return of the talented politician leading the opposition alliance, Donald Tusk, a former prime minister who took time out from active politics for a top job in Brussels at the European Union in 2015 as the president of the European Council, and has returned to Warsaw to reclaim his mantle of leadership —  a good communicator who connects with his voters, and knows how to navigate the media of modern politics. 

The PiS leader Jaroslaw Kaczynski’s eight turbulent years in power saw huge changes to the country’s rule of law, media freedom, migration policies and LGBTQ+ rights. Opposition parties have vowed to undo these reforms, which they see as a threat to democracy. 

However, it is not just in Poland that the impact of the change of government will be felt. The change has significant consequences for Europe as a whole. For a start, the anti-European rhetoric from Warsaw will stop — and along with that, the non-stop tirade against Germany, which in itself will shift the dynamic within wider EU decision-making, increasing the weight of the more liberal bloc within the EU.

This will translate as a willingness to have serious discussions about a European-wide policy on migration, and a more humane approach, without the demonisation of migrants. Again, Poland will remain a strong and consistent supporter of Ukraine.

Then, there is going to be a ricochet effect on other European countries as Poland moves away from right-wing populism, and the undermining of democratic institutions and the rule of law. Poland’s return towards EU values under a Tusk government could have a positive ripple effect on Eastern European nations, as Poland has served as an inspiration for many countries in the region. 

Clearly, the present dispensation in Hungary and the UK will lose a friend. The UK sought to use Poland as a counter-weight against European institutions when it was still a member of the EU, but on the other hand, an incoming Labour government, if it seeks to rebuild a closer relationship with the EU, would have a friend in Tusk. 

Quite possibly, when it comes to European security, the broken axis of Paris-Berlin-Warsaw will be mended with Tusk’s rise to prime minister, as he is sure to rebuild ties with Germany. French President Emmanuel Macron and Tusk also have a decent relationship. Thus, the troika that is the best hope for Europe to get serious about security will be up and about. This is going to be important if American support for NATO and Ukraine sags and Europe is called upon to step up. 

Suffice to say, the turn in Polish politics could help insulate European security and NATO from the two tumultuous currents currently blowing — changing winds in American politics and a major conflict brewing in West Asia. To be sure, Russia cannot be pleased about it, especially if Tusk finds a common language with Germany’s Olaf Scholz.

Tusk used to be known as a “Russia hawk” during his years in Brussels who tried to convince his friend in Berlin, then chancellor Angela Merkel to harden up on Moscow following its annexation of Crimea in 2014. Put differently, Kiev has had no closer ally in the world than Warsaw, where Poles see the conflict with Russia in existential terms almost as starkly as the Ukrainians do. 

However, the bottom line still remains: a caveat must be added that an orderly transfer of power is allowed to take place in Warsaw. This is not a given because PiS has repeatedly broken the Polish constitution before. Political tribalism comes naturally to PiS, and there is bound to be bitterness that it did win the most seats but may still lose power, solely due to its inability to cobble together a majority government. 

By the way, the  president of the country also happens to be a PiS nominee. Polish society is now deeply divided and polarisation has reached the point where the two political camps are entrenched, and no dialogue is possible. In fact, a senior aide to the incumbent president Andrzej Duda has hinted that by tradition, PiS will be given the first opportunity to form a new government, being the party that obtained the largest share of the vote. 

This article was published by Indian Punchline

The European Union expects a comprehensive amnesty for all Karabakh Armenians, according to a statement adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on Wednesday, October 18.

Azerbaijan has a clear primary responsibility for the fate of the population. Tangible, concrete and transparent guarantees must be provided. As an important confidence-building measure, we expect a comprehensive amnesty for all Karabakh Armenians, including their representatives, and restraint by all sides from harsh rhetoric.

The statement reads:

1.The European Union continues to follow with concern the extremely difficult situation arising from the mass exodus of Karabakh Armenians following Azerbaijan’s military operation on 19 and 20 September and the nine months-long blockade on the Lachin corridor. Nearly the entire population of Nagorno-Karabakh, over 100,600 persons, have found refuge in Armenia.

2.It is imperative to ensure continuous unimpeded humanitarian support to those who are still in need in Karabakh, as well as to those who have left. The European Commission last week announced an additional package of humanitarian aid of EUR 10.45 million on top of the EUR 20.8 million already provided since 2020.

3.Azerbaijan has to ensure the human rights, fundamental freedoms and security of the Karabakh Armenians, including their right to live in their homes in dignity, without intimidation or discrimination, as well as to create the conditions for the voluntary, safe, dignified and sustainable return of refugees and displaced persons to Nagorno-Karabakh with due respect for their history, culture and human rights. In addition, the cultural heritage and property rights of the local population need to be effectively protected and guaranteed.

4.In this regard, we remind that Azerbaijan must comply with the interim measures indicated by the European Court of Human Rights on 22 September, i.e. to refrain from taking any measures which might entail breaches of their obligations under the Convention, notably Article 2 (right to life) and Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment).

5.We took note of President Aliyev’s public remarks about willingness to live in peace with Karabakh Armenians and preserve their rights. Azerbaijan has a clear primary responsibility for the fate of the population. Tangible, concrete and transparent guarantees must be provided. As an important confidence-building measure, we expect a comprehensive amnesty for all Karabakh Armenians, including their representatives, and restraint by all sides from harsh rhetoric.

6.International access to Karabakh is crucial when it comes to providing much needed assistance and ensuring an independent monitoring of the situation on the ground. The European Union has taken note of the two recent UN visits. We praise the work of the Special Representative of the Secretary General on Migration and Refugees, who provides support and assistance to the Armenian authorities in handling this massive exodus on its territory, and look forward to the Council of Europe fact-finding mission led by Commissioner for Human Rights Dunja Mijatović and its subsequent recommendations.

7.The EU reiterates its support to the sovereignty, inviolability of borders and territorial integrity of both Azerbaijan and Armenia. We call on Azerbaijan to reaffirm its unequivocal commitment to the territorial integrity of Armenia, in line with the 1991 Almaty Declaration.

8.The EU remains committed to facilitating dialogue between both sides in order to ensure a comprehensive and sustainable peace for the benefit of all populations in the region.

By Jon Miltimore

Few directors in Hollywood have more power than Martin Scorsese, the Oscar-winning director of box office hits “Goodfellas,” “Casino,” “The Departed,” and “The Wolf of Wall Street.”

But even the legendary filmmaker lacked the clout to save the fate of his movie “Kundun” (1997) when the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) came knocking on Disney’s door.

The film is probably one most readers have never heard of, even though it was nominated for four Academy Awards and included the legendary Mr. Scorsese. A historical drama written by Melissa Mathison, “Kundun” explores the life of the young Dalai Lama, who in 1950 saw his homeland of Tibet invaded by the CCP.

Ms. Mathison conceived the project after meeting the Dalai Lama in 1990, and though she had concerns that Hollywood would not be interested in such a film, she landed a break when she convinced Mr. Scorsese to direct the film.

“I’m not saying he wants to do it, but I know he’s going to get it,” Ms. Mathison recalled thinking. “I knew he’d understand the society, the moral code, the journey, and the spirituality of it,” she said in the documentary “In Search of Kundun with Martin Scorsese.”

Disney eventually agreed to distribute the film, which was given a $28 million budget. But China had other ideas.

Tibet, along with Taiwan and Tiananmen, is among the forbidden Three Ts—the issues considered most contentious by the CCP. So with China becoming an emerging global power in the 1990s, the CCP decided to flex its muscle and attempted to nix the project.

Two days into the production of “Kundun” in 1996, a representative from the Chinese Embassy approached Disney’s chief strategic officer, Lawrence Murphy.

“You started shooting a film in Morocco about the Dalai Lama, called ‘Kundun,’” said the diplomat, who went on to explain that Beijing had concerns with the film’s subject matter.

‘Play by China’s Rules’ … or Else

At the time, Mr. Murphy hadn’t even heard of the film. But it would soon become clear that the CCP wanted the shooting of “Kundun” shut down. Why Beijing would want the movie censored is obvious. “Kundun” describes atrocities China’s communist regime committed in the 1950s following its invasion of the Himalayan country.

“The Chinese have bombed the monastery of Lithang. It has been destroyed,” an adviser tells the Dalai Lama at one point in the movie. “Nuns and monks are made to fornicate in the streets. They put guns in the hands of Khumba children, and force the child to kill the parents.”

While the description is horrifying, even more moving is the scene in which an elderly Tibetan woman tearfully and frantically insists she is “happy and prosperous under the Chinese Communist Party.”

This is not exactly flattering stuff for the CCP, any more than “Schindler’s List” is for the Nazis. Yet history is not always pretty.

In any event, the CCP’s decision to lean on the film left Disney CEO Michael Eisner in a pickle.

If Mr. Eisner shut down the film, he’d anger Mr. Scorsese and look weak for caving to the CCP. If he proceeded with production, he risked losing Disney’s commercial and manufacturing foothold in China, as well as the 1.4 billion potential consumers.

So Mr. Eisner opted for a third way. He allowed the shooting of “Kundun” to proceed, but he limited the film’s distribution and marketing. “Kundun” was released on Christmas Day in 1997—in two theaters nationwide.

In other words, in the contest over truth and creative freedom versus government censorship, Disney blinked, and film producer Matt Tabor describes what Disney’s decision meant going forward.

“If foreign companies wanted access to [China’s] market, they were going to play by China’s rules,” Mr. Tabor noted in a recent production by the Foundation for Economic of Education on the showdown. “’Kundun’ marked the first opportunity for China to flex that muscle in the movie business.”

It was a watershed moment. And if there was any doubt that Disney caved to China, which officially considered the film “an interference in China’s internal affairs,” one need only read the groveling message Disney sent to China after the dust had settled a year later.

The Apology: ‘We Made a Stupid Mistake’

Despite “sending ‘Kundun’ quietly to the gulag,” Disney found itself kicked out of China’s burgeoning markets, along with other U.S. film studios.

“These films are full of inaccuracies,” a Chinese official told The Washington Post. “That’s why they are not popular within China.”

So in 1998, Mr. Eisner got on a plane and flew to meet the premier of China. In his book “Red Carpet: Hollywood, China, and the Global Battle for Cultural Supremacy,” Erich Schwartzel recounts what Mr. Eisner told Chinese officials.

“We made a stupid mistake in releasing Kundun. This film was a form of insult to our friends. The bad news is that the film was made; the good news is that nobody watched it. Here I want to apologize, and in the future, we should prevent this sort of thing, which insults our friends, from happening. In short, we’re a family entertainment company, a company that uses silly ways to amuse people.”

Mr. Eisner’s complete capitulation would have a profound impact on the global entertainment landscape for years to come. It explains why “Kundun” can’t be streamed on Amazon or Netflix even today. It explains why NBA executives go apoplectic when a single GM tweets his support of protesters in Hong Kong.

One can appreciate the tough situation Mr. Eisner was in without agreeing with his decision to banish “Kundun” to Siberia. Companies have commercial interests, and balancing those against doing the right thing or supporting creative expression is not always easy. Indeed, this balancing act existed before Disney banished “Kundun,” evidenced by one executive’s stated reason for passing on the film.

“I don’t need to have my spirits and wine business thrown out of China,” Edgar Bronfman Jr.—the CEO of Seagram, which briefly owned Universal Pictures—replied when pitched on “Kundun.”

Yet the message of Disney’s showdown with China isn’t really about the ethics of dealing with a powerful communist regime. The real lesson is that we should prevent governments from amassing such dictatorial power in the first place, and remind ourselves that governments are hardly arbiters of truth. Indeed, if the last few years have taught us anything, it’s that government officials have no business deciding what is true and what is false—even though it’s a power they clearly desire.

The reality is those who wish to censor speech are usually far more interested in power than truth—the CCP’s attempt to censor “Kundun” reinforces that idea—and reminds us that sometimes the best way to exercise freedom is to watch a movie they don’t want you to see.

Matt Tabor contributed to this article.

About the author: Jonathan Miltimore is the Editor at Large of FEE.org at the Foundation for Economic Education.

Source: This article was published by FEE. This article originally appeared in The Epoch Times.