August 2005

Solidarity Twenty-Five Years On: Lessons in the Struggle for Freedom

Twenty-five years ago, on August 31, 1980, as waves of strikes spread outward from the Lenin shipyard, Polish communist authorities signed an agreement with the underground opposition movement, giving workers the right to be represented by a democratically elected trade union. Drawing inspiration from Christianity and democratic socialism, Solidarity’s bloodless insurrection and subsequent triumph attracted support from across the political spectrum, both within Poland and throughout the West, contributing to the collapse of communism. How can Solidarity’s experience be applied to nascent democratic movements around the world today? How have yesterday's freedom fighters fared as democratic leaders? What mistakes did they make and how could they have been avoided? AEI’s New Atlantic Initiative, Freedom House, the International Republican Institute, the Lech Walesa Institute, the National Democratic Institute, the National Endowment for Democracy, and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty hosted a conference on August 30, 2005, in Gdansk, Poland, to honor the accomplishments of the Solidarity movement and to draw lessons for democratic movements in today’s outposts of tyranny.

Lech Walesa
Founder of Solidarity and Former President of Poland

The people of Poland stand for freedom. The oppressive communist system, which in Poland lasted until the early 1990s, fit Poles “like a horse saddle fits a pig.” The idea behind the Solidarity movement was to unite the Polish people, creating the underpinnings of a true democratic movement. The movement, however, faced a period of helplessness until a Pole was elected Pope, which brought the cause of Solidarity to the world stage. The world watched as this communist country experienced strikes and demonstrations, and asked itself what was happening behind the iron curtain. It is through discussions such as we are holding today, with our counterparts in countries that are facing what Solidarity faced under the oppression of communism, that true progress can be made.

Presentation: What Solidarity Has Taught the World

Peter Ackerman
Freedom House

A political movement that turns to violence will inevitably lose public support. At the same time, nonviolent dissidents must be prepared for a long and difficult struggle that may last for years. Opposition groups must have a portfolio of action, not just street movements, if they are to be effective in the long run. People power is a proven methodology, as the Solidarity movement so clearly exhibits, but in order for people power to have lasting power, it must operate from the bottom up, and it must commit to nonviolence.

Panel I: Serbia and Ukraine—The Ingredients of Success

Radek Sikorski, New Atlantic Initiative
Adrian Karatnycky, Freedom House
Sonja Licht, Belgrade Fund for Political Excellence
Marko Djurisic, Serbian parliament and Democratic Party of Serbia
Vladyslav Kaskiv, Pora Civic Campaign, Ukraine

There are certain primary ingredients to the success of people power. Alternative means of communication such as radio, publications, and the Internet can shed light on the abuses of the state and bring it to the attention of those abroad. At home, growing discontent should be cultivated, and a core group of dissidents should intentionally encourage the spread of the movement into the streets of smaller towns, as well as larger cities. Campaigns, too, play a vital role in the struggle for freedom. The Serbian case, for example, is unique, and its revolution was impossible to predict. The more repressed people became, the more certain became success. Strong collective nationalist sentiments, a civil society stronger than the state, and grassroots civil society all played a vital role. The key to success, however, was broad coalitions and political will. There may always be minor disagreements in the broad coalition, but coalitions must be built on the underlying agreement that the current regime must change. Indeed, building a broad coalition and political will are key ingredients when fighting for freedom. The example of Ukraine’s struggle in the Orange Revolution, inspired in large part by Solidarity, was somewhat different from the Serbian revolution. This new generation of Ukrainians dreamed of freedom that was stolen from them. They vowed not to commit the mistakes of their past and to protect democratic victory in the Ukraine, and they were successful.

Presentation: U.S. Role in Supporting Democratic Change

Dan Fried
Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, U.S. Department of State

At a time of deepened détente, when international relations were supposedly conducted on a state-to-state basis, communism collapsed because of “the soft stuff,” namely its suppression of democracy and human rights at home. The United States and other democracies can make a difference in a nation’s struggle for freedom, but if the Orange or Rose Revolutions had been orchestrated by the United States, or any other democratic country, they would not have been as successful. Indeed, the efforts of democratic outsiders are of a second nature. Outsiders can bear witness to change, but unlike dictatorship, democracy is not imposed. Democratic outsiders must be modest, helping when a country is ready. Poland was ready for Solidarity. Retrospectively, we say the success of Solidarity was inevitable. However, it must be recalled that at the time, most doubted its success. A country is ready for democracy when its people decide they are ready and willing to work on long-term changes and not simply short-term reform. The United States as a government has decided to put itself behind movements for freedom. The United States will support these movements, while remaining realistic about the different roads various countries will take. In the end, the role of the United States and of the international community is one of solidarity.

Panel II: Russia and Belarus—How to Change Course

Zsolt Németh, Foreign Affairs Committee of the Hungarian Parliament
Vincuk Viachorka, Belarusian Popular Front
Anatol Lyabedzka, United Civic Party, Belarus
Pavel Isaev, Center for Social Partnership, Yaroslavl, Russia
Maria Gaidar, Da! youth movement, Russia

To address the questions of Russia and Belarus, we must focus on whether Central Europe is ready to play a role in achieving liberty in the region and whether there are still remnants of the Soviet Union in “our neighborhood.” The case of Belarus is especially disturbing. As Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said, Belarus is the last “outpost of tyranny” in Europe.  Not all lessons of Solidarity were studied carefully in Belarus. Since 1994, walls have surrounded the country. We cannot allow Alexander Lukashenko to isolate its citizens, and we cannot allow for economic isolation. Belarusians are ready for change even in remote towns and villages, and they need the West to be aware of this. Russia, on the other hand, is not the dictatorship it once was. However, the Russian people face a serious marginalization problem. Because of Russia’s intractable internal problems, they do not believe in the positive changes that democracy can bring. We need to avoid revolution in Russia and focus instead on building institutions for both national movements and democracy.

Panel III: North Korea, China and Vietnam—The Gulag Continues

Adrian Karatnycky, Freedom House
David Hawk, author, The Hidden Gulag: Exposing North Korea’s Prison Camps
Kang Cheol-Hwan, North Korean defector; author, Aquariums of Pyongyang: Ten Years in the North Korean Gulag
Harry Wu, Laogai Research Foundation
Tran Dieu Chan, human rights activist, Vietnam

The North Korean human rights struggle needs the European Union’s support. There are more than 200,000 North Koreans incarcerated in six labor camps/political prisons throughout North Korea. Prisoners receive no judicial process, and families of up to three generations are separated and sent to different camps. North Korea itself is a giant concentration camp. Without warning, appeal or reason, any North Korean can be sent to a labor camp for such “crimes” as reading a foreign newspaper, complaining about the humanitarian situation, or refusing an arbitrary request from a government official. The current regime is dependent on economic humanitarian aid. The international community has been too generous with Kim Jong Il’s government for far too long: it is time that foreign aid is linked to the respect of human rights. As it stands today, it is virtually impossible for North Koreans to imagine organizing a movement like that of Solidarity.

China today is standing at an historical crossroads. However China remains entirely under the control of communists and is still ruled by a totalitarian regime. There is a new political belief that engaging with the tyrants of Communist China through money, trade, and technology transfer is the best way to promote democracy and improve human rights in China. The money and technology going to China, however, serves as a blood transfusion to a dying communist evil. Today, only a few people continue to discuss the Chinese laogai. The term “laogai” means “political violence” and refers to the forced labor camp system under China’s communist regime. Clearly, the laogai is incompatible with freedom.

Like North Korea and China, Vietnam is a country of concern for those who believe in the respect of human rights and the promotion of democracy. The Vietnamese government is covering up systematic persecution and religious oppression before the international community. An increase in the flow of information abroad, however, has helped form a broad coalition of support for democracy within Vietnam. The Vietnamese opposition party, which until recently operated underground, stepped forward in September of 2004 and began to operate openly. As has been mentioned previously, it is imperative that change happen through people power and that it take place using nonviolent means. The triumph of democracy in Poland and elsewhere gives Vietnam valuable lessons and hope.

Panel IV: Burma—Orwell Lives

Radek Sikorski, New Atlantic Initiative
Maung Maung, Federation of Trade Unions of Burma and  National Council of the Union of Burma

This presentation focused on the continued struggle for democracy in Burma. Remarks will be posted soon.

Keynote Speech

Lorne Craner, International Republican Institute
Boris Tarasyuk, foreign minister of Ukraine

The Solidarity movement strongly undermined the Soviet totalitarian system, inspiring a wave of democratic transformation and leading to fundamental changes in the geopolitical chessboard. In 2004, this wave finally reached Ukraine to its full extent, culminating in the Orange Revolution. The revolution started a process of real unification in our country based on the European values of democracy. Therefore the year 2004 is no less symbolic for Ukrainians than the year 1989 for Poles or the year 1990 for Germans. Today a new Ukraine believes in the supremacy of the citizen over the state, the rule of law, and freedom of media. She looks to the entire world as a free and proud country. Furthermore, Ukraine actively seeks to promote freedom and democracy regionally, not only by setting an example as a democratic and prosperous nation, but also through cooperation with those countries that share our values of democracy and freedom. In this way we hope to come much closer to the ideal of a global community of democracies.

Panel V: Democratic Change in the Middle East

Michael Rubin, American Enterprise Institute
Akbar Atri, Tahkim Vahdat, Iran
Hafez Al-Bukhari, Yemeni Center for Polling & Communications Research and Yemeni Journalists Institute
Heba El-Shazli, Solidarity Center

Freedom and liberty are universal. Too many pundits and academics—many of whom call themselves pro-Arab—refuse to hold Arab regimes accountable based on standards applicable to Western governments. It is, however, not anti-Arab or anti-Iranian to insist that laborers have the right to organize and that ordinary citizens are able to exercise their rights non-violently. European and American leaders, as well as think-tank scholars and lobbyists, too often support autocratic regimes or strike deals with dictators rather than supporting democratic reforms: this must change if we are serious about implementing democratic change in the Middle East. The events that took place in Gdansk twenty-five years ago are fundamental to the development of democracy in the Middle East. Indeed, from Morocco to Iran, ordinary workers are seeking to rally for basic rights of association and freedom to organize, proving that the lessons of Solidarity have been learnt and that its heritage has not be squandered.

Panel VI: Promoting Reform in Cuba

Joshua Muravchik, AEI
Blanca Reyes, Cuban dissident living in Spain
Susana Alvarez, Consejo Unitario de Trabajadores de Cuba
Omar Lopez Montenegro, Foundation for Human Rights, Cuba
Zbigniew Romaszewski, Senate of Poland

The Solidarity movement was the first sign that it was possible to openly and successfully dissent against communism. While Poland can today celebrate its new liberty, the people of Cuba are still unable to celebrate their own liberation. Their struggle is for the future of a democratic Cuba. They want to establish a pluralistic society, with freedom of expression and respect for religious beliefs. Cubans still live under a totalitarian regime, as the case of Pedro Pablo Alvarez clearly shows. A representative of the independent labor union of Cuba, he was arrested in 2003 and sentenced to a jail sentence in complete isolation for twenty years. His daughter, Susana Alvarez, was threatened by the government that if she spoke at this conference, his prison term would be lengthened, and he would be given the maximum penalty for opposing the government. Despite these threats, Susana bravely spoke and told her father’s story. Consequently, conference speakers and delegates published a joint statement in support of Pedro Pablo Alvarez.

Panel VII: Preparing for Government

Radek Sikorski, New Atlantic Initiative
Zdzislaw Krasnodebski, Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski University
Jacek Rostowski, Central European University, Budapest
Bronislaw Misztal, Catholic University of America
Carl Gershman, National Endowment for Democracy

The situation today with respect to democratic transitions in the remaining autocratic or semi-authoritarian countries of the post-communist world is very different than it was in 1989. The autocrats have learned how to contain and preempt democracy movements, and the Orange and other “colored” revolutions have precipitated a backlash that will make democratic work and international democracy assistance much more difficult in the period ahead. In Belarus, Russia, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan, regimes are closing NGOs, establishing associations of co-opted, officially sponsored NGOs, blocking or criminalizing the receipt of foreign funding of NGOs, controlling the media, harassing or expelling international democracy assistance organizations, and even establishing their own funds or agencies to spread their autocratic political influence regionally and internationally. In response, it is necessary to stay engaged in support of democratic movements, looking for ways around the new blockages in much the same manner that Chinese Internet activists seek ways to break through the “great wall” of obstruction constructed by the Chinese government. The Internet itself, especially email, is a valuable tool for spreading democratic ideas and building networks that were not available in the time of Solidarity. Regional initiatives like the Bojormi Declaration of Presidents Yushchenko and Saakashvili are also important and build upon the “cross-border” work of Polish NGOs to spread democracy in autocratic countries farther to the east. Finally, we must keep our ears close to the ground and listen to what local activists are saying about how to address the specific challenges they face. The efforts by Russian activists to resist efforts to use nationalism against democracy, or by Venezuelan democrats to reach the poor by offering an alternative to the populist demagogy of the government, or by the Egyptian “kifaya” movement to respond to the fear tactics of the regime by offering a credible path from the Islamism of the Muslim Brotherhood to genuine Muslim democracy are not just necessary ways for activists to advance democracy in difficult situations. These struggles are also part of a learning process which ultimately will prepare dissident activists for government when the moment comes for a democratic breakthrough. And it will come.

Panel VIII: Building Lasting Majorities

John O’Sullivan, National Review
Christopher DeMuth, AEI
Jan Krzysztof Bielecki, Bank Pekao SA and former prime minister of Poland
Pavol Demes, German Marshall Fund of the United States, Bratislava office
Scott Carpenter, deputy assistant secretary of state for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor
Mart Laar, former prime minister, Estonia

Having achieved democracy, a country must be able to sustain it. One of the major problems that democratic societies face is the passivity of the majority. Even though initially active, the majority will become more passive over the course of time. Furthermore, its influence will be replaced by active minorities with special interests, often at the expense of the majority. Revolutionaries in new democratic states can anticipate this passive majority problem by observing a three-step consideration. First, not every question within the democratic process should be settled or frozen in place. Second, there is a continuous need for robust criticism outside of the government as it represents the broader interests of the silent majority. Third, government power should be dispersed and decentralized through federal systems. The dispersion of power is the most durable protection against the capture of the government by special interests and the strongest discipline forcing governments to devote themselves to the interests of broad majorities. Slovakia was a successful example of enforcement of these basic rules. The country went from being the “black hole” of Europe as described by Madeline Albright to a “tiger in the Tatras.”  It is important to remark that sustaining democracy depends on transatlantic support and on the European Union’s willingness to speak more unambiguously about freedom.

Strategic Assessment

Zbigniew Brzezinski
Former U.S. National Security Advisor

Solidarity was one of the world’s greatest revolutions because it achieved its success peacefully. Solidarity was a cultural revolution as well as a political revolution, and its works are still in the making in today’s Poland. Unleashing political aspirations, however, can devour the initiators of a revolution. To achieve long-lasting success it is important to pursue political modernity and civil modernity beyond the scope of immediate political change.