I invite you to read my reflections on the doctrinal mechanisms of foreign policy.

Every week for the next year I will deliberate on what constitutes the guiding principles in the activities of a diplomat. My observations will be based on my experience of almost forty years of diplomatic career. It coincided with extremely interesting times, full of groundbreaking events not only in the history of Poland, but also of Europe and the world. Polish diplomats had and still have very limited access to the cuisine of great politics. Therefore, these will be reflections made from the position of a diplomat of a medium-sized country with a modest influence on the direction of international politics, a person who was more of an operator than a policy setter. They will be based on political and historical analyses. But wherever possible, they will be spiced with anecdotes from my own diplomatic adventures. And I cannot rule out that these stories will allow you to discover a new perspective on facts known to you, confront them with descriptions and assessments from documents and reports already functioning in public circulation.

States, as organized national and social entities, do not live in isolation from the external environment. Even if they decide that for their well-being, sometimes it would be better to separate themselves from the world. They have to interact with the outside world. And by interacting, they conduct foreign policy. They have to define their policy goals, select methods of achieving them, choose instruments. And most of all, make decisions in the face of problems that arise in relations with the political environment, and react to the actions of others. The states try to give not only short-term but also deeper meaning to their own behaviour. And the role of the diplomats is to carry out political choices. Diplomacy is a craft (and sometimes an art as well) that is subordinated to the pursuit of foreign policy goals. Politicians, in order to facilitate the resolution of dilemmas, not only for policy makers, but also for themselves, dress these choices in strategies, doctrines and concepts. They are arranged in lines of signposts, azimuth coordinates, GPS navigation lines, and sets of algorithms. With their help, diplomats are to follow the politically correct path in their daily activities.

For a policy to be effective, it is not enough that its actors have to be aware of own goals. It is also necessary to correctly read the political goals, understand motives, values and emotional sensitivity of partners, and even more so of the opponents in the pursued actions. One has to know what the others are up to, too.
The most sublime level of systematizing foreign policy is ideology. Ideology includes the description of the desired vision of the world, the system of values and directives of action. An ideology that marked a clear trace on international politics was Marxism-Leninism. It was the official compass of the foreign policy of the People’s Republic of Poland. With the decomposition of the world communist camp, it disappeared from political and international life. Like any ideology, it claimed a scientific status. But, like any other, it was only an emanation of collective emotions. Sinister racist ideologies such as fascism and Nazism, which served to motivate expansion of some countries in the 20th century, collapsed as well with the Second World War. The communist ideology after the war prompted defensive reactions by the democratic camp, the most total incarnation of which was the doctrine of containment.

Religious ideologies, on their part, have deep roots in history. In foreign policy, they commanded the spread of righteous faith and building a community with the states of fellow believers. Religious motivation in foreign policy has practically disappeared today, but not entirely. Religious solidarity still continues to manifest itself in some parts of the world.

Equally rudimentary instincts are behind the reflexes to treat relations with some states in a special way on the basis of ethnic proximity, linguistic and cultural kinship. It is difficult to talk about the existence of ethnic ideologies in international politics today, because these in a degenerate form have alienated themselves sufficiently, but ethno-cultural solidarism still makes itself felt, even if only in the symbolic and ornamental sphere of politics.
Various ideological myths have been invoked in the past to justify the expansive course of foreign policy. One of the most consequential, on which imperial and hegemonist policies were based, was the myth about “mission civilisatrice”, which in the Western version was embedded in the image of the “White Man’s Burden”. There were many attempts to use geopolitical ideology in politics, starting with Bismarck’s “Drang nach Osten”. The longing to escape from geopolitical determinism resulted often in neutrality, disengagement, and various forms of isolationism.
At the beginning of the twentieth century, the factor of values, wrapped in various theories and political and social concepts, began to appear in foreign policy. Liberalism made itself felt most strongly with its postulates of just peace, amicable dispute resolution, the primacy of international law, and the principle of self-determination of nations. The use of foreign policy to promote human rights and democracy grew out also of this liberal current. The Promethean trend in politics was also symbolized by international development aid. And at the beginning of our millennium, the philosophy of “one world” began to take root to justify the subordination of foreign policy to the goals of preventing adverse climate changes, taking care of global commons, and collectively address general civilization challenges.

I began mu diplomatic career at the end of the Polish People’s Republic. The first days of my stay at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in January 1986 were filled with work on program documents: the goals of the government’s foreign policy for the coming year, the assessment of policy results in the past year and the minister’s exposé. My role was purely technical: I was responsible for proof reading. It was still the era of typewriting machines, the spell-checker function was unknown to them. All errors and typos had to be spotted by the human eye. It turned out that I had quite a sharp eye for that. And I proved vigilant and critical enough to feel encouraged to report modest but already substantive observations. This must have attracted the attention of the management of the Department of Studies and Programming, because I was quickly thrown into deeper professional waters and charged with relatively important tasks.

Listening to the conversations and discussions of mu immediate bosses and older colleagues who edited these programmatic documents at that time (and there were many worth to listen to: Sławomir Dąbrowa, Andrzej Towpik, Jerzy Sułek, Ryszard Krystosik, Tadeusz Biegański, not forgetting about my office neighbours from Room 255 at Szucha Avenue, still called at that time Aleja I Armii Wojska Polskiego: Zbigniew Matuszewski and Krzysztof Opalski), I could say that their thinking was pragmatic, common-sense, technocratic, state-oriented, free from ideological doctrine prevailing in official propaganda. Elements referring to communist ideological and political axioms were added only at the end of the entire editorial process. And for the primary purpose to make the documents credible in the eyes of the top management of the ministry and the state. Then, to silence the conscience, my colleagues used to recall the adage of one of the long-time foreign ministers of the Polish People’s Republic, who, after reading the materials prepared by the Department, pleasantly asked: “You know, everything is beautiful, nice, smart, just, but, you know, pour some ideological sauce in it, you understand.” So the ideological sauce was added, but the closer to the end of the People’s Republic of Poland, the less was of it.
And since then I have repeatedly convinced myself that diplomats feel bad in doctrinal straightjackets. Because the essence of their mission is to build bridges, find compromises, settle disputes and solve specific problems. And every doctrine limits the imagination, and in its ideological form, when it refers to imponderables and axiomatic values, it makes communication difficult. But it would be unfair to impute professional cynicism to diplomats. They also have a moral compass that excludes compromise with anyone and at any cost. And the doctrinal framework of politics gives them sometimes a sense of security. Moreover, the lack of clear guidelines from the politicians in power as to the course of foreign policy, creates chaos and inconsistency, hinders and sometimes even paralyzes the work of a diplomat. It has happened also in the Polish foreign policy in recent years. And diplomats were made scapegoats of the incompetence of politicians.

Many politicians, including those in the highest positions, want to be considered as pragmatic. They don’t want to be seen as prisoners of their own views. Sometimes they even detest doctrines. “Leave me alone with doctrines. I hate that word. It’s a terrible thing. I’ve been fighting doctrines all my life. Everywhere, also in the army. This is our curse. I don’t want to hear it. Doctrine! Doctrine! It is death to the mind, it is deadness, it is a break with reality! ” – Marshal Piłsudski used to say.

In foreign policy, however, there must be thought and consistency. Whether the politician himself or the observers of his actions put this thought into a doctrinal framework or not is of secondary importance. Because primary thought and messages in politics are demanded not only by its executors, but most of all by the public opinion and the citizen. Even if it is a simple, banal, instinctive thought.
International politics remains tribal politics. And hence such a primal thought in politics is utilitarianism, both praxeological and moral, in every latitude. In foreign policy, the most important thing is to care for the raison d’état, protect the interests of the state, build one’s own power and balance the power of others, maximize gains and minimize losses. And from this rudimentary thread we will begin our considerations.