The second principle, apart from reconciliation, which I proposed in to add to the CSCE Helsinki Decalogue thirty years ago, is solidarity. And a few months after the CSCE summit in 1992, I managed to include this principle in the Polish draft of the Code of Conduct in the field of security. Its application there was narrower than my original intentions, because it concerned joint action in the event of a violation of CSCE norms and principles, but it was there. And it was accepted in the final version of the Code at the CSCE summit in Budapest in 1994.

Then I was very happy to hear that solidarity was included in the Lisbon Treaties of the European Union of 2007, among others in the field of security. But the term solidarity itself appears quite often in the texts constituting the European Union. Article 80 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU talks about solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility. And this article has been mentioned very often recently in the context of the refugee relocation mechanism. To such an extent that one could get the impression that its application was unfortunately limited. Moreover, the relocation mechanism would operate compulsorily, on the “take it or pay” principle. Starting to apply the solidarity clause in such a narrow and coercive manner could only harm the principle of solidarity itself. Because it was originally supposed to have a broad connotation. In principle it includes aid in emergency situations, development support, cooperation in the field of security, and even purely diplomatic solidarity. Too long to mention. It is a pity that the EU institutions, especially the European Parliament, did not ensure a coherent doctrinal interpretation of this principle.

I interpreted also very broadly the original scope of the principle of solidarity when I tried to make it a pan-European norm in the OSCE context. It was supposed to concern collective assistance to countries (societies) “in need” (need that was not their fault), affected by natural disasters (floods, fires, earthquakes), epidemics, cross-border pollution, crop shortages, but also an uncontrolled influx of refugees, all kinds of distress that would have sources beyond human control or not resulting from the conduct of the authorities. And, of course, it was supposed to involve helping victims of aggression, terrorist attacks, blockades and other unfriendly actions by a third party. Everyone should help, including the poorest, but everyone should help according to their means.

Universalizing the principle of solidarity would remove from the public agenda questions about the justification of development aid, responsibility for aid, and hidden intentions to provide aid. In the global dimension, the initiation of the solidarity clause could be appropriately described and the role of the UN Secretary General or the UN General Assembly could be defined. Of course, the initial step should always be a request from the country in need. While working on the Polish initiative of the UN New Political Act in 2002-2004, I was wondering how to include the principle of “Responsibility to Protect” promoted by Canada in the broader framework of the principle of solidarity. Because there is solidarity in the Charter, but only in the context of peace and security.

Of course, my postulates from thirty or twenty years ago are detached from the current reality. This reality is after all so cynically entangled in a web of evil or selfish intentions. My ideas are not for our times yet.

However, at the beginning of this millennium, Poland tried to use the slogan of solidarity as a vehicle for building its good image in the UN. Yet it was about our Polish “Solidarity” and its influence on the fate of Europe and the world. Poland proposed celebrating Solidarity Day on the UN calendar. But the reactions were less than enthusiastic. Because what kind of solidarity was it supposed to be about: solidarity of the working people? (and the International Day of Solidarity of Working People is already on May 1), trade unionists? fighters for freedom and democracy? We retreated and other countries hijacking the initiative linked solidarity with the fight against poverty and led to the announcement of the International Day of Human Solidarity (December 20 each year) by a UNGA resolution. Solidarity has acquired a highly social dimension in the language of the UN. But it should have a much broader application.

Well, never mind that. In any case, the European Solidarity Center in Gdańsk commemorating “Polish August” is operating, which is intended to promote the legacy of “Solidarity” and European identity. No more global ambitions.

In recent years, Poland has been involved at the UN forum in promoting the idea of the International Day Commemorating the Victims of Acts of Violence Based on Religion or Belief, which was established in 2019. It was set for August 22. I supported our involvement because I believed that the Kielce pogrom and other previous acts of violence against dissenters in Poland needed to be commemorated. Just like the current persecution of Christians in Iraq, Syria, Nigeria or Egypt, or attacks on synagogues in France.
And on August 21, 1811, Barbara Zdunk, the last witch in Europe, was burned in Reszel in Warmia. I assume that the International Day we support also commemorates her.

Poland’s contribution to the UN calendar was undoubtedly the establishment of World Bicycle Day in 2018 (June 3). It was a Polish contribution, because the author of the idea was a Pole (although he lives and lectures in the USA), Leszek Sybilski. It is a great pity that he had to rely on the diplomatic initiative of Turkmenistan, and not Poland. And Poland did not even join the group of 56 (sic!) co-authors. I hope that the reason was not that the PiS minister of foreign affairs once declared cyclists as enemies of PiS, along with vegetarians. By the way, World Vegetarian Day is there in the calendar as well, although it is still not sanctioned by the UN.

In the summer of 2022, sensational news circulated in the press that one of the deputy foreign ministers of the PiS government intends to make the Polish practice of establishing rural women’s circles a model for global imitation and a tool for Polish diplomacy in the world. And it was truly a challenge matching the ambitions reflecting the professional state of Polish diplomacy at that time.

Coming back to the serious topic: solidarity in international relations. It is a significant fact that it began to arouse the interest of researchers and analysts very late, some twenty years ago. But this interest is already producing tangible results, including in the context of international law. One can already find a lot of material that would serve as a source of reflection and inspiration for politicians and diplomats. But how to encourage them to read this difficult books? I haven’t noticed any particular Polish contribution so far. Not only intellectually. At least even organizationally. No seminar or conference under the aegis of the European Solidarity Center or PISM. But maybe I was careless in following the news.

I see the concept of solidarity as the fullest expression of the new universalism we all long for. This was the departure point for my “Just for the Record” entries this year, if you remember. To put it slightly sublimely: the global identity that the new universalism should promote cannot be a passive construct. There should be an imperative to act. Solidarism as an active attitude should flow from it.

And of course, I believe that the European Union should make the principle of solidarity (solidarism) one of the flagships of its global involvement. Someone may applaud: exactly! The European Union is, after all, the largest donor in the world. It accounts for over 50 percent of total development assistance. But I am afraid of such trivialization of solidarity. This is not about development aid at all. I believe that development assistance in its current form requires deep reflection. I know aid mechanisms from the inside. There are many degenerate elements in them, not only on the recipients’ side, but also on the donors’ side. However, political correctness, not only in the EU institutions in Brussels, makes fundamental reform impossible. Pity. Trivializing the principle of solidarity to the postulate of helping economically poor countries can be cynically used for further anti-Western, “anti-colonial” crusades and attempts to demand compensation, reparations and requitals even more effectively.

Nevertheless, the West, accused of succumbing to individualism, consumerism and decadence, should show the world that solidarity is proof that empathy has permanently taken the dominant position in the hierarchy of social emotions. I wrote about this extensively in one of my books. I invite those interested to read it again.