Used by Tusk
Janina Ochojska has voiced strong dissatisfaction with Donald Tusk’s government’s approach to migration policy, and she also criticizes how she was treated by the coalition leader. In an interview with Gazeta Wyborcza, she reiterated her concerns about externalising migration and the EU’s use of funds to encourage neighboring countries to detain migrants. The founder of Polish Humanitarian Action stresses that these policy choices were not just abstract debates but had real consequences for people on Europe’s borders.
Ochojska suggested that her potential bid in European Parliament elections was undermined by the government’s stance on the Polish-Belarusian border and her critiques of migration policy. Despite this, she remains supportive of Donald Tusk and notes her presence at several marches led by his political circle.
She also spoke about her dissatisfaction with the way KO leadership handled her resignation as a candidate. She indicated that neither Donald Tusk nor other close associates contacted her to explain the circumstances and reasons behind her removal from active politics. Still, she saw some positives in the situation: greater freedom of expression and less obligation to follow the party line.
According to Ochojska, the core disagreement with KO leadership on migration stems from a perception that Tusk, during his time as President of the European Council, treated migration issues without revealing his true intentions. She argues that his cautious public statements made it hard to discern what he really thought about these matters.
Ochojska remarked that she felt somewhat misled by Tusk on this issue, noting that when he spoke about the rule of law, it seemed to imply similar standards applied at the border. She believes many activists shared that interpretation at the time.
Support from the area
She added that she and her colleagues genuinely believed that the government would drop the pushback policy in one of the first decisions after the October elections. Ochojska acknowledged active discussions among Polish border and migration activists, who largely decided to give Tusk a chance. She confirmed that she supported his public messaging intended to sway voters, even if she personally disagreed with some of its implications.
“We believed he said what he said to win the election. … To this day I am ashamed that I, like many people, allowed myself to be part of that,” she said, reflecting on the past political dynamics.
Ochojska also disputed claims that KO MEP Andrzej Halicki pressed her to exercise restraint during the campaign by avoiding remarks about the Polish-Belarusian border. She did reveal, however, that Halicki had urged KO members to oppose the migration pact because of Tusk’s position on it. Ochojska voted against the pact, not out of obedience to Tusk but from a deep personal conviction.
She reiterated her critical view of externalising migration and pointed to reports from Libya about how funds overseen by the European Commission’s leadership are used, suggesting that some resources are directed toward more punitive outcomes at the border.
Spilling the Cup of Bitterness
At the start of Tusk’s term, Ochojska refrained from commenting on migration and border issues. The catalyst for a change in stance was the death of two people near a forest area, which she says made silence untenable. Her circle, she notes, initially kept quiet to help Tusk rise to power, but later events revealed political maneuvering, including ministers leaving their posts to work in Brussels under the new government’s approval.
She argued that there was little room for a formal migration policy, and she criticized the direction in which both the Tusk and Kosiniak-Kamysz administrations were taking the issue. From her perspective as a scientist, she sees little difference in how the two governments approached migrants and the Polish-Belarusian border, calling the situation a stark example of how public figures can be influenced by political operators. Ochojska questions the consistency of leadership while remaining critical of both the actions and the handling of migration policy in Poland.
In her view, the broader political machinery can shape opinions, and she challenges the idea that public figures can uphold principled positions while still aligning with the party’s aims. Her stance invites readers to consider the tension between personal convictions and party strategies when it comes to one of the most sensitive issues in modern politics.
Note: This account reflects Janina Ochojska’s statements and perspectives shared during interviews and public appearances, highlighting the tension between individual positions and party lines on migration policies and border management.