Anemia Is a Thing of the Past

On July 14 France celebrates one of its most important holidays, Bastille Day. The fall of the Bastille 216 years ago marked the beginning of the French Revolution. The storming of the prison-fortress symbolized political liberation by revolutionary means, and the word Bastille came to epitomize the vices of the monarchy. It is pointless to draw parallels between the recent Orange Revolution in Ukraine and the French Revolution: the two occurred under completely different circumstances and in completely different times. Moreover, the French themselves have diametrically opposing views of their own history. In the following interview, France’s Ambassador to Ukraine Philippe de SUREMAIN discusses the post-revolutionary steps being taken by the new Ukrainian government, Ukraine’s chances of integrating into the EU and NATO, and the role of the Russian factor in France’s foreign policy.

DIAGNOSIS OF RELATIONS

“How much progress has there been in the political dialogue between France and Ukraine in the wake of the recent visit to France by Poroshenko, Tymoshenko, and Yushchenko? Have there been any fundamental changes in the relationship? Are there any results?”

“The first result, I assure you, is the fact that today everybody knows about Ukraine. Your country’s image in France has fundamentally changed. Moreover, my fellow countrymen feel sincere sympathy for Ukraine. As a result of the Orange Revolution, which the French followed with great enthusiasm on television, today everybody knows that Ukraine is a country very similar to France in size and is therefore an absolutely natural partner. Both sides have shown a willingness to quickly eliminate inadequacies in our bilateral relations. I cannot say that these relations were bad in the past. But they were anemic, so to speak. On this wave of enthusiasm the French foreign minister visited Kyiv the day after the Tymoshenko government was formed. I repeat: efforts were made without delay to catch up on the time wasted on both sides with regard to our cooperation. Thus, since our countries are democratic and there is broad public support, our cooperation is intensifying.”

“Does France have any reservations about the first steps made by the Ukrainian government? For example, American and British experts are becoming increasingly critical of the government’s interference in the economy and the uncertainty surrounding ownership rights and re-privatization processes. How does France feel about this?”

“Naturally, we are closely following the policy pursued by the new government, which has been in power for only several months. We know better than to expect miracles. The fundamental changes to which the government aspires require tremendous efforts. Its goal is colossal. In every way possible we fully support the reforms underway in your country. We support the establishment of Ukraine as a state with rule of law.

“As for the economy, we are following these processes with great interest, albeit with restrained optimism. Our history has also had waves of privatization and nationalization. Our only interest is the existence of clear rules. The Ukrainian context is different, of course. But it makes sense to avoid drastic changes and radical steps that might impair the fundamentals of the economic system for a long time to come. After all, stable rules of the game are the basic concern of businessmen. Both Yulia Tymoshenko and Viktor Yushchenko offered maximum assurances during their meetings with representatives of the French business community, guaranteeing the inviolability of ownership rights. It is vital for the French, much like for the Germans or British, to be certain that the conditions under which they entered the Ukrainian market will not be changed or revised on a daily basis. This applies to such sensitive issues as changes in taxation, VAT returns, and privileges granted as part of free economic zones. I’m certain that the Ukrainian government realizes how complex these problems are. Of course, there were violations that had to be acted upon, but the objective is to avoid adverse side effects of such actions. In my view, it is important that the government is, so to speak, ‘deploying into battle formation,’ and that coordination within the government is showing increasingly clearer contours.”

EVIDENCE OF FRANCE’S INTEREST

“Would you mind naming any specific steps that French businessmen have taken in Ukraine’s direction? Has their level of interest increased with the change of government?”

“Absolutely. For various reasons the psychological factor plays a tremendous role, in particular in the economy. Of course, such major international companies as Areva, Buig, or Arcelor did not wait for this particular year to expand into Ukraine. It just happened that this was the year they sensed true interest in cooperation from the Ukrainian side. For this reason Ms. Tymoshenko’s visit to Paris, which was extremely successful, was preceded by a series of meetings with the management of major international companies. France is the leading foreign investor in Poland and occupies leading positions in Romania, and I see no reason why it can’t increase its investment presence in Ukraine, which is currently rebuilding its market infrastructure without forgetting about its considerable potential that it has always had. Eleven agreements signed during the Paris visit, although general in nature, are evidence of growing interest in cooperation. The current task is to bring these agreements to life in terms of specific projects. Of course, France is not a monopolist in the sphere of Ukraine’s interests. There is a whole range of European partners and American companies that are showing great interest in cooperating with your country. I believe we will be able to judge the quality and pace of this cooperation by specific results.”

“On her return from France, Yulia Tymoshenko said that the French steel giant Arcelor is very interested in privatizing Kryvorizhstal. Do you know anything about this?”

“There is undoubtedly a great deal of interest, especially from Arcelor, which is one of the world’s leading steelmakers. But much like other companies, Arcelor has taken a wait-and-see attitude to observe how the situation will evolve. Now there is talk of a possible new tender to sell Kryvorizhstal shares, and it makes sense to wait for official decisions to be made, because this is not about buying a lottery ticket.”

“For a number of years Ukrainian officials have been discussing joint projects with Gaz de France. The latest news in this sphere is a joint natural gas transit project using the Romanian gas transport system, which is owned by the French company. Would you comment on how realistic this project is?”

“Gaz de France has a number of reasons to be interested in Ukraine, which offers opportunities for diversifying natural gas sources along with business opportunities for French companies that can upgrade Ukraine’s natural gas transport system. These opportunities are being discussed. All of this makes them very long-term in nature. But the company is not acting alone but in close cooperation with its German and Italian partners. I believe that it would be somewhat premature to try to predict specific results now. Everything depends on the clarity of projects that the Ukrainian side will propose.”

“IMPERIAL NOSTALGIA AS A RISK FACTOR”

“Some say that France is not a big supporter of Ukraine’s accession to NATO. Is this true?”

“Presidents Chirac and Yushchenko discussed Ukraine’s integration into NATO during their recent meeting. I’m certain that the efforts Ukraine is making to achieve NATO standards are helping to modernize the country. Ukraine is thus trying to prove its affiliation with the same system of values that unites all the European nations. However, this has to be done in such a way as not to cause suspicion or mistrust on the part of Russia, because security of the European continent is a deeply integrated system. It’s in all our interests that Ukraine have relations based on trust with Russia. Meanwhile, such relations are possible only between absolutely equal partners.”

“Yet the Russian partner was suspicious when Poland and the Baltic nations were joining NATO. Now NATO members, these countries have avoided major problems with Russia. Why should it be any different for Ukraine?”

“First of all, we shouldn’t lose sight of a fact that is often overlooked: Russia is an important NATO partner that maintains close and constant joint cooperation with the alliance. Therefore, NATO and Russia are striving to put an end to any forms of antagonism in their relations and to cooperate in every possible way. Ukraine’s security largely depends on this balance. Meanwhile, to think about security in military terms alone is no longer the best possible approach. Faced with such global threats as terrorism, organized crime, human trafficking, and environmental threats, we must find the courage to view them with a fresh eye and renounce the stereotypes of the past.”

“France is often referred to as the leader of a pro-Russian club in NATO and the EU.”

“To describe France as the leader of a pro-Russian club in the organizations you mention is a rather simplistic portrayal of my country. That Chancellor Schroeder and Mr. Putin have a very trust-based and deep relationship is common knowledge. The same can be said of Tony Blair and Mr. Berlusconi. The attention that France pays to Russia is not exceptional or exclusive in nature. It is founded on the belief that European stability is largely dependent on Russia’s stability. I’m certain that studies conducted in Kyiv, Paris, or Berlin equally bear out the need for consistent and balanced cooperation with Russia. During the events of this past December, the trust-based relations we have with Russia had a largely pacifying effect on Russia, which at the time was very apprehensively following the situation that took a course incomprehensible to Russia.”

“If you consider the conduct of Russian officials, spin doctors, and media outlets, there were instances of gross interference in Ukraine’s domestic affairs, e.g., Vladimir Putin’s two congratulatory messages to Yanukovych. Don’t you think that Ukraine’s NATO membership would ensure calm and stable relations and an equitable dialogue with Russia?”

“I think this is a somewhat simplified view. Before speaking of Ukraine’s NATO membership, one must realize the volume of work that still has to be completed. Moreover, one must bear in mind the fact that Ukraine, which has been transformed from an object into a subject of international politics, has an extensive network of connections and contacts that are substantially reinforcing its positions in the international arena. The opinions of individual Russian politicians — I stress the word ‘individual’ because there are many who have opposing views — should in no way dictate to us how to interpret the situation. The reality is that Russo-Ukrainian relations will always be quite intense and multifaceted, but also complex. We can see for ourselves how complex these relations are. A revolution of sorts is underway in Russian minds and views. Today we can see progress in the realization of the fact that stability is in the two nations’ common interests.”

“Does what you just said mean that Russia has some figurative right to veto Ukraine’s accession to NATO?”

“I do not believe so. The Russian leadership has repeatedly stated that Ukraine is a sovereign nation that can independently make decisions. Neighboring countries must interact with a sense of tact and establish mutual relations of trust, so that their unilateral decisions are adequately understood by their neighbors.”

“Perhaps France and Germany exaggerate the extent of Russia’s possible response to Ukraine’s NATO accession?”

“The reputation of any country has a great significance in international relations. Ukraine has won democratic legitimacy, which, I hope, will only be further reinforced. It is also a precondition for the country’s economic development. In view of this, Ukraine is increasingly taken into account on a global scale. There are certainly some who are nostalgic for the imperial past. But such imperial nostalgia is a risk factor. Russia will be able to continue as a country of global significance only if it modernizes its government institutions and socioeconomic sphere. There is a discernible trend toward modernization in present-day Russia. We hope that it will only be reinforced. Meanwhile, a return to the past would cost Russia a great amount of energy and effort.”

“THE FUTURE EUROPE CANNOT BE BUILT WITHOUT UKRAINE”

“Does the EU currently have a long-term vision of relations with Ukraine? If so, what is one to make of the lack of EU membership prospects for Ukraine?”

“First of all, entry into the European club must not be viewed as the acquisition of an admissions ticket making it possible to join the EU and being content with passive membership. Nobody has ever managed to predict what Europe will look like ten years into the future. I assure you that a decade ago no one could have imagined that the Baltic nations would become EU members and Ukraine would be discussing such prospects. In the wake of the “No” vote in the EU referendums in France and the Netherlands we have entered a period of reflections and considerations, which perhaps should have been initiated much sooner. Two things are certain when it comes to Ukraine. The future Europe cannot be built without Ukraine, which is why now is the time to put our heads together and think about prospects and a long-term vision of Ukraine in Europe and the EU. Otherwise, it will be a completely different Europe. Second, a modernized Ukraine with democratic institutions and an adequate economic system will inevitably become a partner and companion of the EU. I think that absolutely natural interaction will take place between Ukraine’s economic development and the ties that link your country with Europe in the sense of civilizational values, geography, and population.”

“Many Ukrainians are asking the so-called Kwasniewski Question: If “Yes” to Turkey’s EU membership, then why “No” to Ukraine?”

“Ukraine’s case is different from Turkey’s. I’m not voicing any value judgments, but these are in fact two absolutely different situations. When President Yushchenko says that the answer to the question about Ukraine’s EU membership lies not in Brussels but in Kyiv, he is absolutely right. Work related to joining the EU envisions profound changes in the country, and this is no easy task, since it requires great patience and perseverance. The example of Portugal comes in handy. This country represents one of the best examples of integration, which was not very promising from the outset but ended successfully. The population has to be well informed about the components of accession to the EU. We have seen graphic examples when ruling elites make a decision without explaining it to their populations: this is the result of the referendums in France and the Netherlands.”

“Can the crisis that the EU is facing in the wake of the two referendums somehow affect relations with Ukraine?”

“I don’t believe there will be any consequences because of this. Ukraine’s European prospects are not short-term and they will require some time: a few years for the necessary adaptation efforts. I am certain that by that time the European Union will have coped with this crisis. Therefore, I can’t see any immediate consequences for Ukraine. This situation must be of greater concern (and is) to the aspiring members who are next in line: Bulgaria and Romania. Another reason that I have already mentioned is that Ukraine has a very positive image in France and the rest of Europe.”