Diplomatic Reconnaissance
The aim of Ukrainian Foreign Minister Kostiantyn Hryshchenko’s recent negotiations in Brussels with new NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer and EC Commissioner G Я nter Verheugen is an open secret. First, Hryshchenko went to meet the new NATO Secretary General in person. Second, he attempted to find out what Ukraine can count on during the NATO Summit in Istanbul next May and negotiations on the Ukraine-EU Action Plan that will begin shortly. Third, of late Western diplomats have been saying openly that they find it difficult to understand what is now happening in Ukraine. The foreign minister found himself in a difficult situation: he is required to explain something that cannot be explained using plain logic and make sure Ukraine continues its gradual movement toward Europe or at least avoids drifting away from it. In any case, thus far it seems that Kyiv still has a chance to be heard, but diplomacy has increasingly fewer possibilities for objective reasons.
The first part of Hryshchenko’s European tour, a visit to London, could perhaps be considered quite successful. British Foreign Minister Jack Straw yet again thanked Ukraine for its contribution to the peacekeeping effort in Iraq (last week came reports that Ukrainian peacekeepers managed to quell public unrest). According to news reports, Straw stressed the role of the Ukrainian force in ensuring stability in the zone of its responsibility in Iraq. He also assured Hryshchenko of Britain’s support for Ukraine’s participation in the postwar reconstruction of Iraq. It will be recalled that several Ukrainian companies have been registered for participation in reconstruction projects that will be run by US companies.
Jack Straw also wished Ukraine success in its European and Euro- Atlantic aspirations. Apparently, this will prove more difficult. Despite the fact that Great Britain has in recent years expressed sincere support for Ukraine’s intentions to join the EU and NATO, and down the road London might even become Kyiv’s lobbyist, this requires certain commitments by Ukraine. We are reminded of this at each meeting, forum, and international conference. In particular, in London Donald Anderson, chairman of the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, told Minister Hryshchenko that Ukraine’s European aspirations should be realized by means of implementing reforms. Diplomats, lawmakers, and experts are more straightforward in unofficial discussions: it is time to decide what Ukraine really needs — to risk another period of isolation or finally implement fundamental reforms.
As for the future action plan, much remains unclear for various reasons. The European Commission, whose representatives are negotiating with Ukraine, is not authorized to make political decisions, that is, to determine the ultimate goal of this plan. So far it is only clear that the document will be binding on both sides and drafted based on the results of bilateral negotiations. In their interviews with The Day, EC Commissioners Verheugen and Patten pointed out that the document should bring Ukraine closer to the four freedoms of the EU. It should contain certain stages, by fulfilling which Ukraine will continue its progress in its relationship with the enlarged EU. However, it is not stated anywhere nor will it be stated that after fulfilling this plan Ukraine will have a chance to be recognized as a prospective EU member. Precisely this issue is avoided now in the EU and with good reason.
First, it will be years before the consequences of the first large-scale EU enlargement can be seen. Second, many in the West point to the fact that no political decisions regarding Ukraine will be made until it becomes clear which way the country is developing, where its major policy vector is headed, and how its words translate into deeds. So far the West shows a lack of understanding for the processes underway in Ukraine. Kyiv insists, however, that the recent push to create a Single Economic Space has in turn resulted in an attempt to advance economic relations between Ukraine and the EU.
What concerns the relationship between Ukraine and NATO, much will also depend on the general political processes in Ukraine and not merely the presidential elections of 2004. American diplomats pointed to this quite openly, although Washington simultaneously says its aim is to promote Ukraine’s accession to the alliance. Ukraine hopes to be included in the Membership Action Plan during the NATO Summit in Istanbul. Yet no NATO member is promising that this will happen. They only say that everything will depend on the assessment of Ukraine’s progress in fulfilling the Action Plan and Target Plan of 2003, Ukraine’s defense reform, and, most importantly, democratic processes in the country. The latter poses major problems for Ukraine, and it will be very difficult to convince NATO states otherwise, especially considering the fact that there are not too many countries lobbying for Ukraine’s accession. In particular, nobody is hiding the fact that Ukraine will have to exert itself to win the support of such countries as France, Spain, and Germany. Incidentally, recently Germany’s Defense Minister Peter Struck told an international conference that Russia will certainly join NATO, while Moscow says it has no such plans. Meanwhile, Ukraine’s membership is not even discussed as yet.
On the other hand, all this looks like only the beginning of a process that could have started years ago under different conditions. At least prospects of Ukraine’s European and Euro-Atlantic integration are received seriously in the West and gradually begin to be discussed. Obviously, this process will take more than one year and will see many teams of politicians and diplomats replace one another on either side. The road that lies ahead of Ukraine will undoubtedly be more difficult than the road taken by Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. And yet this is not the highest possible price Ukraine could have to pay. Sooner or later we will have to make serious decisions about our relationship with Russia and the possibilities that will appear in the west, east, north, and south.
The results of Minister Hryshchenko’s visit will not be negative provided Ukraine does not pose as a faithful disciple of Belarus, Azerbaijan, and Turkmenistan. Incidentally, the latter countries face no major criticism precisely because of the openness of their positions. Moreover, there might be no other Iraqi opportunity for Ukraine.
