Judith GOUGH: “We need this country to succeed and prosper”

British Ambassador Judith Gough waited a full year before giving an interview to Ukrainian media. Indeed, a lot of things happened over her first year in office, both in this country and in the UK. For instance, June 23 saw the British voting for leaving the EU. So our conversation started with the question, “What was the major factor that triggered Brexit?”

“I think it’s obvious you’re asking the wrong person, as I am a diplomat and spent most of the past 10 or 15 years overseas, but I think it was a clear decision by the British electorate to leave the European Union, and there were differing views as to why this is the case. But I think there are lessons going forward for the European Union, to understand reasons behind this decision and to connect with people who live within the European Union.”

Winston Churchill has left some kind of testament, that British people should be together with Europe, he even mentioned the term “United States of Europe.” What can you say about this?

“It’s interesting, you are referring to the Tragedy of Europe speech that he made 70 years ago, almost to the day. I was privileged enough to appear on stage with his grandson on the 70th anniversary. I think his speech at the time is very interesting, he certainly called for United States of Europe, but he called for United States of Europe that would be formally driven by France and Germany, with UK and the US as sponsors and friends. And I think the key thing to remember is that although UK is taking decision to leave the European Union, we are not leaving the European continent, we will remain a European country, we will continue to have a very close relationship with our European friends and partners. That will not change. However, the nature of that relationship will of course change going forward. But I want to be very clear: we are not abandoning the European continent, and that’s important.”

Don’t you think that in this case history is very important? British journalist Lancelot Lawton mentioned that Ukraine is indispensable for European economic progress and global peace for Europe. What do people think now in The United Kingdom about this?

“ On September 14-15 we had our new foreign minister visit Ukraine, and I think it’s important that people know that this was one of his first overseas visits since being appointed foreign minister. I think they should take comfort from that, the fact that he came here so soon, I think demonstrates how much importance we place on our relationship with Ukraine, how much importance we place upon Ukraine succeeding as a prosperous, secure, and stable country. And foreign minister was very, very clear when he was here that the UK will continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine, will continue to support Ukraine. And I think just worth bearing in mind, we are still members of the European Union, so, once we leave the European Union, we will continue to support Ukraine. Of course, there are things that Ukraine needs to do, our support is not unconditional in that sense. But when it comes to the principles of territorial integrity, independence, and sovereignty, we will continue to support Ukraine. Brexit does not change that, and I think people should take comfort from that visit, the level of energy, the level of assistance and engagement we have with you.”

You probably know that in the UK there is Prince Volodymyr’s statue and Agatha daughter of Yaroslav the Wise was married to the King Edward the Exile of England. Can those links be used to play role for having stronger relations between our countries today?

“I’m not sure they play so much of a role. I think in some ways in the United Kingdom we don’t have the same level of Ukrainian diaspora that some countries have. We certainly do have a strong diaspora, but not in the same way that you have in Canada or the US. To be honest, there are a lot of people in Britain who do not know a lot about Ukraine, and perhaps what they do know about Ukraine is around the words that begin with ‘C’: conflict, corruption. And I think that’s really important that people need to understand that actually, there is change in this country. The British love their history, we have a very rich history of our own, I think that is one more opportunities for them to understand more about Ukraine and Ukrainians.”

Do you agree that a diplomat should better know the history of the country they are working in for better understanding of what is happening there now?

“For me, it is a great privilege to be a diplomat, to be a guest in somebody else’s country for a period of time. I think any good diplomat wants to understand the country in which they are working, and that means understanding the history of that country, because any country is defined by its history, whether it wants to be or not, and is defined by its geography. I think that realizing that is absolutely crucial to understanding the country which you find yourself in. You can strengthen relationships, build relationships or make progress…”

Den/The Day’s editor-in-chief Larysa Ivshyna has idea that Ukraine should become Britain of Slavic world. Because in origin, we were called Rus’, then it was expropriated by Russia, or Moscovia. So what do you think about a Commonwealth of Slavic world under Ukraine’s lead?

“That’s role for Ukraine to define for itself. What the UK has done very successfully over history is constantly reinvent herself. Now, I think in some ways we had more freedom to do that, because we are an island, we have not been invaded since 1066, which I think gives us a different mentality and a different confidence. I think one of the things that we were quick to do – and we could have been quicker – was to let go of the empire, to understand the point at which the days of empire were over. It wasn’t all smooth, and it wasn’t an unblemished history, but I think we were also quick to understand the opportunity that we had in terms of our links with that diverse set of countries. At Commonwealth meets, I think that’s once every two years, there’s a very diverse group of countries that share a certain history and have shared experiences, and work together to combat poverty, to work on new solutions to counteract diseases and what have you, share a number of values. But I think those ties to the group have to be voluntary, and they, I think, rely on soft power. If you look at the ratings, you will find the UK every year residing first or second in various ratings of soft power. That’s projecting values and projecting who you are. I think there are very few countries who do that, making your values and your worldview appealing to others.”

BRITISH AMBASSADOR JUDITH GOUGH GLADLY ACCEPTED ENGLISH-LANGUAGE BOOKS FROM DEN’S LIBRARY SERIES: UKRAINE INCOGNITA. TOP 25 AND A CASE WITHOUT A STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, WHICH WILL HELP TO ENRICH DIPLOMATS’ KNOWLEDGE OF COMPLEX BUT RICH HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY. “KNOWING THE HISTORY, WE KNOW WHERE WE ARE GOING TO GET AS WE GO FORWARD,” SHE SAID / Photo by Artem SLIPACHUK, The Day

And the monarchy plays a positive role in this.

“Absolutely! I mean, the Queen is the head of state, and I think she is the longest ever serving monarch of the UK, she is now 90 years old. What she brings is the real sense of stability and a work ethic which people respect. When I have met her, she has always been very engaged in issues, and clearly wants to know what her ambassador is doing. She also brings a degree of experience, I think she is now on her 13th prime minister, and British prime ministers have an audience with the Queen once a week, and it’s private, we never know what is discussed. But I think there is value in that continuity and experience, and wisdom that someone in her position who is not political, brings. Now, it doesn’t work for every country, but it is something that works for the British, I think, which we are very proud of.”

Your predecessor, Ambassador Simon Smith, answering the question about the Budapest Memorandum, said that Britain has done everything what was supposed to be done by it. But even deputies in your parliament said that Britain has not done enough to safeguard Ukraine’s territorial integrity. What do you think should be done now to help Ukraine to return control over the Donbas and Crimea?

“Look, I think there is a lot of misunderstanding out there about what the Budapest Memorandum is, and I understand Ukrainian disappointment with the memorandum, which is not legally binding as we see it, but which does set out a certain set of criteria as Simon has told you, he has been through them. I was there in March 2014, we held consultations in the US Embassy in Paris and there was an empty table and chair. We know why that was, the Russians did not turn up, which is a shame, because we stand by our obligations such as they are under that memorandum. It is very hard, however, to uphold any form of agreement if there is a major party who is ignoring it. And of course, Russia has not just ignored the Budapest Memorandum, she has ignored a raft of international legislation in terms of what she has done towards Ukraine. So I think, what we have done is to say: ‘Look, we are always ready to engage on the Budapest Memorandum, but there is an issue that Russia will not come to the table.’ We have understood the limitations, and what we do is to continue to support Ukraine in practical terms. That’s why we have a military operation in your country providing training, that’s why we have humanitarian assistance and technical assistance, that’s why this year we are spending 35 million pounds in Ukraine to support Ukraine, that’s why we have grown our embassy. So, I think if we look at it, there is a broad range of support, and that’s why we have also supported very strongly sanctions against Russia, which remarkably have held for a long period of time, and our issue on which the EU has been united, the UK has pushed very hard, certainly in the first instant when these sanctions came about.”

How should the world deal with Russia to return it to the international norms?

“It’s very difficult. We don’t want to see a weak, isolated Russia. We want to see a country that is successful and works for the benefit of its citizens, works more together with other countries, within the international system, the set of international laws which has existed now since the end of the Second World War. However, you are absolutely right that what we have seen happening in Syria, what we have seen happening here is a real cause for concern. We have to keep talking to Russia, we can’t not engage with Russia, and they are in the UN Security Council too. We have areas of common concerns that we need to work on, we need to talk to them about Ukraine and Syria. But we also need to speak quite clear about where our principles and where our red lines lie. That’s why we have sanctions, for example. And it’s pretty clear that sanctions have had an effect on Russian economic condition, Putin has admitted it himself. That’s why the UK takes the view that sanctions against Russia should not be lifted until such time as they have fully implemented Minsk agreements.”

Recently British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson said that he will work hard with all parties to help implement Minsk 2. Can you explain what the role of the UK will be?

“What you see is what you get. There was some progress, modest progress, it has been difficult to get that far, I think we have to take the progress there as it is made. Our hope is that these zones of disengagement will work, and they are something to build on, so we can broaden this disengagement and broaden security in the Donbas, and of course, we will look to support that. The French and Germans are working very hard in the Normandy process, we are not a party, in the same way that the US is not a party, but we support the process. What is from our perspective crucially important is that you have to have the security in order to be able to deliver the political side of the agreement, which is largely on your side to deliver. That means an enduring ceasefire, which is still not quite there at the moment. At the end of the day, we understand only too well that in a conflict, it’s ordinary people who are affected. What we want to see is the killing and shelling to stop. And it’s not quite there yet. So, we will continue to support the process, we are very clear, our foreign secretary was very clear that we want to see security improve. Ukraine has its part of the agreement to do, we need all parties to engage in this, and that will be challenging, but the most important thing is to get moving forward, so that we can make progress.”

It is very hard, however, to uphold any form of agreement if there is a major party who is ignoring it. And of course, Russia has not just ignored the Budapest Memorandum, she has ignored a raft of international legisla­tion in terms of what she has done towards Ukraine.

Since the Budapest Memorandum has failed to guarantee Ukraine’s sovereignty, and the issue of Ukraine’s NATO membership is off the agenda, could it be that we need to sign a security agreement between the UK and Ukraine, like the US-Japan pact, so that Russia would never dare to even think about attacking Ukraine again?

“It is always very difficult to negotiate something, to stop something that has already happened. I know the Minsk Agreement is not always popular here, one can make a very good argument, but it does reduce the fighting from the levels it was. It’s not perfect, no agreement is, but it has reduced fighting. Regarding NATO, I think Ukraine has actually set itself some very good ambitious targets to reach interoperability with NATO by 2020, it’s a very good target to have. We are offering support in defense reform, we have defense advisors working in the ministry to try and help with all of that. But I think these close relationships with countries are really important. Membership is a decision by the Alliance, not individual allies. And I think that to keep working in this area of defense reform, bringing up to the NATO standards is key.”

It is known that Brexit is a process. And at the recent conference on Brexit in Kyiv was mentioned that one can expect a new kind of agreement between the UK and EU, as well as between the UK and Ukraine. Can you say what kind of agreement there will be between our countries?

“Look, I think what Ukraine will have to understand is that this is going to be one of the most complex negotiations to have ever been conducted. The UK will be negotiating with 27 other countries, and then we will need to consider our trade relations with the rest of the world, because at the moment, trade is an EU Commission competence, in effect we have outsourced to the EU our trading negotiations and discussions. There will be a large queue of agreements out there in the trade sphere. It’s important to me that we have a good trading relationship and commercial relationship with Ukraine, but I can’t say at the moment how they will be negotiated, when they will be negotiated, and what form it will take. The first step in the process will be the UK submitting its Article 50, we don’t yet know when it will be, the prime minister has said ‘Not this year, next year,’ at that point there is a two-year negotiation with the European Union. Because we are still in the European Union, we are tied in terms of some of the agreements that we can reach. But throughout that, we will continue to be one of the world’s largest economies, still fifth, we will still be in the G7, still be on a very important support group here for Ukraine, and one which I think works very well. Incidentally, that is unique to Ukraine, the G7 does not do that anywhere else, I think that’s a very good forum. We will still be the second largest contributor to NATO, the second largest contributor to OSCE monitoring mission in Ukraine. I don’t think this is going to change. G20, UN Security Council. So, I think while there is a lot of attention placed on the European Union and our role within that, we still have enough other organizations in which we are active to play a role. And of course, we will still maintain a strong bilateral relationship with Ukraine. We may not necessarily be negotiating any agreements soon.”

Can you tell us about trends in bilateral trade between our countries?

“We are the sixth largest investor at the moment, the figures… I am never sure that they are reliable, I think, there is a sense we are seeing a return to growth, but I would like more investment from the UK into Ukraine. The biggest barrier remains corruption, that’s the biggest issue. If you look at any investor service, when you talk to British business, that remains a significant barrier. I think if this country can do more to tackle corruption and improve judiciary, that will help extraordinarily. We do want to see that relationship continuing. We have new investors coming in. So, for example, Unilever, which is an Anglo-Dutch company, now have tea processing factory in Ukraine. That could be the start of something that becomes bigger. I think we are seeing more interest in agriculture, IT outsourcing. So, there is a lot of potential here, but absolutely key to all of this is dealing with corruption and reforming the judiciary, so that when businesses come here, they feel, they will get a fair deal and will be able to rely on institutions, when things don’t work.”

 So you have not seen any positive changes occurring in the fight against corruption after a new person came to head the Ukrainian Cabinet, or have you?

“I have certainly seen some progress, and if I look at what has happened in this country over the past two years, there has been more change and more reasons to be positive than at any point since Ukraine became an independent state. There has been some very good evidence of progress if you look at e-declarations, if you look at setting up of the NABU which the British helped to set up, for example. I think there has been surprising progress. I think the issue remains, there are still elements within Ukrainian society that want to sabotage reform, who still find corruption profitable. I think that needs to change, and I think the momentum needs to be upheld and political will needs to be there to make sure that words become a reality, and structures that have been created actually start demonstrating they can make a difference, that they are holding people accountable, that things are really changing. I think what has been very impressive here, is that you have a section of society, you have people in the Rada, you have deputy ministers who are really keen to reform, who are energized to reform, and who have real desire to make change in that country. But they need support, they need it from above, and they need it from below.”

Do you not see it from above?

“We have changes, but I think there needs to be more changes, and there needs to be a stronger desire to stop vested interests sabotaging progress, and to be it very, very clear that going forward, there is no tolerance for corruption in the Ukrainian system. At the end of the day, we need this country to succeed and prosper, and that’s one of the biggest obstacles to that happening.”

How would you encourage British investors to come here?

“Every British investor is different, they will have different appetites for risk, they will have different businesses. I would say to them: ‘Look, you have a country here with huge potential, natural resources, an extraordinary talented and highly educated population, and a real desire among certain parts of society to change. However, you will need to understand, we do have British companies who continue to have problems, who continue to find that there are issues. The investment decision in the end of the day is yours.’ I think it is in both our interest to trade more together. We are working with the government to change that.”

In preparation for the interview, I noticed some quite positive news about Ukraine appearing at fco.gov.uk website, which pointed to our improving image on some measures. They mentioned areas of common interest as well. So the question is, when may we see cooperation between our countries starting in certain areas?

“It comes back to my earlier point, which is: if you mention Ukraine, somebody overseas, not only in the UK, but also in the European Union and elsewhere, what is the first thing they tend to think about? Probably conflict, it’s probably corruption, oligarchs, these sorts of words which are not perhaps the most positive impression to create. And I think there is a real challenge, for any country, how to you get your messages across about what it is you are as country, what you stand for.

“So rather than Ukraine being viewed as a risk for Europe and a security issue for Europe, how has Ukraine demonstrated that it has potential to be a net contributor. I don’t think that Ukraine is a failed state, but when I look at my trolls on Twitter, they tell me that this is a terrible, nasty, Fascist state that is failing. Now, I know that’s not true, but that narrative gets out there. Not least because we know there is a narrative out there that demonstrates that Ukraine’s a failed state. So, I think it’s very important that you see more evidence of that Ukraine’s stand up for its values, that it is a European country. That’s strategic communications.”