The 20th meeting of the OSCE Ministerial Council, which effectively completed Ukraine’s presidency in the organization, took place in Kyiv on December 5. On the eve of the summit of OSCE foreign ministers, civil society organizations held the Parallel OSCE Conference. The Day managed to talk to one of its participants, a Hungarian political scientist and transitologist, director of international security programs at the Geneva Center for Security Policy in Switzerland Pal DUNAY, who is a frequent guest in Ukraine. In an exclusive interview, he explained his presence at this forum as a way to keep abreast of developments taking place in our country. The Hungarian political scientist believes that civil society has been an important part of the OSCE from the organization’s inception, and, in fact, has complemented it. Therefore, we were interested in his take on the state of Ukrainian society and its role in view of the recent mass demonstrations in support of Ukraine’s European course, including pressuring the government to sign the Association Agreement.
“It is very difficult to speak about it without knowing it much better than I do, but certainly, civil society cannot liberate itself from the main political trend. So, when the political spectrum is grossly divided, it is very difficult for the civil society to bridge it over and represent a different political culture, which is more uniting and consensus-seeking.
“Certainly, the fact that there is a vibrant civil society in Ukraine is a very good news, because in the end, there may be changes, when civil society may help resolve these matters, or at least foster the resolution of matters, in spite of this kind of very antagonistic disagreement that you can see in Ukrainian politics nowadays.”
Are mass protests that are currently taking place in Ukraine contributing to emergence of civil society?
“I think the mass protests, which have been taking place, and which are not yet over, demonstrate one thing: that this division in the Ukrainian society, economy, and politics, is not artificial, it is a real division. So, there is a real division inside the society, which is causing a lot of trouble for everybody, because it is not reflecting the political culture that we would all be happy to see. You see the West congratulating those who want to go west and the East congratulating those who go east. This is not necessarily a victory of democracy. We have to listen to each other, we have to understand each other. When the prime minister speaks in the Verkhovna Rada, and people just do not want to hear it, it does not help anybody. You have to mutually understand each other. And this would change the atmosphere, if we would understand that both sides (as long as we can speak about two sides) are working in the interest of the country. The vision of the interests of the country may be different, and that is the underlying problem.”
How can the West and in particular the OSCE assist Ukraine in the development of civil society?
“There are different issues. And if we speak about eastern neighborhood, there is one thing obvious: it is Ukraine, which is by far the most important. Belarus is not going too far, Georgia is increasingly standing on its own, the others are very happy they do not need economic support because of their oil and gas wealth, and Armenia has firmly decided where it stands. As a consequence, the EU could help a lot with the transformation and with the economic development, but it is not focusing resources to sufficient extent to Ukraine. And that is posing the challenge. If you take a look at the EU economy, it is about 15 trillion US dollars, which is about 6 times as large as Russian economy. If the EU would concentrate the efforts more to Ukraine, then the appeal of the West would probably be stronger, but it cannot do it, because it has other issues to address. The OSCE has one major advantage: in it everyone sits at the round table. And, of course, the OSCE is setting an example by its value system. But the OSCE has been struggling for its influence, if I may say so, since Andrey Kozyrev left the Russian Foreign Ministry in the end of 1995.”
What do you think about the call of the former US Ambassador to Ukraine Steven Pifer to boycott the ministerial meeting in Kyiv, which actually supports the statement of the Polish minister Radoslaw Sikorski who said that Kyiv was not an appropriate place to hold this meeting at the moment?
“I think it is basically a very bad message to a country which has been doing a chairmanship, which is neither particularly outstanding, but definitely not very problematic. It was going through reasonably well, started with relatively high ambitions, ended with less high ambitions. I do not think this is a good idea. There was this rumor that they should move the OSCE foreign ministerial meeting to Vienna, which was in nobody’s interest, it was a very serious exaggeration of the problems that do exist in Ukraine. You should not deprive the chairmanship country of the legitimacy of hosting the foreign ministers’ meeting. In the end, of course, everybody agreed that the ministerial will take place in Kyiv.
“I think it was not a misunderstanding of the West, I think it was not much more than a balloon to test how the others are reacting. And some in this case let the balloon start flying, and in this case it was foreign minister Sikorski, but it was not received by unanimous support from the Western countries, because they do understand that this would be highly damaging, humiliating, and there is no purpose for that. Just the vote yesterday [this interview was taken on December 4. – Author] in the parliament has demonstrated, that there is a majority for the political course that the current government and the president represent. I am confident that this kind of disturbances will be used by the Ukrainian leadership to call the attention of the West more, that Ukraine needs and deserves more support. So, this is in the long run in Ukraine’s interest.”
By the way, how do you see the future of the OSCE, taking into account the fact that the US and Russia differ in their views on the development of the organization: Washington supports reforming it, while Moscow seeks its full replacement with a new legally binding agreement which would effectively consolidate the Russian sphere of influence over the former Soviet Union?
“This issue is, of course, closely related to the so-called Medvedev Initiative or European Security Treaty Initiative, which was put in writing in 2009. The OSCE has a niche capacity, filling certain gaps. It could be more agile, more assertive, and more active in some countries, that is for sure. It is an organization which is fully democratic, which has costs and benefits. The cost is that you have to come to consensus. The benefit is that when you come to consensus, your decision has high legitimacy.
“So, I think the question is whether we could energize the OSCE, but it is much less the question, whether we need the OSCE, because we need an organization in Europe, which is an organization of all European cooperation. This is regularly tested, partially it was this kind of Russian frustration due to not getting enough legitimacy for the organizations where Russia plays a prominent role (obviously, the CIS and the CSTO). And they wanted to start everything anew. But very soon they noticed there was no reason to start anew.
“Now I see that the three main actors, which are the United States, the Russian Federation, and the European Union, are representing more unity, more professionalism, more pragmatic relations. It means that there is a chance for the OSCE in the longer run.”
