In the current election campaign political forces are bombarding Ukrainians, like never before, with catchy slogans that one way or another are related to foreign policy. Some politicians maintain that Ukraine’s movement toward Europe is jeopardizing our cooperation with Russia, while others express diametrically opposing views. In most cases, however, political players provide rather superficial descriptions of their foreign-policy vision in their program documents.
Addressing the conference “The Future Parliamentary Coalition-2006 and Ukraine’s Foreign Political Course,” Hryhoriy Perepelytsia, acting director of the Institute of Foreign Policy, characterized the effect the elections are having on this country’s foreign policy: “Arguing over strategic issues tarnishes Ukraine’s international image and reduces the effectiveness of foreign political steps.”
This forum was especially important because among its participants were the four individuals who have headed Ukraine’s foreign ministry. Much of the conference’s attention was on European integration, the main vector of our foreign policy. Former deputy foreign minister Oleksandr Chaly is convinced that all the parties in the newly-elected parliament will be supporting the state’s Europe-bound course. “The only question is what meaning they attach to this integration,” he emphasized.
The current Minister of Foreign Affairs, Borys Tarasiuk, did not mince words. “The future parliamentary coalition will be unquestionably pro- European and pro-Atlantic, so the foreign political course of our country will not change after the elections,” he said. Conversely, Deputy Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council Serhiy Pyrozhkov noted that although Ukraine’s foreign policy is consistent and predictable, it may undergo some changes after the elections. But he did not provide any specific details.
Has Ukraine’s foreign policy after the Orange Revolution been successful or not? Perepelytsia thinks that the new leadership simply failed to put its gains in the international arena across to the public. He pointed out that the government has not been able to show how valuable the reinforcement of democracy in Ukraine is.
Meanwhile, ex-foreign minister Kostiantyn Hryshchenko believes that the new government missed the opportunities that opened up after the Orange Revolution. He stressed that foreign policy can only be considered successful if its practical results correspond to national interests. In his view, the Ukrainian leadership failed to achieve this. “Proclaiming adherence to European standards and raising gas prices fivefold do not mean reaching the goals,” he emphasized.
Many experts think that the “gas factor” was provoked not so much by Ukraine as Russia, which admittedly tries to influence Kyiv’s foreign policy. Perepelytsia believes that Moscow does not want to lose an immense sphere of influence in this region.
One speaker who rejected this view was Vsevolod Loskutov, minister-counselor at the Russian Embassy, who, incidentally, demonstrated an excellent command of the Ukrainian language. According to this diplomat, Russia has never opposed Ukraine’s integration into the European Union. Moscow favors an “equal and pragmatic partnership with Kyiv.” But the Russian diplomat reiterated that his country does not support NATO’s eastward expansion. (In the past, when Russian officials were asked about Ukraine’s entry into the alliance, they would reply, “It is your sovereign right.”)
Loskutov admitted that there are difficulties in the relations between the two countries, which require negotiations. Yet he said in conclusion, “One should not say that every discussion or negotiation is blackmail, war, or confrontation.”
Ex-foreign minister Anatoliy Zlenko believes that Kyiv and Moscow will only be able to reach equality in their relations once they begin to cooperate on a lawful and negotiable basis. “Otherwise, like before, we will be seeking a resolution for disputable issues, and we won’t find it,” the diplomat noted.
Volodymyr Ohryzko, First Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, proposed his own algorithm of relations with Russia. “Market-based attitudes should be a new element in our bilateral relations. Gone are the days of ‘shirt-sleeves meetings’ and behind-the-scenes deals. International law, transparency, predictability, equality, and mutual benefit are coming to the fore in our relations,” he stressed.
The current leadership has announced that Ukraine may join NATO in 2008 and will be prepared for EU membership by 2015. Independent experts believe, however, that it will be difficult for politicians as well as the grassroots to reach a consensus on joining NATO. Yet some people are putting the blame on Western structures for being unprepared to let Ukraine into their ranks.
“There will be no strategic decisions about NATO and the EU in the next 10 years — and not through our fault. They themselves have no consensus on Ukraine,” said Chaly. “Everything will remain as it was: Ukraine will still be a de facto non- aligned state.” The diplomat thinks that the government should take advantage of the consensus on European integration that exists in society. But he is certain that this requires certain prerequisites that would enable us to join the “European club.”
This is also the opinion of Andriy Fialko, an independent international affairs expert. He believes that Ukraine should avoid putting excessive ideological pressure on foreign policy problems and, instead, set pragmatic and attainable goals. At the same time, we should “put off implementing projects that are causing tension in society.” Fialko thinks that Ukraine needs a period of stabilization to gather strength for solving problems that will emerge in the future.
