In this interview Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Anatoly Zlenko speaks out on the most burning issues of Ukrainian foreign policy, such as feasibility of simultaneous membership in the Common Economic Space (CES) (with Russia, Belarus, and Kazakhstan) and the EU, the continued presence of the Russian Black Sea Fleet in Ukraine, and Kyiv’s expectations from involvement in the Iraqi stabilization effort. Interestingly, the minister declined comment on his possibly losing his job, noting only, “This is up to the president to decide.” Minister Zlenko had no comment “for ethical reasons” on media reports that a decree has allegedly been prepared to appoint Ukraine’s current Ambassador to the US Kostiantyn Hryshchenko as his replacement.
“Would you comment on Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov’s recent statement that Russia wishes to extend the presence of its Black Sea Fleet in the Crimea? To what extent is this possible and does this fit in with Ukraine’s plans for Euro-Atlantic integration?”
“Extension is possible. But we must take into account and clearly state the conditions on which Russian servicemen can remain on the territory of Ukraine. These matters are raised from time to time, mostly out of political considerations at the current stage. For example, I do not share Minister Ivanov’s opinion that ‘we’re going to remain, and that’s it.’ Ukraine must address such problems, taking into account the level of relations and mutual understanding as well as mutual aspirations to solve them. Incidentally, NATO Secretary General George Robertson once said in no uncertain terms that he saw no problem with the Black Sea Fleet bases. For we do not know what (the situation) will be in 2017. Will Russia be more integrated in NATO? Will Ukraine be a NATO member? All these factors must be taken into account when considering this issue.”
“Do you think the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is adequately meeting the challenges of the time and pursuing a consistent Euro-Atlantic course?”
“I have always been critical of myself. But in this particular case, our ministry deserves no criticism. If we analyze the fulfillment of the Ukraine- NATO Action Plan and the 2003 Target Plan, we will see that we are even outstripping the planned targets. I am pleased to note that, reporting on the fulfillment of these plans in Madrid to the Ukraine-NATO Commission (UNC)’s foreign ministerial session, I felt convinced that the alliance members were in general satisfied with the work done. Ukraine’s National Euro- Atlantic Integration Center is working actively on this. I think we are on the right track. What worries me today is different: what will there be after we have fulfilled these plans? We will report again to the UNC later this year. What will be the new format of our relations should we get approval? There may be various options. First, we would like to launch a more intensive dialog. Secondly, there is the Membership Action Plan (MAP). The point is not in the name but in what lies behind a concrete clause, in how fast this carries us toward our strategic goals, and in how purposefully and consistently we will work to implement the plan.”
“Some experts claim Ukraine could join NATO as early as 2008...”
“I wouldn’t like to make hypothetical predictions. All I can say is that the appointment of Yevhen Marchuk as minister of defense and the specific tasks of Armed Forces reform he was assigned with by the president of Ukraine is certain to speed up our movement toward NATO. What is also going to have a major effect on the army reform is further improvement of this country’s economic situation.”
“What are the problems in Ukraine-NATO relations that need to be solved urgently?”
“There is a long range of problems we are addressing within the context of the these plans. High on the agenda is the reform of Ukraine’s Armed Forces, a defense analysis, early establishment of civilian control over the Armed Forces, and a number of other issues. The main thing is, of course, adequate funding of the army so it can reliably defend the state.”
“Kyiv is soon to be visited by European Commissioner GЯnter Verheugen who wants to check whether the establishment of a Common Economic Space (Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus) is consistent with Ukraine’s European integration. Could you answer this question?”
“One must separate the wheat from the chaff. European integration is our unfailing strategic course mapped out by the president of Ukraine. This course is not subject to any alteration. We have constructed a system of Ukraine’s gradual integration into Europe. But if the CES proves to be able to strengthen our state’s economy, I am deeply convinced this will make Ukraine more attractive and simultaneously speed up our European integration. In discussing CES membership, we do not renounce the principles we share and are trying to implement. I mean EU principles, unopposed (yet, in consultation with our partners) entry into the World Trade Organization, norms and standards adapted to European Union law, formation of a free trade zone. And later a customs union between Ukraine and the EU. All this was included in the president’s European choice message and remains unchanged. Ukraine will integrate into the CES as far as it fits in with our plans for European integration. One must always distinguish between the main goal we set and the means by which to attain it. As a Chinese leader once said, it does not matter if a cat is black or white, so long as it catches mice. We must make an all-out effort to achieve the main goal — to improve the living standards of our citizens and raise the prestige of this country as an economically strong state.”
“What will Ukraine reject under any circumstances, concerning the CES?”
“Ukraine views the CES as an instrument to establish framework conditions for the development of economic cooperation in the post-Soviet region. The ultimate goal of our involvement in this mechanism is an effective free trade zone without exceptions and restrictions. It is therefore quite clear that participation in a customs union and, moreover, introduction of a common currency would call forth mixed feelings in Ukraine. In all probability, neither our legislative nor executive bodies would accept such concessions. On the other hand, we must take into account that the CES may, in time, evolve into an EU-CES format.”
“And what about establishing a CES supranational body?”
“This is out of the question altogether, which our delegation clearly stated. This is a position of principle, and not only in respect of the CES.”
“Dispatching Ukrainian peacekeepers to Iraq and, before that, an NBC battalion to Kuwait contributed to the normalization of relations with the United States of America. How would you assess the current stage of US-Ukrainian relations?”
“Ukraine does not exist as a certain isolated sobject of international processes. A worsened situation in one region or another will sooner or later touch upon our national interests. We view participation in the Iraq stabilization forces as primarily a peacekeeping humanitarian action, as an aspiration to help peaceful Iraqis restore peace and stability, and create favorable conditions for economic development. It is extremely important to understand this when evaluating Ukraine’s decision to take part in the Iraq stabilization forces.
“In analyzing current US-Ukrainian relations, one must always avoid any considerations of political expediency. It is not for the sake of improved relations with the US that Ukraine is participating in the Iraq stabilization forces, although this is extremely important for us. We have never doubted that our relations with this global leader are of a long-term and multifaceted nature, based on strategic partnership, which cooperation in the Iraq issue should really become an element of. The president of Ukraine and Ukrainian diplomats have always been convinced that some difficulties and misunderstandings at certain stages of our relationship are of a temporary nature. We are trying to raise these relations to the level of genuine strategic partnership.
“We always emphasize when dealing with the US leadership: we must look forward, see the possibilities, focus on strategic issues, and at the same time solve all the problems that have accumulated. Yet, these problems should not hinder a strategic approach to the development of our mutual relations. I am very pleased that some acute problems are no longer on the agenda of US-Ukrainian relations. This has cost us, naturally, much effort.”
“It was announced recently that Ukrainians are participating in the US-led interim administration of Iraq. What does the Foreign Ministry expect from Ukraine’s involvement in this body?”
“As long as Ukraine is rather heavily represented in the stabilization forces, this automatically raises the question of participation in certain divisions of Iraq’s interim coalition government. We were offered three sectors: fuel and electricity, transport, and municipal administration. In our view, all three sectors are equally important. I think representation in some divisions of the interim coalition administration is a logical continuation of the decisions and consistent actions to take part in the stabilization forces and in the post-conflict reconstruction of Iraq. Some of our companies have shown an interest today in implementing specific programs.”
“Could some contracts already be in the pipeline?”
“I can’t say this now. We have created appropriate political conditions for our companies to establish the needed contacts. The ministry plays here an important role but not the decisive one. It is more of a consultative nature. Then comes business with quite different rules of the game. We are, of course, looking forward to Ukrainian companies bidding successfully on Iraqi reconstruction contracts.”
“Is it possible that the Ukrainian military will have their stay in Iraq extended?”
“It’s still too soon to discuss this. There are a number of factors that affect developments. First, we cannot forecast today the future situation in Iraq — when democratic elections will be held, when a permanent government will be formed, etc. Secondly, a great deal depends on our financial capability.”
“One of the problems that has dragged on since the collapse of the USSR is the division of foreign property. It is known that last year Ukraine was even forced to go to court over a number of facilities in Austria, Britain, and a Scandinavian country. When is this going to end?”
“This is an extremely important issue for our state. Negotiations on this matter ended over a month ago. The next round has been planned for October. We will continue talks and seek ways to solve this problem. Difficult as the problem is, we still have not lost hope that it will be solved. A week ago (August 20 — Ed.) I met some foreign ambassadors. On the one hand, they noted that the Russian Federation is speedily reregistering the former USSR’s foreign property, and, on the other hand, they asked about Ukraine’s progress in the solution of this problem. It will be recalled that we have already sent notes to various countries, cautioning them against rash actions with respect to this property. We will press on until we solve all these problems. We will try to resort to convincing legitimate methods to achieve the result, avoid confrontation and, above all, the politicization of this problem.”
“And is there any progress in the talks on delimiting the Sea of Azov and the Strait of Kerch?”
“We are so far taking different attitudes. But this does not mean the issue will remain unchanged. I am deeply convinced we will seek and find compromises on this matter. The talks are to be resumed soon.”
“A year from now Ukraine will hold presidential elections. The state is likely to come under increased foreign pressure. How will the Foreign Ministry weather this difficult period?”
“Domestic political life is inseparable from foreign policy. For this reason domestic developments will, of course, have some effect abroad. I don’t think I must stress again that the Foreign Ministry will defend the interests and maintain the prestige of Ukraine on the international arena, trying to ease the pressure you mentioned. Foreign policy is supposed to promote the state’s welfare. What is important is helping to maintain domestic political stability as a basis for this country’s successful development.”
