On May 5 a meeting of the North Atlantic Alliance with the participation of, in part, NATO Secretary General George Robertson and representatives of some European countries discussed the issues of Ukraine-NATO relationship. Ukraine was represented by Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council Yevhen Marchuk and Defense Minister Volodymyr Shkidchenko. Bruce JACKSON, President of the US Committee on NATO (a non-governmental organization but still quite influential in US political circles), considers this meeting evidence of the West’s recovering attention towards Kyiv. The expert believes that the time has arrived for Ukraine’s “second coming.” Simultaneously, he stresses that sending the CBR battalion to Kuwait during the Iraq War played a significant role in the improvement of Ukraine’s relations with the West. However, Mr. Jackson is convinced, “it won’t matter” for Brussels or Washington “whether Ukraine sent the battalion” if it fails to observe democratic principles.
“How did the Iraq crisis affect NATO? Was it weakened or made stronger?”
“I think we should be satisfied with the adaptation NATO has come through since September 11, 2001. Of all the Euro-Atlantic institutions, NATO is virtually the most successful in carrying out its mission. Of course, its mission is narrower than the ones of the European Union or the UN.”
“How long will it take before unity and trust will be restored in the transatlantic theater?” “I don’t consider there is any absence of trust. I think we overestimate the differences generated by the Iraqi events. For instance, I completely trust my French and German friends. When a husband and wife are fighting in the kitchen that’s a good sign that there is still energy inside their marriage. You have to worry when they don’t speak to each other at all. There is a lot of energy in this alliance, this transatlantic marriage, which in my view indicates that NATO has its core. The original principles of the alliance were essentially laid by our fathers and grandfathers after World War II. They were to decide what are the bloc’s purpose and priorities. This generation has to rediscover its own first principles. I think that it’s great that there are elites engaged in these debates on global security, and they are basically to define the moral framework for international policy for the coming decades. When you build a foundation for any big building it looks very chaotic; there is noise, and dust is flying everywhere. But this is a creative process. Frankly, since 1989 Europeans were mostly beneficiaries of the changes in the global system.
“And, to put it candidly, the real winner of the war in Iraq was Ukraine. During the so-called cassette and Kolchuga scandals Ukraine has alienated many of its friends and supporters in the West. However, because of Ukraine’s willingness to carry responsibilities in Iraq by sending the CBR battalion to Kuwait, now many in Europe are saying, let’s give Ukraine a chance. Inviting a Ukrainian delegation to Washington by NATO Secretary General George Robertson, nineteen alliance ambassadors, and US Defense Minister Donald Rumsfeld for intensive consultations should be viewed exactly in this context. This is an unprecedented step.”
“So can we say that sending the CBR battalion to Kuwait has put an end to all misunderstandings between Ukraine and the West?”
“I think we can say that the door to Europe has been reopened [for Kyiv]. The question is whether Ukraine would be able to walk through it. I think it would be a mistake to conclude that because of national security and strategic requirements either Brussels or Washington has decided to lower the bar or reduce its concerns about Ukraine’s observing democratic principles. Nobody is going to overlook pressure on journalists, arms sails, and corruption. What we will do is give Ukraine a certain period of possibilities to solve its problems. We could call this period a “second look.” The last eighteen months have demonstrated how much the alliance of democratic countries matters, how fragile democracy is, and how we have to help each other in strengthening it. The West should be prepared to give assistance to the countries, which are not completely integrated into the community of democratic nations. In theory, Ukraine should be a very valuable member of the Euro-Atlantic community historically and strategically. The problem is Ukraine that gets a red card in the first minute of the game and is sent off the field. You really have to be in the football game for the whole ninety minutes if you want to win it.”
“How do you estimate Ukraine’s efforts to meet the obligations it undertook at the Prague summit?”
“Ukraine has more strength than other candidates in terms of its size, significance, and due to its good relations with Russia. But Ukraine’s main difficulties are internal processes, the quality of democracy. I was thinking about Shakespeare: if you want to have a comedy, one or two funny people will do; if you want to produce a tragedy everybody on the stage has to make mistakes and do something wrong. Basically, Ukraine is on its way to producing a tragedy. Europe is going through the period of changes. If Ukraine wastes more time it might be left out of this process. We are thinking about how to accelerate the integration of Ukraine and not only Ukraine; we are speaking also about the Balkans, Turkey, etc. It is true that the military contributions that Ukraine has done make the West interested, but at the end of the day they will make their decisions based on the achievements of Ukrainian democracy. If it doesn’t meet Euro-Atlantic standards or the Copenhagen criteria, it would not matter that you sent the battalion to Iraq.”
“You referred to Ukraine’s good relations with Russia as a positive factor. Meanwhile, the Baltic states in their Euro-Atlantic integration bet on their confrontation with Moscow. Doesn’t the West see any threat in the broadening Russian influence on, say, Ukraine?”
“Yes, historically the Baltic states discussed their anti-Soviet moods. They particularly liked to talk to Americans about this. However, in recent years they stopped talking about this and recognized that they are a bridge between Europe and Russia. I think they realized that their role should not be of the small child poking a stick at the big bear. It is much better for them to be bankers and dealmakers, acting as mediators between Russia and European states. Of course, Ukraine should be careful about the nature of international contracts and agreements it signs. Certainly, it is true that Russia has some track record of having business that is a little monopolistic or non-market that you should resist. But you should be careful with any country, not only Russia. Kyiv is still painstakingly waking up after the Soviet era. Generations are to change in power. The opposition should be more responsible. One can get an impression that the political game in Ukraine is about obtaining or preserving power. But this should not be the purpose. The goal of the game should be that people could go to the EU countries freely, study at the Sorbonne, and work on Wall Street...”
