The head of the working group of political and economic reform of the Partnership Committee US-EU on the questions of Ukraine, ex-ambassador of the US to Ukraine Steven Pifer was one of 35 associate workers of the Brookings Institution — the advisers of Barack Obama’s team during the election campaign. One of the advisers at this institution - Susan Rice — has been appointed the US Ambassador to the UN. Contrary to his many colleagues from the Brookings Institution, Pifer, who has worked for 27 years on a diplomatic service, is not going to work in Obama’s administration. He will continue his work in Brookings on the questions concerning the development of American relations with Ukraine and Russia. How does the US view Ukraine’s future integration into NATO? What are the possible changes in the policy of the new US administration concerning Ukrainian-Russian relations? Will Secretary of State Hillary Clinton go on with her position that she has proclaimed previously concerning Ukraine’s progress on its way to the Alliance? These questions will are raised in The Day‘s exclusive interview with US expert Steven PIFER.
ALTERNATIVE PLAN
Mr. Pifer, in your article from Sept. 29, 2008, entitled Ukraine, Georgia and the MAP: time for a B plan you made predictions concerning the December meeting of the foreign ministers of NATO member countries. Suprisingly, your predictions have come true.
“I was not planning, I was predicting.” (Laughing.)
Do you consider this to be the best result Ukraine could achieve at the meeting of the ministers?
“I think this is a good result. Many European countries got nervous because of possible irritation of Russia, especially with a view of the Georgian situation. Besides, they were worried because of the political split in Ukraine. Therefore there was a feeling that Ukraine would hardly formulate any clear policy. It seems to me that Washington was eager to give the MAP to Ukraine in summer. In my opinion, the American diplomats made sure after talks with their European colleagues that it would be hard to do. Therefore the US started to consider an alternative plan.”
Can th result of the summit be called a progress as Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Volodymyr Ohryzko said, commenting on the results of the meeting?
“As far as I have understood it was agreed to continue the work on the Membership Action Plan and give new possibilities for the Ukraine — NATO Commission, specifically in a practical aspect. Therefore Ukrainians may continue the practical preparation and do much without getting the MAP formally.”
Doesn’t it mean that Ukraine’s NATO membership will be postponed for a long period?
“I wouldn’t make such a conclusion. The MAP is a way for Ukraine’s preparation. But Ukraine can prepare even without having the MAP. I can recall Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic that became NATO members without getting the MAP. It seems to me that home political situation is a great problem for Ukraine. Looking at Ukraine from Europe or Washington, for example, one can see that much of political hurly-burly and political disparities have taken place there during the recent eight or nine months. A good news is that everything is taking place in a democractic way. Ukraine deserves appraisal for this. But a question arises whether there is an efficient government, able to implement policy in an understandable way. There is a concern that if the parliamentary and presidential elections take place on 2009, it will remind the year 2008.”
THERE IS A NEED FOR HIGHER SUPPORT OF NATO MEMBERSHIP ON THE LEVEL OF ELITES
But many foreign experts consider that Ukraine is qualified better than it is needed for getting the MAP and even NATO memebrship.
“I agree that Ukraine meets most of the criteria if not all of them for getting the MAP. Comparing to Albania and Romania, which received the MAP in 1999, Ukraine has also done much concerning reforms in the sphere of politics, economy and defense. Ukraine’s problem is political turmoil. As for the practical membership in NATO, Ukraine has done nothing for this. It needs to implement many reforms.
“But there is also a need for higher support of NATO membership on the level of elites, the Verkhovna Rada and community. NATO does not want to invite a country where the population does not want to join. Most of the surveys conducted within the recent two months prove that only 25 percent of the population support NATO memebrship. And it is hard to believe that the Alliance will propose Ukraine to join until this indice increases. NATO does not want to force anyone to join, but it wants to hear from a country that it is eager to become part of the Alliance.”
Can you predict whether Hillary Clinton as a secretary of state will keep to the position she proclaimed in April: “My support concerning the MAP was based upon the necessity to send a positive signal to Tbilisi and Kyiv in order to encourage them to stay on the road of reforms and also send signal of our concern to Moscow apropos of the future security of these countries”?
“Sen. Obama who has been elected president also supported giving the MAP to Ukraine. But the difference between April and today is that then, during the Bucharest summit, there was a concern about Russia. That is why President Bush did not manage to achieve that the MAP be given to Ukraine at the April summit. But the months that followed the summit have not helped Ukraine, again, for the reason of political turmoil and possibility of holding early elections. Then Ukraine was told that not only its president, but its prime minister as well should support the MAP. But can it be said for sure who will be the next prime minister if the elections are held in 2009? I think that this mess has become the road barrier that prevented George Bush from reaching his aim. It is difficult to say whether President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton will face this dilemma. The most important thing that Ukrainians need to do is to bring peace into the political situation and develop a common position. And one should not be in a hurry here. We have Russia’s dissatisfaction on the one hand, and domestic situation on the other hand. I was in Bucharest during the NATO summit. Talking to the representatives of Germany, with one of them being a statesman, I heard that a partial reason for Germany’s unwillingness to say ‘yes’ to giving the MAP to Ukraine was Russia. But they felt discomfort and did not want Russia to be the only reason for refusal. Therefore Ukraine’s goal is to create a situation when Germany would feel uncomfortable and be unable say ‘no’ motivating it not only by the Russian factor.”
“NATO’S GOAL SHOULD BE TO ASSIST IN COOPERATION BETWEEN THE ALLIANCE AND RUSSIA.”
Mr. Pifer, how will you comment on the statement of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs concerning the resolutions that NATO approved appropos of Ukraine and Georgia, specifically the words that the fact that Georgia and Ukraine were not included to the MAP reflects understanding of the risks connected with accelerated accession of these countries to the Alliance?
“There are three moments that Russians understand in a wrong way. Firstly, the ministers have confirmed the theses made at the Bucharest summit that Ukraine and Georgia would be members of NATO. Secondly, the statement of the ministers said that many practical measures would be taken between NATO and Ukraine as well as between NATO and Georgia, that practical reforms would be strengthened as well as practical cooperation, studies, exchanges and meetings of the NATO - Ukraine Commission. Thirdly, as for the statements made by Russians that there is no threat coming from the East, I would distinguish Ukraine and Georgia at this point. I’ve talked to many Ukrainians and I have understood that most of those supporting the country’s entry to NATO are doing this hardly for the reason of the threat coming from the East. They want to see Ukraine as a part of Europe. And most of the countries which have become full-fledged members of Europe are members of NATO.”
But Russia will always be against Ukraine’s NATO membership. Should the Alliance do anything in order to persuade Russia that enlargement is not a threat?
“Several things of long-time prospect have to be done in this aspect. Firstly, NATO should be creative. However, this refers to Russia as well. One should take a view of the ways and mechanisms of cooperation of NATO and Russia which should be broader, more positive and active. For example, this may refer to the cooperation in the sphere of anti-missile defense. An ideal subject for cooperation between NATO and Russia can be an operation against Somalian piracy. NATO’s goal of long-time prospect should be assistance of cooperation between the Alliance and Russia so that Russians considered NATO a partner in resolving of problems rather than a threat. In this case Russia won’t be afraid of NATO enlargement. But in order to make this real, one should do a plenty of work. And it won’t be an easy thing to change Russia’s attitude to NATO. A part of the problem is that sometimes Russia wants to depict NATO as an enemy. Russia should express its willlingness to recognize that NATO of today differs very much from NATO as it used to be 20 years ago. At that time NATO’s mission was to defend Europe from the Soviet Union. Today NATO’s mission includes peacekeeping operations in the Balkans, in Afghanistan and the operation Active Efforts in the Mediterranian Sea, where Russia is taking part as well. NATO’s armed forces differ from the way they used to be. Sometimes it seems to me that Russians barely understand this.”
On the other hand, the Russian channels explained the renewal of NATO’s dialogue with Russia as recognition by the Alliance of its mistake in assessment of the events that took place in Caucasus in August this year.
“The August events are very tangled. But a good news is that NATO and Russia are moving back to the cooperative relations, at least they have activated this channel. But the challenges are so that NATO member countries and Russia become more creative. And this will be good for Ukraine as well. In my opinion, if there are good relations between NATO and Russia, this will give Ukraine more freedom to develop its relations with the Alliance, without arousing any concerns in Moscow.”
“IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT UKRAINE ALSO SPEAK WITH EUROPE AND INSIST UPON ITS VISION.”
There is a concern in Ukraine that NATO will develop relations with Russia at Ukraine’s expense.
“In my opinion, NATO is building its relations with Russia and Ukraine according to their merits. Therefore for me it is hard to believe that NATO will develop its relations with Russia and limit its cooperation with Ukraine. But if to broaden relations between NATO and Russia, there will be less tension concerning broadening of relations between NATO and Ukraine.”
But how, in your opinion, can one assess Russia’s attitude to Ukraine? Speaking with Russian citizens on Dec. 4 Vladimir Putin stated that in case of unlawful gas take-off by the Ukrainian side, the Russian one intends to conduct consultations with European consumers.
“In my opinion, it is very important that Ukraine also speak with Europe and insist upon its own vision of the situation. Franskly speaking gas transit is one of the key problems of Ukraine, Russia and Europe. But the agreements concerning gas transit via Ukraine have not been yet determined. It is difficult to understand for people what RosUkrEnergo is and what it is doing. Not only is it difficult to understand the agreements, but also who is right and who is wrong. But if Ukraine is able to explain where the real problem is, what the real debts for gas are, sorting out of these reasons will help Ukraine be in the avant-garde in case any crisis emerges. You should not be making surprises for the Europeans. They should understand the situation. If any crisis emerges, in this case Ukraine will have a sympathetical interlocutor in Europe.”
What will be the US policy concerning Ukraine with a new administration and who will be in charge of the Ukrainian issue in the US State Department?
“Taking into consideration the comments Obama made during the election campaign about Ukraine, they were very positive. He stated clearly that he wanted to develop strong relations between the US and Ukraine. Sen. Clinton also has a favorable attitude to Ukraine. During the recent 17 years Respublicans and Democrats have been having mutual understanding concerning the way of developing the US relations with Ukraine. The way the situation will develop under Obama’s administration will depend much on the people apppointed deputies, assistants of the secretary of state, the president’s adviser on the questions of national security. But I hope that these offices will be occupied by people who will work on maintaining good relations with Ukraine.”
Will Mark Brzezinski be appointed an assistant or deputy?
“I don’t know. Many people in the Brookings Institution have worked for Obama during the election campaign, and many of them are interested in joining the new administration. But the number of offices is limited. Personally I’m not going to work in the administration.”
How in your opinion will the relations between the US and Russia develop under Obama’s administration?
“It should be admitted that Bush and Putin had good relations and they have met for nearly 30 times. But unfortunately very good personal relations have not been transmitted into improvement of relations between the countries. I hope that Obama’s presidency will assist in changing of the course of American-Russian relations. Some positive signals have indicated this.
“During the election campaign Obama spoke about the need to reduce the amount of strategic weapons. In my opinion, Russians would like to do the same. Thus, we can return to a traditional process of disarmament that will be good for controlling nuclear weapons. Similar things took place during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton. When any progress took place in the sphere of the control over the weapons, it had a broadly positive effect upon the bilateral relations. In Reagan’s time the discussions concerning human rights started. In George H. W. Bush’s time it became easier to agree on Germany’s unification. In Clinton’s time Russians assisted very much in conducting of peacekeeping operations in Bosnia. I hope that if we return to a traditional nuclear dialogue, this will be good not only for nuclear disarmament, but for the relations in a broad sense. Anti-missile defense may become another sphere. Obama’s position concerning the deployment of anti-missile defense systems in Poland includes a demand that this system be efficient and enabling to maneuvre. Besides, with a view upon the time schedule, according to the plans of the administration, the systems of anti-missile defense will start operating in Europe in 2011-12. But with a view upon the second part of the equation, referring to the threat, many experts consider that Iran will be able to produce a missile able to reach Europe and the US only by 2015-16. During the last year of Bush’s administration, there has not been any desire to change the plan of anti-missile defense. Therefore, with a view of the time lag between Bush’s plans and a real threat, there is a possibility of announcing a moratorium by the US. For several years we won’t start to prepare a ground for establishment of the anti-missile systems in Poland and radar in the Czech Republic, whereas Russians will have several years to influence Iran. If they will persuade Iran to refuse from its missile program, then I guess there will be no need for building any anti-missile systems. After all, I don’t hope that Russians will insert pressure upon Iranians. And I am not sure that Iranians will listen to Russians, once those insert pressure. But the tension between the US and Russian in this question may be reduce at least for several years. If nothing comes out of this within this period, it will be possible to build the anti-missile defense system in time. I am not sure that Obama will act in this way. But this cannot be excluded. And this may lead to the change of dynamics of American-Russian relations.”
“HILLARY CLINTON WILL BE A VERY SUCCESSFUL SECRETARY OF STATE.”
There are many opinions in the US concerning appointment of Hillary Clinton the secretary of state. Will she cover the president’s back as James Baker and some other US secretaries of state would do in their time?
“He did not ask me about this. (Laughing.) Looking at the people Obama has appointed to his cabinet, one can see that they are strong personalities able to undertake responsibility and achieve a result. Sen. Clinton is intelligent and responsible. She is trying to sort everything out. In my opinion, Ms. Clinton will be a successful secretary of state. Obama needs a secretary of state who will carry out his foreign policy and be successful. On the other hand, she will need the presidential support. If to mention successful secretaries of state, when they were speaking with foreign leaders their interlocutors were aware that they were speaking not simply with a secretary of state, but that they were listening to the president’s voice.”
You’ve talked to many Ukrainians who explained the need for NATO entry by the possibility for Ukraine to become part of Europe with the help of it. In your opinion, why doesn’t Ukrainian political elite share these views?
“There are several explanations. One of them is that part of the elite does not have any understanding what NATO membership means. The second is that another part of the elite does not want to antagonize Russia. Once an overall conclusion is made, NATO entry will mean rupture of the relations with Russia, so Ukraine will have to make a serious choice in this case. In my opinion, this choice will be easier to make when the relations between NATO and Russia will change. It seems to me that Ukraine is able to have good relations with Europe, including NATO and EU membership, as well as with Russia.”
