The week before last Kyiv hosted Germany’s Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier. He is not the only German politician to have visited Ukraine in the period leading up to the March 2006 elections. Such visits are primarily due to German’s great and undeniable interest in the Ukrainian parliamentary elections. What are Germany’s hopes in connection with the elections in Ukraine? What are Germany’s warnings about the post-election period? How should Ukraine build its relationship with Russia? Germany’s concerns are discussed in an interview with Germany’s Ambassador to Ukraine Dietmar STUDEMANN.
“Do you have any suggestions on what path Ukraine should avoid after the elections?”
“It is necessary to avoid situations in which political development will stop, for this may create a certain vacuum that would be filled by unconstructive forces. It is very important to understand that too little time has passed since the new political force born in the Orange Revolution came to power, which is why it is too early to show it the red card. It is important for those forces that support reforms to show a high degree of unity and jointly propose an agenda aimed at implementing changes in the state and society. Both sides — the current political leadership and the opposition — should uphold the same principle: their ideologies should have people at their core. In all democratic countries political forces are vested with power only for a limited period, if their actions are transparent. Ukrainian politicians should compete for the right to carry out the voters’ will, and not for power.”
“You are saying that it is too early to show the new leadership the red card. Does this mean that if Ukrainian voters show a lack of confidence in the ‘Orange’ forces, then Germany and the EU will be disappointed in the Ukrainians’ choice?”
“No. It will be your choice. We will cooperate with the government that is elected in lawful and fair elections. What I meant to say is that one year is not enough to judge the actions of the new political leadership, all the more so as it inherited a very difficult legacy. There has not been enough time. I would like voters to act wisely and take into account that a certain period of time is necessary for changes to happen.”
“Some experts are discussing the creation of a German-style ‘grand coalition’ after the elections. What do you think about this comparison?”
“The notion of a ‘grand coalition’ has entered the lexicon of Ukrainian political analysts. I think it is necessary to differentiate clearly between Ukrainian politicians’ understanding of the expression ‘grand coalition’ and what it really is in Germany. Our ‘grand coalition’ is the result of a decision that was made during the elections. First of all, I must say that it is a result of lengthy negotiations and deliberations of agendas aimed at resolving our problems. These decisions have been worked out by our two so-called popular parties, which differ in their approaches to resolving different problems. While they are different, our parties still tried to find a compromise in their attempt to combine the resolution of internal problems with foreign policy goals. They reached a compromise that voters support.
The ‘grand coalition’ is an exception: this is only the second one in the entire history of the Federal Republic of Germany, beginning in 1949. The need for this coalition is due to the exceptional situation that is nonetheless determined by a search for decisions to overcome problems in the country. If you superimpose this ‘template’ onto the situation in Ukraine, you will come to the conclusion that a German-style ‘grand coalition’ is impossible here. The current situation indicates that Ukrainian political forces still lack convincing agenda-based approaches. Personalities are at the forefront. So, it is difficult to say that the people’s will is deeply at the core of these parties’ promises. If we project this situation onto Ukraine and imagine that the parties that garner the majority of votes can work together, then everything should happen in the following order: first, the parties must reconcile their agendas, and only then can decisions be made about who will obtain what posts. Therefore, I do not think that superimposing German notions onto the Ukrainian reality will do any good.”
“During a recent interview one of your colleagues expressed his opinion of the natural gas dispute between Ukraine and Russia. He asked: ‘Why did Kyiv expect support from the EU? You should have realized that Ukraine and Russia are equally important partners for us. To side with either of the two would mean spoiling relations with the other one.’ Would you comment on this?”
“This means that the EU will not assume the role of mediator. Ukraine should learn to define its interests and defend them on its own. Clearly, today’s problems are linked to the difficult legacy of past relations. Everything that happened recently with the Russian partner concerning natural gas made it impossible for us to analyze this situation transparently, let alone make any conclusions. This applies to both sides. We are very interested in seeing these relations develop on a transparent basis and continue on the basis of market economy mechanisms and principles. This will ensure their transparency and predictability. What happened in recent months does not correspond to our ideas. We are very interested in creating simple preconditions that would be transparent enough for relations between Ukraine and Russia in the energy sector, because the combination of these conditions will also affect us.
The situation in the energy sector is quite simple. There are always three participants: the producer, the supplier, and the consumer. In the future the entire energy sector will be an extremely important factor in the policy of the 21st century. In particular, this will largely concern our security. I absolutely consciously link the word energy with the phrase ‘security of the 21st century.’ We will have to reach compromises and try to diversify sources of energy. But I also think that a more creative approach is a must here: we need to look for alternative sources of energy. They will play a more important role in the future.”
“The international community has mixed feelings about the new job of Germany’s former chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, who will be working for a joint venture co-founded by the Russian natural gas monopoly Gazprom. How would you evaluate the criticisms that were directed at the former head of the German government? Incidentally, this happened at the start of the natural gas crisis between Ukraine and Russia.”
“In this case Mr. Schroeder acted as a private individual and he has the right to do so. As the federal chancellor he had to defend Germany’s interests, and I think he did this in his consultations with the government. These are totally different things. In his official capacity, Schroeder worked to secure a supply of energy for our country. As a private individual, he accepted an offer to work for an energy concern in which Russia is an important partner. These are different things. When German observers started to criticize his decision made as a private individual, nobody accused him of using his political influence to get the job. Because of our political culture and effective control mechanisms, this would be impossible to do. Our critics focused on whether a politician with such an influential past could turn into a businessman so quickly. This is a question of style, and styles differ.”
