Ukraine is still has much to accomplish in order to be treated on equal terms, so Germany could proceed to defend its interests in Europe and get this country closer to the European Union. This was the leitmotif of The Day’s interview with Herr Dietmar STUDEMANN, the Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Germany to Ukraine, his first interview with the Ukrainian press after his appointment. And he knows of which he speaks, having worked for ten years in the USSR and Russia. His previous post at the German Foreign Ministry was directly connected with the post-Soviet states. Mr. StЯdemann knows not only the subject but also has an excellent command of Russian and promised to learn Ukrainian.
The Day: On behalf of the Editors and staff, please accept our warmest greetings on your appointment. We know that you have an established reputation in Kyiv and we are certain that you will add to this reputation before long.
D. S.: Indeed, it’s one of the tasks I have to accomplish in the line of duty.
The Day: What would you list as Ukraine’s specifics?
D. S.: So far as we are concerned, your national specifics consist in the fact that the German public needed time to become familiar with Ukraine as a polity and with the people living in this country. Ukraine occupies a large territory and Ukrainians are very active, so getting familiar with them was not difficult; I am inclined to describe our relationship as partnership at the political level and quite friendly at the personal one.
The Day: What do you think are Ukraine’s prospects in terms of European integration and partnership with Germany, particularly from the standpoint of Ukrainian-EU relations? You must be only too well aware that French and German analysts conducted studies last year that somehow got onto the Internet, causing a little scandal. Their findings read, among other things, that Ukraine cannot be allowed to approach the EU, because this would cause Russia’s isolation, and its response would be most unwelcome for the European Union. German and French leaders have since made it clear that the document does not reflect their official views or that of the union, by and large, yet nor have they totally discarded the idea. Ho do you personally see the situation?
D. S.: I wonder if you are familiar with the document, and I mean not only the published one.
The Day: Yes, to a certain extent.
D. S.: Ukraine is a state in a stage of transformation, in its social, political, and economic spheres. All this imposes certain restrictions on partnership. On the other hand, partnership offers certain prospects.
Our foreign policy is regarded as part of that of the European Union. After all, Germany initiated the strategy aimed at advancing EU relationships and cooperation with Ukraine. This strategy covers an extensive range of issues relating to such cooperation and it implies a great deal of willingness to cooperate precisely to help Ukraine on its road toward the union, so as to quicken and ease Ukraine’s entrance to Europe.
This preparedness and political will must find response on the other side, too. In other words, Ukraine must also take the steps necessary. As for the document you have mentioned — I mean the one produced by the French and German political planning headquarters — I think that one should regard such sandbox games as a basis for political considerations, on your as well as on our part.
Ukraine is too great and important a state to leave at the mercy of such planning headquarters. This much is realized by German and French politicians. Ukraine’s prospects are considered very seriously with regard to both the European Union and all Europe.
The Day: Numerous declarations were heard during the Ukrainian-German summit in Leipzig, to the effect that Germany is prepared to act as Ukraine’s advocate in Europe. Do you agree that the issue could be approached differently, that Ukraine needs not so much an advocate or helper as it does an EU lobbyist capable of convincing the union that Ukraine and its interests are really important? Could the German federal government act as such a lobbyist?
D. S.: It seems difficult to distinguish between advocate and lobbyist in this context. I think that Ukraine needs both. Ukraine should make every effort to have such a lobbyist and advocate fully equipped to effectively defend and represent its interests. I believe that the federal government and Germany as a whole are fully aware of Ukraine’s importance in the regional and multilateral context. But whether the federal government will be able to lobby for Ukraine in Europe and elsewhere in the world is a different matter; here one must also consider precisely how well Ukraine is prepared to express its interests in the correct, democratic context, formulating them so as to have Ukraine’s very people represented within the framework of these interests. Ukraine must make every effort to have its interests duly represented.
The Day: Your excellency, do you think that those claiming that the United States is paying more attention to Ukraine and its problems than EU countries have a point?
D. S.: I am not one of those inclined to regard their partners’ foreign policy from the point of view of who has done more and better than the rest. I think that all of us must work to help your country — of whose importance, potential, and European as well as global role we are all convinced — live and prosper; we must all help and encourage you. In principle, all of us wish to support Ukraine’s stable and democratically oriented development, so Ukraine can play its role with regard to its Eastern and Western neighbors, in Europe, and worldwide. I think that the issue should be regarded as an allocation of duties among partners interested in Ukraine. We have a common view: Ukraine must be made stronger.
The Day: How do you see Ukraine’s role with regard to its Western and Eastern neighbors?
D. S.: Ukraine is deeply rooted in both the West and East. This is precisely what determines its political significance. This is precisely what explains our tremendous interest in Ukraine. It is extremely important for all of us to see this continent evolving in a stable and predictable manner. Ukraine plays an important role in the process, as a sort of connection between East and West. We know that playing this role is difficult, especially when new principles are taking shape in the life of certain polities. However, this transformation process, complicated as it is, should not obscure our view of Ukraine and its calling as a major link in the Eastern-Western chain, also within the cultural context. This is precisely what makes Ukraine do so much in disseminating the notion of Western values and minimal European standards.
The Day: What do you think Ukraine could contribute to Europe in this role? Another question is whether its leadership is doing everything it should in that direction.
D. S.: I would answer this philosophically. Ukraine has something to show the rest of the world, but perhaps it does not even realize what it has. We in the West consider it a certain phenomenon. Ukraine can show everybody a model way to survive, an ability to find ways to avoid death and extinction, although one will have to pay a dear price for these ways. Be it as it may, Ukraine has not dissolved into Russia. It did not disappear during Soviet times. It survived despite a great deal of strain, physical and moral. It is still there, and not just as a fragile boat ready to fall apart on a rough sea. Ukraine is a great country representing its own interests in the world arena. In addition, people in Ukraine are trying to find their own place in the sun; they have their own expectations, although much is still to be done to make these expectations come true. These are important facts which we must reckon with. Ukraine has great potential and it is doing many things worthy of note and respect.
Continuing in the vein of Realpolitik, Ukraine can do more than demonstrate its ability to survive. It should accomplish a great deal in the principal spheres. For so long as there is a struggle for indivisible and uncontrollable power, this country will experience constant difficulties on the European and world stage. People are the same, be it in Ukraine or Germany. The important thing is to have an effective political system with an extremely significant component, namely the presence of control mechanisms. Such mechanisms are still inactive in Ukraine. And there is the so-called third support which is also very important and on which the whole system relies: the judiciary. Laws must not only be enacted, but also implemented, and these laws must be equal for all. Your people must learn to defend their rights in court. Only then will this state cease to be an abstract notion. A state means people, so when this understanding is asserted among most Ukrainians your country will have a chance of building a civil society that will give it further vital impetus. Only then will it be able to play its role the way we see it: as a full-fledged European partner.
The way we see Ukraine is not as important as the way Ukraine sees itself from within. When it takes a good look in this way it will have to do a great deal to reach that level of equal partnership.
There must be a fourth support beside the third one, which is especially important for countries in such a phase of transformation. I mean the free press as a spokesperson for people other than politicians. Every effort must be made to enhance this tool and secure its effective functioning, because there is always somebody who wants to influence the media in one way or another.
The Day: Speaking of cooperation between the three branches of power in Ukraine, could the West place special emphasis on supporting either of the branches?
D. S.: No. This is a strictly Ukrainian issue, now that this country is trying to determine the constitutional principles of such cooperation. Only your country can assert the possibility of stable development and reasonable principles of your society.
It would be wrong to assume that we can express support of any of the branches of government. This would be detrimental to those branches and to ourselves.
The Day: There have been numerous favorable opinions voiced in the West of late, as in the case of our reform Cabinet, but all this apparently remains at the level of pure moral encouragement. There has been no increase in investment. What do you personally think of the situation, considering that Germany is among the largest investors in Ukraine’s economy?
D. S.: There are definitely strong positive impulses from your Cabinet of Ministers, yet the desire for reform is not enough for investment. You must have principles and they have to be worked out by parliament. It is necessary to carry out reform and harmonize cooperation between the President, Cabinet, and Verkhovna Rada. All interests must be taken into account. We believe in your President, Cabinet, and parliament; we believe that such harmonization will be achieved. Naturally, all this cannot happen overnight. Yet when the required framework conditions are finally worked out, interest will quickly appear, because investors need such framework conditions in terms of taxation. It is necessary to allow for the investor’s interests, on the one hand, and for the interests of the state on the other, considering that the state wants to use investment to replenish its budget. There must be certain guarantees for the investor, so he can contribute his money without trepidation. These spheres are rather neglected in Ukraine, but I believe that all these drawbacks will be overcome. The more so that Germany’s potential interest in Ukraine is both as a large market and a venue of resources that are far from exhausted. Money is often compared to a timorous deer that takes off at the slightest noise in the brush. As soon as Ukraine becomes stable and certain real prospects appear, money will come.
The Day: Would it be correct to assume that the West ought to do something to help establish an atmosphere of confidence of Ukraine, as we have discussed above all in terms of changes in our mentality?
D. S.: You have a point. It is very difficult to discard stereotypes and come to understand each other, knowing that you have to change yourself. And I don’t think that confidence is a problem. There is confidence. The problem is that there are a lot of very good ideas, but they are all on paper and those being implemented lack completeness. We know that carrying out things written down is anything but easy, for certain political risks are involved. But we have to do this. Solving many problems at the same time is difficult. The problem is to believe in the necessity of doing this, but there is already no stopping the process.
I think that there is no alternative to cooperation and support. Otherwise everything could turn into chaos and ruin, and this would hurt all sides.
