Brussels and Kyiv have different visions of Ukraine’s future place in an enlarged Europe. Although there is nothing unusual about this, a European future and the paths to the European Union are also seen differently inside Ukraine. What is especially alarming is that the presidential and prime ministerial branches of power hold very different views on how to advance toward the EU and what steps should be taken to achieve the goal that admittedly unites all of us.
On its part, the European Union accepts the prospect of Ukraine’s membership in the European community. Benita Ferrero-Waldner, EU Commissioner for External Relations and Neighborhood Policy, said recently that the question of Ukraine’s EU membership remains open, but it is a question of the future. “Take advantage of the time that you have. I told your president and your prime minister: if you want more, you will get it,” the EU commissioner emphasized during a working luncheon organized by the Hans Seidel Stiftung political foundation.
At first glance, the two branches of power should find a common language and act as a single team in order to achieve the goal as soon as possible. But the problem seems to lie in the different philosophical approaches of the president and the prime minister’s teams to ways of developing relations with an economic community that cherishes the same values. This philosophical disconnection was easy to spot during the roundtable debate “Ukraine-EU: from the Action Plan to the Enhanced Agreement,” held last Thursday in Kyiv.
The presidential side is focusing on fostering and upholding European values, while the prime minister’s one mostly abides by the principle of “scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours.” Noting that the new enhanced agreement on cooperation between Ukraine and the EU should be ambitious, carry additional value, and still be based on political and economic integration, Ihor Dir, chief of the Foreign Policy Department at the Presidential Secretariat, pointed out that Brussels has noted Ukraine’s intention to share common values and ensure human rights and freedom of expression. Experts are also quite optimistic about Ukraine’s progress on the road to pluralism, democratization, and a free mass media, the Razumkov Center’s deputy director-general Valerii Chaly said. At the same time, he noted mounting criticism of the judiciary and corruption.
Meanwhile, the assistant to Ukraine’s prime minister, Andrii Fialko, emphasized that Ukraine should develop cooperation with the European Union according to the principles of realistic pragmatism. He also said that the Ukrainian side has encountered only complications in response to its introduction of a visa-free regime with EU countries. It is not clear, however, why the prime minister’s assistant failed to recall that the European Union met Ukraine halfway by approving the agreement on simplified visa requirements. This agreement gives Ukraine more opportunities in comparison with the one the EU signed with Russia.
What is odd is Fialko’s claim that the EU is not interested in Ukraine joining the European community because this may allow southeastern countries led by Poland to make decisions that run counter to the founding states’ interests.
Since Ukraine is striving to join the elite club, both critical remarks and advice should be considered. The European Union sees both positive and negative sides in the current cooperation. Brussels is also openly stating what kind of reforms it expects Ukraine to carry out. Dirk Schuebel, head of the political, press, and information section of the European Commission Delegation to Ukraine and Belarus, believes that things are changing fast in Ukraine.
At the same time, he notes three positive points. Brussels was impressed by the fair elections in March 2006 and expressed the hope that the coming elections will be the same. Schuebel also considers the Border Assistance Mission to Moldova and Ukraine an achievement in EU-Ukraine cooperation. According to him, positive cooperation in the energy sector has been marred by domestic political events in Ukraine. A negative factor is corruption, which the government should be combating more actively.
With regard to future cooperation between Ukraine and the EU, Schuebel emphasized that three important agreements would be signed in Luxembourg on June 18: one to raise EU steel supply quotas, a second to simplify visa requirements, and a third on readmission. The visa agreement will considerably simplify entry into the European Union for many categories of Ukrainian citizens. These agreements are expected to come into force on Jan. 1, 2008.
Schuebel expressed the hope that Ukraine will join the World Trade Organization this year, which will clear the way for Ukraine and the EU to negotiate the creation of a free trade area. The negotiations may last for up to a year even under the most favorable conditions. He also said that the EU is interested in increasing environmental cooperation with Ukraine. These matters will be discussed in July.
On his part, Johannes Regenbrecht, deputy chief of the Diplomatic Mission at the German Embassy in Ukraine, says it is necessary to focus on reforms, Ukraine’s accession to the WTO, and negotiations of a free trade area.
In this connection, he noted that Ukrainian legislation should be brought in line with aquis communautaire (European heritage). In his view, it is very important for Ukraine to pass an industry-related law so that Ukrainian industrialists do not have problems once the free trade area has been established. Incidentally, Fialko admitted that during a cabinet meeting on the adaptation of legislation Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych spoke about personal responsibility for this work. So far there are no results.
But Regenbrecht placed the main emphasis on the need to introduce rule of law in Ukraine. The current political crisis has exacerbated this problem and shown that there is no effective system of checks and balances in Ukraine. “Pressure is often applied — and not just on the Constitutional Court. It is obvious that the judicial system has been ineffective for a long time, and now it is on the surface,” Regenbrecht said. In his opinion, the key to restoring political stability lies in carrying out a constitutional reform. “Elections are a good thing, but they will not improve the overall situation. Ukrainian institutions should work for democratic reforms. Once this is achieved, relations will definitely improve after Ukraine joins the WTO, and then we will be able to discuss EU- Ukraine relations in a philosophical fashion in 2008,” the German diplomat stressed.
This fall will show whether our politicians can see prospects and make maximum use of the chances offered by the European Union.
