Ukraine’s progress toward NATO membership has slowed down over the last couple of years, and there is a fair chance that work in this direction may be interrupted this year, most likely in conjunction with next year’s parliamentary election campaign. This was the gist of an announcement made a few days ago by Oleh Zarubinsky, chairman of the ad hoc Ukraine- NATO Monitoring Committee and of the Ukrainian parliament’s European Committee.
Mr. Zarubinsky went on to say that if you were to compare the two documents envisaging Ukraine’s implementation of its Euro-Atlantic measures over the past two years (in accordance with target- oriented plans for the years 2003 and 2004), the last year showed a decline in the Ukrainian government’s activity in following the NATO membership course. “An analysis of last year’s implementation of the Target Plan shows that the process of Ukraine’s Euro- Atlantic integration is slowing down,” the ad hoc commission believes. Mr. Zarubinsky claims that the main reason for this decline is the anti-NATO propaganda that surfaced during the last election campaign. The MP also voiced concerns over what he described as a “deliberate deceleration by the Presidential Administration of the implementation of a series of Target Plan measures in 2004.” Mr. Zarubinsky noted that ex-premier and former presidential candidate Viktor Yanukovych had declared that his government would reject NATO membership because it would allegedly threaten Ukraine’s military-industrial complex. “This statement had to have made an impact on the architects of the Target Plan,” said Mr. Zarubinsky, adding that Ukraine’s membership in NATO would help develop rather than impede its military-industrial complex. After Poland joined NATO, its foreign inland investment rates rose threefold.
What were the results of that anti-NATO campaign? Mr. Zarubinsky cited poll turnouts showing that before the presidential campaign in Ukraine nearly 34% of respondents supported NATO membership. “Should anyone consider this a low percentage, I might point out that the same percentage was registered in Hungary and the Czech Republic before they found themselves on the home stretch on the NATO membership track,” he said, adding that in Ukraine NATO membership support dropped twofold after the presidential campaign.
Assessing the implementation of both Euro-Atlantic documents over the past two years, Mr. Zarubinsky provided the following statistics: Last year the Target Plan envisaged the adoption of 229 measures (approximately the same number as in 2003), yet only 65% were actually carried out (compared to 74% in 2003, according to Mr. Zarubinsky). Twenty-three percent of scheduled measures were never implemented; 5% were partially implemented, and 4% were postponed or cancelled altogether. It is absolutely unacceptable that 7 measures were not adopted in 2 years, the MP underlined.
In particular, the parliamentarian lashed out at the state’s information policy vis-И-vis Ukraine’s admission to NATO, or rather its absence. “There is an information vacuum where Ukraine’s Euro- Atlantic integration is concerned. Why? There are a number of reasons. Apparently, politicians are thinking about the parliamentary elections in 2006. However, I believe that national interests should be considered above narrow party and campaign interests.” After all, information policy concerns the new government as well. What has been accomplished over the past two months? Has the new government attempted to demonstrate a consolidated stand in regard to Ukraine’s NATO membership? So far we have heard ambiguous statements or “variations on a theme” — ranging from joining NATO with Russia (as Yulia Tymoshenko said in an interview with a Russian newspaper before being appointed prime minister), to joining NATO for the sake of being admitted to the European Union (this is the most widespread notion, as noted by Foreign Minister Borys Tarasiuk).
Quizzed by journalists about the new Ukrainian government’s unambiguous stand, Mr. Zarubinsky declared, “It is not the business of a minister to make statements about speeding up or slowing down the integration process. Obviously, this is the kind of situation in which politicians must busy themselves with politics, party functionaries with party matters, and ministers must act as set forth in documents adopted by the state. President Yushchenko has always stated that European and Euro- Atlantic integration is a top-priority matter of Ukraine’s foreign policy. I hope that he does not deviate from this before the elections.” As for NATO membership allegedly being instrumental in Ukraine’s being admitted to the WTO, Mr. Zarubinsky believes that this means narrowing the scope of the issue. At the beginning of the press conference he stated that NATO membership is more realistic for Ukraine than joining the EU. He also pointed out the greater feasibility of the Ukraine-NATO Action Plan than that of Ukraine-EU, adding that the latter document lacks specifics in many respects (e.g., performers of concrete measures, timeframes, etc.).
The Cabinet of Ministers has the third Ukraine-NATO Membership Target Plan to consider. “I believe that we will be able to familiarize you with this document before long,” said MP Zarubinsky, adding that the new Ukrainian government should demonstrate better performance in view of NATO’s more favorable attitude toward Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic integration, and that “implementing the Ukraine-NATO Action Plan in 2005 at the proper rate will make it possible to make adjustments that will permit us to step up implementation of the action plan in 2005 without waiting for the yearly results. This will allow Ukraine to proceed to implement the membership plan.” After that, becoming a full-fledged NATO member will take only a short while.
