What should be the informational background of Ukraine’s integration into the European Union? World information standards in the epoch of globalization require Ukraine to formulate clear and succinct theses about Ukraine’s movement toward the EU. Such mythologems should be developed for both Ukrainian and EU citizens. They will differ in terms of their goals and content. The former must convince Europeans that Ukraine’s EU membership would be good for the EU, while the latter should convince Ukrainians that EU membership would be good for Ukraine. Aside from government efforts aimed at reforming the nation’s legislation and infrastructure, a civil society in general, and every citizen in particular, plays a major role in Ukraine’s entry into the EU. The effectiveness of the accession policy depends on how much support ordinary Ukrainians will show for European integration ideas. Likewise, an attitude of acceptance in the European community toward Ukraine would greatly simplify Ukraine’s progress toward Europe. Therefore, preparing public opinion on both sides for mutual acceptance must become a major focus.
WHY “MYTHOLOGEMS”?
Relationships among people are evolving in a large number of spheres. It is therefore impossible to foresee all the hypothetical forms and methods of communication and to develop recommendations for all of them. In effect, we have to rely on the professionalism and decorum of Ukrainians abroad, who are shaping the image of Ukraine and acting as its representatives every single day.
Despite their multiplicity, social dialogs between Ukraine and the EU boil down to a few key, definitive questions, while the most varied discussions are often based on similar or even identical arguments.
Without consulting the annals of sophists, I will offer only a few mythologems that can be successfully used in the dialog with the EU. They can and must become a recurrent leitmotif in all discussions. Consider, for example, the experience of Polish society, which can successfully produce a model of social behavior to suit different, often unfavorable, situations. For example, after supporting the US intervention in Iraq, Poland came under a torrent of criticism from France and Germany. This criticism boiled down to the following mythologem: “Look at you! You barely joined the EU and you’re already working to destroy it! After all that we’ve done for your economy by admitting you to the EU.”
Polish society immediately produced a counter-mythologem to this well-founded accusation: “It has yet to be determined who helped whom and whose enterprises have benefited more from our accession to the EU. As for anti-American rhetoric, you may have forgotten that the rebuilding of Germany began with the Marshal Plan, which was initially intended for Poland as well. But while you were enjoying loans at reduced interest rates, we were defending democracy under the yoke of the USSR.”
I repeat that the point at issue is not the form of the discussion, which may range from an argument at the kitchen table to sophisticated discussions among intellectuals, but its substance.
MYTHOLOGEMS ABOUT UKRAINE
In preparing a new format for the relationship with the EU, it is worthwhile developing some universal precepts that should underlie any public debate on Ukraine’s place in the EU. We already have at least four such mythologems:
1. “The Orange Revolution has proved that Ukrainians are worthy of EU membership”
This has become a key thesis in post-revolutionary Ukraine. Even though it is accurate, its effect is more negative than positive, since it evokes the following response from Europeans: “You can’t even imagine what the EU is all about.” In fact, the EU is not a charitable fund that dispenses aid, not even a union of friendly nations. It is a delicate system of socioeconomic relations among member states, which are based exclusively on mutual benefit. Meanwhile, Ukrainians tend to believe that a place in the EU comes from merit, not hard work.
Therefore, in discussing prospects for EU membership, we should all try to mention the Orange Revolution as little as possible. After all, the whole world has understood its transcendent nature, and when Ukrainians remind anyone about it, they sound like jealous parents who keep harping on how much they have done for their child, which is immodest, to say the least.
In addition, news about the “revitalization of Ukraine” has dominated newspaper headlines for a long time. Now it may trigger irritation at the subconscious level. After all, ordinary consumers of information get tired of constant repetition. For example, the first reports of the tsunami in the Indian Ocean, which claimed hundreds of thousands of lives, sent shock waves across the world. This shock deepened on the second day, as harrowing footage of the disaster was released. On the fifth day people tuned in to see if some more bodies had been identified or how much money had been donated for the relief effort. However, after three weeks of daily televised reports about “four Ukrainians who are still missing,” most viewers switched to a different channel because “people go missing in every city every day, and this is never breaking news.”
There is a risk that constant appeals to the Orange Revolution might cause a similar reaction in the European community.
2. “We will soon be applying for EU membership”
An application for EU membership does not carry much significance in the legal sense. It is much like an application to Oxford University: you won’t be admitted without one, but the fact that you have submitted it doesn’t raise your chances of enrolment. The country’s leadership understands this, but the president continues to speak about the need to submit such an application.
The significance of such a step must also be viewed in terms of symbols and mythologems. The fact that Ukraine has submitted an application for EU membership will make Ukraine’s future presence in the EU a reality, even if it’s a hypothetical one, for every EU citizen. Over time, public consciousness will grow accustomed to the thought that Ukraine may become an EU member in the long term.
Therefore, such a signal is very successful. But after taking this step, Ukraine should, from the viewpoint of the politics of ideas, take a step back in order not to take it too far. This tactical retreat is consistent with the following mythologem: “Yes, we have submitted an application, but we realize how much work still lies ahead of us. Therefore we are not trying to speed things up and are not demanding any guarantees. We will first prove to ourselves and then to all of Europe that our intentions are serious.”
In effect, the EU leadership engages in this smoothing process every day, issuing almost daily statements about how long-term, complex, and uncertain the prospects of Ukraine’s accession are, so as not to send EU citizens into a state of cultural shock.
For the time being, Ukraine should try to accomplish intermediate goals, above all it should join the WTO and then proceed to inject real substance into the Action Plan, which is an EU admissions test in the economic sense. Its successful fulfillment would prove to the European elites that the idea of welcoming Ukraine to the EU might become reality.
3. “If Turkey is European enough to join the EU, why isn’t Ukraine?”
The same leitmotif was also created in Poland. In a direct sense it is the most populist of these four mythologems, since Turkey has long been a member of the EU customs union, which is de facto EU membership, but without the right to participate in the union’s ruling bodies. Yet this argument seems extremely convincing. By the same token, we may cite historical and ethnic values and remember Christianity, which Ukraine defended for centuries. Particularly inventive debaters may also recall “from whom exactly” Ukraine was defending Europe and add, “Now it is being denied the right that it has earned in its service to Western civilization.” The most radical orator might reflect on the question of “whether Turkey would be aspiring to the EU now or Great Britain to some Muslim Union if it hadn’t been for the glorious Zaporozhian Cossacks.”
However, that is not the advantage of this thesis. In effect, the placement of Ukraine alongside Turkey in the same semantic line is a major ideological victory. The longer this discussion continues, the more accustomed everyone will grow to the fact that Ukraine’s place is alongside Turkey, and not Moldova or Belarus as before.
In this context it is worth recalling that Ukraine’s cultural and political alliance with Poland may have unprecedented geostrategic consequences for all of Europe. Obviously, neither Germany, nor France, nor Russia would like a new political center to form in the heart of Europe. One of the ways to prevent it from becoming an effective alliance could be Ukraine’s admission to the EU. Moreover, such an idea would most certainly win backing from the US.
With this in view, it is worth recalling the joint application of Ukraine and Poland to host the UEFA European Cup finals in 2012. Even though the chances of this undertaking are slim, its informational significance is colossal. Constantly repeating the bond of Ukraine and Poland is extremely useful for bringing Ukraine closer to the EU in the consciousness of Europeans.
4. “What has a greater value for Europe: Ukrainian democracy or Russian gas?”
This thesis would have been much more relevant had democracy not won in Ukraine. However, even now there is every opportunity to use this somewhat sophistic thesis. In fact, the level of respect for human rights in Europe is extremely high. Meanwhile, in the minds of rank-and-file consumers natural gas and oil conjure up images of filth, which is associated with super profits, illegal transactions, the war in Iraq, and dependence on energy suppliers. There is even such a term as oil dollars, which many associate with drug dollars.
Despite the fairly unnatural character of the appeal to this thesis, there is much truth to it. After all, the lukewarm attitude to Ukraine’s European aspirations on the part of most countries in Old Europe is largely due to their fear of jeopardizing their relationship with Russia, “because Ukraine is in the sphere of Russia’s influence.”
In any case, this argument is appealing to the morals of EU citizens, and it will always make ordinary Europeans feel some subconscious sympathy for Ukraine.
MYTHOLOGEMS ABOUT THE EUROPEAN UNION
Ukrainian society also needs clear conceptual guidelines relating to Ukraine’s European integration. The level of public knowledge about the nature, character, goals, and practices of the EU is criminally low in Ukraine. Both Eurooptimists and Eurosceptics in Ukraine have little understanding of the subject of their disputes. Therefore, debunking European myths must become a priority for us.
1. “The EU is not manna from heaven”
This thesis is intended for Eurooptimists. After visiting the EU, many people, mostly those in western Ukraine, having experienced the benefits of developed Western democracy, believe that Ukraine’s entry into the EU will automatically raise Ukrainian standards to the European level.
To avoid disappointments and mistaken stereotypes, we must explain that the EU is an alliance based on mutual, not unilateral, benefits. Ukraine must undergo economic transformations on its own. Fortunately, the problem of excessive Eurooptimism has not acquired threatening proportions in Ukrainian society.
2. “EU accession is only the beginning”
There is a widespread belief that “the most important thing is to join the EU and then come what may.” In reality, EU membership places a great deal of responsibility on both the state and society at large. Specialists, scholars, and intellectuals in Ukraine have focused their attention on procedural questions of accession, which by no means should be neglected. However, our scholars must begin now to show interest in the key issues of the European Union, in particular questions of European law and administration. Ukraine must be prepared for the moment of its accession, with a body of skilled experts on all aspects of European life. There should be interest in the EU in all of its manifestations — from the household to the academic level.
3. “EU membership is a promotion to the major leagues”
Explaining the obvious is the most difficult task. Ukraine’s entry into the EU is axiomatic. When we are asked “What for?” as a rule, we resort to arguments about high living standards and end with the most meaningless arguments about visa- free travel.
Obviously, neither high living standards nor visa-free travel are the quintessence or exclusive prerogative of the EU. The essence of the European Union lies in the economic integration of its member states and building a free market without any internal restrictions.
EU entry is similar to the promotion of a soccer team to the major leagues: on the one hand, this means higher requirements, larger bets, and bigger problems, but on the whole the soccer club is thriving. Yet sometimes it has to expel players, who can’t handle the competition (in the case of the EU, these are bankruptcies of national enterprises) and increase ticket prices for spectators (in the case of the EU, these are growing consumer prices). But all these problems are nothing compared to the benefits for the team (an EU member state), players (EU enterprises), and, most importantly, spectators (EU citizens). In one sentence, the benefit of being promoted to the major leagues (joining the EU) is reflected in more digits in revenue and cost figures.
Yet there is one category of citizens who destructively criticize the EU, rebutting every argument by saying that we can achieve all this well-being on our own. Their arguments boil down to this: “Why bother studying, if there are ignoramuses with a higher education and intelligent people without any education whatsoever?” Normally they take no notice of the proportions or forms of such education. Meanwhile, in the context of European integration, they normally cite “catastrophic price hikes” or the “plight of unlucky farmers who curse their EU membership.” Such arguments recall Soviet propaganda about “imperialists living in luxury while ordinary people have no jobs.” All hopes of convincing such people to the contrary are obviously futile.
CONCLUSION
Ukraine’s progress toward the EU will take more than five or even ten years. Nonetheless, from day one everyone, especially young people, should focus on the long- term, fascinating work of studying the institutional and legal phenomenon that has no equivalents in the world, and which our country has a chance to join.
