“Ukraine is prepared to enter a new qualitative phase in its cooperation with NATO,” Deputy Foreign Minister Oleh Shamshur said on March 23. The Istanbul summit is scheduled for April, yet Kyiv is not certain what to expect. The intrigue is made up of two issues: (a) whether the Ukraine- NATO Commission will hold a meeting at the presidential-government levels, and (b) whether Ukraine-NATO cooperation will be raised to a higher level in Istanbul.
The Istanbul summit should serve as an indicator of Ukraine’s progress on its Euro-Atlantic road. No official information has been provided in regard to these issues. Kyiv continues to stress its willingness and preparedness to deepen this cooperation, but NATO officials avoid official responses. Late last year, diplomats from certain countries (like Germany and Italy) made it clear that the possibility of broadening the format of cooperation with the alliance would depend directly on the transparency of the presidential campaign in Ukraine. This caused doubts about the Istanbul summit producing any significant results. It was further assumed that the West would refrain from any decisions until after the presidential elections.
Oleh Shamshur told The Day on March 23 that “Ukraine, of course, does not share this opinion... We believe that the political leadership and state authorities are making every effort to hold transparent and democratic elections. Personally I see no reason to call this into question... We consider this assumption erroneous, since the target plans for 2003 and 2004 point to tangible positive changes in our relations with NATO. Mr. Shamshur added that “a certain impetus” had been given the relationship, and, “It would be very inconsiderate if our Western partners established a mechanism slowing the process down, as this would by no means benefit neither Ukraine nor, actually, our partners either.”
What makes Kyiv expect the format of Ukraine-NATO cooperation to be broadened? On the one hand, Brussels has on more than one occasion praised Kyiv’s integration efforts, especially in terms of the military reform and Ukraine’s involvement in the stabilization forces in Iraq. On the other hand, NATO has pointed out that, while the military component is very important, there are other fields of endeavor just as significant. Once again, it all comes down to domestic policy. Nor is the situation helped by Western governments pointing to problems with the media in Ukraine. Bruce Jackson, president of the U.S. Committee on NATO (a nonprofit bipartisan organization formed to promote the expansion of NATO), told The Day that Ukraine is taking very good steps indeed, and the military reform here is one of the best he has seen. There is double-digit economic growth and Ukraine’s contribution in Iraq is better than that of Spain, as witnessed by recent events. Kyiv can offer a contribution in the cultural and historical spheres that can compete with those of Warsaw or Prague. However, there are hundreds of examples indicating that Kyiv is taking the wrong kind of steps damaging Ukraine’s image in the West. Mr. Jackson referred to US press reports on the situation with the freedom of speech in Ukraine, noting that thirty years of effective military reform will have no significance whatsoever if a journalist, politician, or a child is allowed to be physically assaulted. One bad move is enough to reduce to nil all the previous good ones, stressed the US expert, adding that this situation makes Kyiv’s progress on the road to Euro-Atlantic integration impossible.
He said he had two pieces of news, one bad and one good. The bad one was that Ukraine would receive nothing of substance in Istanbul. The good news was that this did not matter, as no one else would get anything of substance there either. Mr. Jackson explained that the summit would generally discuss the possibility of increasing NATO’s presence in the Middle East to combat terrorism, meaning there would be simply no time left to discuss anything else. He also noted that much would depend on the atmosphere in Istanbul and how Western partners would treat the Ukrainian delegation — with gratitude or suspicion.
This attitude would indicate whether the NATO countries were prepared to broaden their cooperation with Ukraine. Mr. Jackson also pointed out that Kyiv fails to see what the Western governments expect from the presidential campaign in Ukraine. He said that Viktor Yushchenko seems to have already decided that he will win, so he is criticizing the West for not helping him enough. Simultaneously, those in power seem to believe they will lose the campaign and that the West is doing too much to that end. In his opinion, there are two election campaigns underway in Ukraine. One is led by Yushchenko and Yanukovych as the principal contenders. Ukraine, as a state, is vying in an international race. Mr. Jackson considers that this race is more important than the election campaign.
Bruce Johnson’s views are significant, but they do not reflect any official opinion. US Ambassador John Herbst made it clear to The Day that it would be premature to discuss Istanbul and Ukraine’s participation. Perhaps this is because Kyiv still stands a chance and the foreign ministry seems to be betting on it. “Our stand is that Ukraine is prepared to take part in a meeting of the Ukraine-NATO Commission in Istanbul, if and when the alliance makes a decision to this effect,” Oleh Shamshur declared, adding, “We regard raising the status of our relations with NATO as being in the interests of both sides. In other words, Ukraine is not acting as a supplicant. Our relations have reached a stage where raising the level of cooperation is already on the agenda.”
What scenarios can Ukraine expect in Istanbul? Polish Ambassador Marek Ziolkowski told The Day recently about several concepts of the Ukrainian-NATO relationship. One is minimalist, keeping the current format; another one is maximalist, letting Ukraine join the Membership Action Plan. Judging by what Deputy Foreign Minister Oleh Shamshur had to say, Kyiv is prepared to adopt the second option. But what if joining the action plan turns out to be unrealistic? The diplomat says Ukraine is likewise “prepared to cooperate within the framework of the existing mechanisms, as the content of our cooperation is the main thing.” He also believes that even the annual Ukraine-NATO target plan “exceeds the parameters put forth when commencing an intensified dialog.”
The current stage of Ukrainian-NATO relations is perhaps best described as lacking reciprocity. The alliance appreciates Kyiv’s efforts. However, it wants overall and irrevocable progress, rather than headway made here and there. The issue of expanding the format of cooperation in Istanbul obviously remains unresolved, but there could be a last minute decision. New NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop’s visit, scheduled for April 19, will, of course, play a very important role. The Istanbul contours might become clearer during the Ukraine-NATO ministerial conference in Warsaw this May. Nor should one rule out the possibility that everything will be decided in the last couple of days, but this does not mean that NATO will not want to have substantial evidence of Ukraine being actually prepared to deepen this cooperation.
