On Dec. 1, 2009, the European Union began to live in accordance with the regulations of the Reform Treaty of Lisbon. What impact will this have on the relations between Brussels and Kyiv? What is the European community doing in order to help our country draw closer to the European Union? How does Brussels explain the disillusionment of both sides in the process of Ukraine’s European integration?
Ambassador Jose Manuel Pinto TEIXEIRA, head of the European Commission Office in Ukraine, has answered these and other questions in an interview given to The Day.
“Regarding the expected impact this agreement will have when it comes into force, the European Union will hopefully become a more coordinated, harmonized, and consistent partner of Ukraine. This is important for all our partners. But this will also mean that owing to the implementation of this treaty, the institutions will undergo certain reforms, as stated by some EU members, and preconditions will be created for further EU enlargement.
“By now many EU members have said with good reason that we cannot continue to hold talks on enlargement until we have an agreement on reforming institutions so that they could adjust to current realities.
“We know that the Ukrainian leadership aspires to integrate Ukraine into the European Union. This is the process we should follow. But from the EU’s viewpoint, we should carry out institutional reforms in order to be capable of further enlargement.”
Mr. Ambassador, according to your experience, does Kyiv adequately perceive what you are bringing to the Ukrainian government as a representative of Brussels?
“Of course, staying in Kyiv on a regular basis and being responsible for contacts with the government, civil society, mass media, and the community is somewhat different from receiving reports from Brussels. I understand that I am staying in the country that claims that it aspires to integrate in the EU. Furthermore, this country frequently expresses its disappointment with what it regards as a lack of progress or response from the EU’s side. Therefore, under these circumstances I should make my statements more clear-cut, not only while I speak with the authorities, but the community and mass media as well.
“It is important to understand that we can go on with debates concerning Ukraine’s stance: we want the EU to give us membership prospect, and then we will start the reforms. For its part, the EU says that you should achieve political stability first, start the reforms, become trustworthy, and then you will have this prospect.
“I think Ukraine should pursue the following strategy: in consolidation of its desire to integrate into the EU, it should really start to change the country and make it more harmonized with what is going on within the EU. From this viewpoint I think that there is much more to be done in the future. In my opinion, as a result of political stability the political leaders should rally around the European project, not only through rhetoric and declarations but also through joint work and cooperation, in order to make this process real. It is very important to have institutional cooperation of all the branches of power: the president, the premier, and the parliament. They should pursue the implementation of what needs to be done at the moment in order to advance on the way of integration into the European institution.
“If you follow this path disregarding the label, whether your country is a membership candidate or not, you will gain trust, reform your country, and develop it. Anyway, you will have to complete this way. Only when you have covered a considerable distance in this process will it be possible to expect that you will enter the next stage.”
Is the attitude of the western periodicals helpful for normal relations between Ukraine and the EU on the eve of the Ukraine-EU summit? For example, the British newspaper Guardian on November 25 published an article under the heading “EU turns away from Ukraine.” Meanwhile, The Financial Times’ article on November 11 says that the EU should form a new policy towards Ukraine.
“Surely, this is political analysis that I cannot be commenting on. I can only say that the EU has proposed Ukraine to sign the Agreement on Association, agreements on a free trade zone, visa waiver regime, and simplification of visa regime, as well as an agreement on airspace and scientific-technological cooperation. Some agreements have already been signed, whereas the others are being negotiated. All this proves that the EU regards Ukraine as an extremely important partner and neighbor. I am speaking about the process. Ukraine cannot integrate into the EU through a simple political decision of the EU members. Each member of the EU had to undergo, first of all, the process of democracy consolidation. I believe we will have the next test in January. Hopefully, its results will be positive”.
You have mentioned the problems faced by Ukraine. But maybe one should take into account the fact that, unlike Portugal, our country has to build statehood from scratch. Don’t you share the opinion expressed by many experts that the EU should not lose patience and continue helping Ukraine?
“I agree with you that the Ukrainian situation cannot be compared with the one in Portugal. The impatience is caused by the impatience of the interlocutor. If the interlocutor says, ‘I want to have this prospect today, and I want integration and visa waiver regime tomorrow,’ the impatience of one party generates the same thing in the other party. Both of us should admit that this is a process and that we are standing side by side with Ukraine in order to help in this process; that Ukraine is a European country, our neighbor and partner, and we should go on with this process. But the other party in the conversation should have the same understanding rather than blaming us for not giving something that cannot be given if this process is not followed.”
Ukrainian specialists believe that Ukraine will not benefit from the Agreement on Association, which contains a special offer of an enhanced free trade zone in the package. On the one hand, the political part of the agreement does not contain any offers of membership prospects to Ukraine, which is demanded by all political forces in Ukraine. On the other hand, the economic part of the agreement, the free trade zone, stipulates absolute removal of customs duties and other restrictions on exports of European goods, which poses a threat to our domestic industry. Do you see any contradictions here?
“First of all, Ukraine can adopt any decisions it likes. We will treat with respect any decision made by Ukraine.
“You are right in saying that this agreement will affect the Ukrainian economy. But everything depends on what you want to achieve at the moment. Do you want Ukrainian economy to remain the same as it is now and produce steel, fertilizers, chemical goods, coal, and grain? These sectors are very susceptible to external shocks. If your goal concerning Ukrainian future is like this, the agreement on association and free trade zone is not the best option. Or doo you want your economy to change, become diversified and open, have many competitive sectors, receive investments, and foster new businesses that would generate jobs? Besides, you can export your products to the EU. We should view this agreement precisely in this perspective. It should not be forgotten that we are offering numerous tools to modernize your economy.”
