The European Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee members differ on whether to discontinue the association treaty negotiations due to problems with democracy in Ukraine. This cannot but alert the Ukrainian leadership which intends to sign the Agreement on Association and Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area and to have visa requirements liberalized for Ukrainian citizens by the end of the year. As it became clear on September 14, the apple of discord among the European Parliament members was the Tymoshenko case as well as trials of other former government officials of Ukraine. A number of MEPs who represent the European People’s Party (EPP) group have said it is impossible to sign the agreements with Kyiv against the backdrop of gross violations of democratic principles in Ukraine. Meanwhile, their counterparts from the other factions insist that the agreements be signed as soon as possible.
It was intended earlier that the resolution on Ukraine would be passed the next plenary week, on September 26-29. A deadline – September 21 – was even set for MEPs to suggest amendments to the text. But on Monday before last the committee members decided, on the EPP initiative, to extend the deadline. “We are not living in a political vacuum, so the EP’s decision will depend on the outcome of the Tymoshenko trial. So let us wait for the court ruling and then continue the discussion,” said MEP Michael Gahler (EPP group, Germany).
Meanwhile, the Party of Regions believes nothing can hinder the signing of the abovementioned agreements. The Party of Regions website quotes Ivan Popescu, Party of Regions MP, Deputy Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada Committee for Human Rights, National Minorities, and Interethnic Relations, PACE vice-president from Ukraine, as saying that Ukraine has received new confirmations from the European Commission and from other European colleagues that the full Association Agreement, rather than its economic part, will be signed.
Yet the impression is there are so far no grounds for this kind of optimism. And it is quite obvious that the leadership should be aware of a growing criticism over the trials of opposition leaders. All the more so, criticism is coming from the European Union’s highest legislative body, which has always actively supported Ukraine’s Euro-integration aspirations and, by contrast with the EU executive bodies, has favored giving Ukraine the prospect of membership. But this seems to be a thing of the past… But one should really take due account of this body because the European Parliament’s functions have essentially grown since the Lisbon Treaty came into force.
The Day asked Pawel ZALEWSKI, Member of the European Parliament (EPP group, Poland), an EP delegate in the EU-Ukraine Committee for Parliamentary Cooperation, to comment on the situation.
“On Monday [September 12, 2011. – Ed.], the European Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee discussed for the first time the report on the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement, drawn up by Ryszard Legutko, MEP (Poland) and vice-president of the group of European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR). All those who participated in the debate, all the European Parliament’s political groups, stated that the Association Agreement is a very important instrument in the cooperation between the EU and Ukraine. All the MEPs were unanimous that negotiations on the Agreement on Association and a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area should be completed. These debates are conducted in a very specific political context that arose from the arrest of Ms. Tymoshenko. This political context was always emphasized during any presentation or discussion. For example, Mr. Gahler and I are very critical of the way the Ukrainian government is dealing with Ms. Tymoshenko. At the same time, some European Parliament members, who represent the European People’s Party, have stated that lack of the rule of law and political democracy may endanger the process of Ukraine’s European integration and affect, in some way, the prospects of concluding the Association Agreement. But they noted that no decision had been made so far on this matter. Our political group is not going to discuss this report. We still have time to get prepared for the final discussion and propose the amendments that will undoubtedly take into account the question of democratic achievements in Ukraine. Nevertheless, nobody questions the importance of this agreement and the necessity of signing it.”
What does the Ukrainian leadership need to do so that the MEPs have no reservations about the necessity to sign this agreement as soon as possible?
“In my opinion, the leadership should focus on completing the negotiations on these agreements. This is important for both the European Union and Ukraine. All the obstacles on this road must be removed. Naturally, the message we have been always sending, is that we should not have doubts about the supremacy of law in Ukraine. We expect the Tymoshenko trial to be conducted in a transparent and fair manner. Moreover, there should be no doubts that she is not the object of political struggle.”
Could you say in more unambiguous terms what signs the Ukrainian leadership should show because “observing the supremacy of law” is a very vague word combination?
“Clearly, this can be interpreted as releasing Ms. Tymoshenko from custody. For, according to information from the Helsinki Committee and other human and dissidents’ rights organizations, harsh measures are being taken against Ms. Tymoshenko. So there are great expectations that she will receive a fair deal in compliance with the Ukrainian law and European standards.”
Can failure to resolve the Tymoshenko case “eclipse,” in a way, the Eastern Partnership summit to be held later in September in Warsaw, on which Poland, which holds the current EU presidency, is pinning great hopes?
“I do not think so. I am not a clairvoyant. I do believe that the Association Agreement is not a reward for Ukraine but an instrument which can help introduce European standards in Ukraine. I personally do not link this strategically important issue with an important concrete instance of rule-of-law violation – I mean what is being done to Ms. Tymoshenko. But, naturally, this trial may somewhat ‘eclipse’ the summit.”
