Six members of the US Brookings Institute, including two former US ambassadors to Ukraine Carlos Pascual and Steven Pifer as well as present-time Ambassador William Taylor took part in the recent International Conference “Borders of Europe” in Kyiv. This is the third conference of this kind held by the Viktor Pinchuk Foundation and the Brookings Institute. The previous conferences of this kind took place in Turkey and Georgia. What explains the US interest in Ukraine’s integration into the European Union? On what foundations will the new US administration develop relations with Russia and Ukraine? These questions are raised in The Day‘s interview with Carlos PASCUAL, US ex-ambassador to Ukraine and Vice President and Director of Foreign Policy at Brookings.
Mr. Pascual, the large number of Americans attending this conference on purely European topics leads one to believe that the United States is more interested in Ukraine’s integration than united Europe, which is represented here only by Vice President of the European Parliament Marek Siwiec, whereas many of invited people did not come. Why is the US interested in Ukraine and Turkey’s joining the EU?
“I don’t know whether the US is more interested in this than Europe. Many conferences and meetings are being held. And it would not be appropriate to speak of Europe’s interest based only on European representatives’ participation in conferences of this kind. Our interest in Ukraine’s EU integration means that we feel that Europe now has a historical opportunity to unite by integrating all the countries of the continent. And this enables countries to realize their potential and receive benefits from their presence on the integrated market, which is connected with political values that will help strengthen both economic and basic democratic values across the continent. And when there is an understanding of historical possibilities, we only need to facilitate and strengthen them. That is why we pay so much attention to these issues.”
Do you see any reasons for the absence of the representatives of the European Commission, in particular, Olli Rehn, European Commissioner for Enlargement? After all, the aim of this conference is to facilitate constructive dialogue, develop a number of political decisions on EU enlargement, and improve our understanding of how this enlargement helps reach common goals in Europe.
“Unfortunately, the schedule of the EU representatives is not always good. I know that UN meetings are scheduled, which will be attended by the high ranking EU officials. I know that some representatives of the EU were going to take part in the conference, but they cancelled their trips at the last moment. Such things sometimes happen. I don’t want to interpret them as political statements.”
But it seems to me that Europe, too, needs to emphasize the great opportunities that will emerge after Ukraine joins the EU.
“I agree with this. That is the reason why we are cooperating with the Europeans in this question, the process of negotiations with Ukraine continues, the Association Agreement is being prepared for signing, and Eastern Partnership is offered in order to create structures and mechanisms that will secure cooperation with Europe. Instead of wasting too much time to interpret the low turnout of the Europeans, I think it would be more constructive to support the opinion that the processes of negotiations with Europe have been created. And Ukraine should make use of this.”
Where, in your opinion, do European borders end? How can they be defined?
“I think that the standpoints of Europe and the US on Ukraine’s EU integration are very similar. In my opinion, the message that is constantly conveyed by not only EU or US representatives, but also by many Ukrainians means that there should be a higher consolidation and clearness within Ukraine. Ukraine needs a single and strong political system capable of acting in the period of global and financial turmoil. Until Ukraine has a clear vision of what it wants for its future, it will be very difficult for Europe an the EU to play an efficient role in promoting Ukrainian interests in the European context.”
Mr. Pascual, did you get an impression at the conference that the Ukrainian government or the opposition have a clear vision of the future?
“I think there is a common position concerning the rhetoric: that Ukraine is a European state, part of Europe, and deserves to have place in Europe. In my opinion, the participants of the negotiations with Europe, specifically concerning the Association Agreement, are competent. But the possibilities and principles for the negotiations are very weak. They are weak because of the lack of political leadership in this situation. The political system is fully focused on the internal struggle for power. The system is not aimed at meeting the economic challenges that the country faces or at offering the political vision of Ukraine’s future. Your parliament is not able to work efficiently on the legislation needed to support Ukraine’s integration into Europe. When there is no political leadership and necessary legislation, it is hard for bureaucracy to function.”
Now in Ukraine many talk about the need for changes and a new generation of politicians that will come to power. In your opinion, what changes does Ukraine need?
“Ukrainians should resolve Ukraine’s political problems. You know this better than I do. Unfortunately, after the Orange Revolution different governments have come to powe with different prime ministers, with one of them taking the office of the head of the government twice. Within this period many changes took place, but at the same time there has been no constructive agenda that would advance the country. I have heard many Ukrainians, including politicians, say that the time has come to bring real benefits for Ukrainians. This needs consistency and stability, and the government should have a desire to set its actions in a specific order. It is important that this order be deprived of political competition and aimed at finding the necessary compromise. Finally, this should lead to the elaboration of a policy that meets the interests of the Ukrainian people, not politician’s political interests.”
In your opinion, does closer integration into NATO meet Ukraine’s interests in this situation? What could change the government’s attitude to its functions and secure good governance and the introduction of the rule of law as it is envisaged by the MAP?
“I think that the question of NATO in Ukraine should be treated strategically. In Ukraine’s aspiration to promote its interests both in the EU and NATO, the most important thing now is political consolidation inside the country. Consolidated Ukraine with a clear strategy and a strong economic program is the best instrument that will promote the country’s interests both in the EU and NATO. Ukraine does not have anything of this kind at the moment. Therefore, it makes no sense for Ukraine to speak about the EU and NATO. When this will be done practically, Ukraine will have a considerably stronger position concerning the EU as well as NATO. Ukraine will have a better choice of how to act in the future.”
The word “realism” has recently become very fashionable in the world politics. You have even written an article entitled “New American Realism.” In your opinion, how will the new US administration build relations with Russia and Ukraine? Will it be relying on the principles of Realpolitik like the leading European countries have been doing recently?
“We are living in the world, where the principles and Realpolitik should be combined. We are no longer living in the environment where the countries could view the problems independently from each other. Everything is very closely connected in the present world. The countries are interconnected with each other. We can see that even the US, the most powerful country in the world, can become a source of the worst economic crisis that has ever happened in this century. Even the most powerful countries can have problems that may affect other countries. Small and poor countries like Afghanistan may become the basis of world terrorism. Therefore, we cannot allow that idealism, principles, and Realpolitik to be separated.
“Speaking about Russia, it is important that Washington and Moscow have to acknowledge the necessity of constructive relations between them, because constant tension will not help either Russian or American inetersts. Honestly, this will not help Ukraine’s interests either because it will be caught in the middle.
“I think that with the new administration we will see efforts concerning the creation of constructive relations between the US and Russia, thanks to which it will become possible to resolve various problems that are on the agenda. There are such important problems as nuclear security and non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, with some of them relating to Iran. The questions will pertain to Russian neighbors and their right to carry out their own idependent policy. Energy security will also be on the agenda. This does not mean that the US and Russia will agree on everything. There will be many problems on which we will not reach agreement. But we must come to a situation when a sufficient level of credibility and constructive collaboration is reached between the countries. When we come to questions where we have no agreement, this will not mean a crisis embracing everyone involved in the relations between the US and Russia.
“Speaking about Ukraine, the best that the US can do here is create a space, a political space, where Ukraine will have possibilities and opportunities to make its own choice for the future, without thinking constantly about the influence it may have upon its relations with Russia. Ukraine should have possibilities to make the best choice for itself.”
Does it mean that the US will not allow Russia to consider Ukraine its sphere of influence?
“I don’t think that Obama’s adninistration will be thinking in such terms and consider foreign policy as spheres of influence. It will be building its foreign policy in such a way as to give individual countries opportunities to reach their goals in the regional and global dimension. The reality of the world is such that no country can be discriminated. Even the US, the most powerful country in the world, cannot act in a unilateral way and be successful. President-elect Barack Obama recognizes better than any politician in American history that the US is now operating in an absolutely different world and that we are interconnected. Within this context he will be trying to help individual countries find ways of joining the global environment and avoid being limited in any specific sphere.”
In your opinion, will Obama’s administration support France’s initiative to create a common economic space between Russia and the EU that will be protected by a common security system? Russian Foreign Affairs Minister Sergei Lavrov proposed setting up a common economic space for Russia, the EU, and the US. Is this proposal constructive?
“What regards Russia, I think that if it is eager to become part of the economic space, it should complete the WTO negotiations. Over 180 countries have joined the WTO. This is what Russia should focus its attention on.”
So, first WTO membership and then talks on a common economic space?
“Yes. This creates the basis or the framework for the rest. Ukraine’s entry into the WTO was a prerequisite for any negotiations on a free trade zone with the EU. The same applies to Russia. There are principles that are contained in the WTO. Therefore, I don’t regard it constructive to speak about a new economic space.”
One of the conference’s topics was energy security. The Brookings Institute has recently published an article saying that Ukraine is a weak link in the relations with Russia, the supplier of gas, and the EU, its consumer. In your opinion, does this correspond the reality? If so, how can Ukraine dispel this kind of impression?
“The key problem is that Ukraine should organize the management of its domestic energy infrastructure, the gas transporting system, and create conditions that will be conducive to the exploration and mining of own deposits of gas and oil. Unfortunately, there is an opinion that Ukraine is not transparent in the management of its own gas infrastructure. It does not make sufficient investments in maintaining the existing gas pipelines. Therefore, it is not considered to be a reliable partner for Europe in the sphere of energy security.
“Ukraine is experiencing increasing competition in the entire world. Terminals accepting liquefied gas are being set up in Europe, in particular in France and Italy. In general, the gas market is being diversified all over the world. Gas comes to Europe from North Africa and Qatar. Ukraine needs to recognize that its monopoly on the gas transporting network is coming to an end and it has to make a choice. To remain competitive, it needs to manage own network in a transparent and professional way and invest into this infrastructure. In terms of energy security this is a critical question that the country is faced with right now. If Ukraine fails to invest in its own system, it will be surpassed by other competitors, and very quickly at that.”
It is known that Susan Rice, an employee of the Brookings Institute, has become US Ambassador to the UN. Can you say how many members of the institute will be hired by Obama’s administration?
“It is hard to say. Many people from the institute have worked with Obama’s team during the election campaign. Many people are still advisors to Obama. Brookings is not a party institute. But the people working within this institution are free in giving support of any kind in their free time. Indeed, Susan Rice was on vacation for almost a year before being invited to the cabinet of the new administration. An interesting aspect of the American political system is that the Brookings Istitute is not a governmental think tank. We are not connected to political parties. We are funded primarily by corporations, foundations, and individuals. We receive very little funding from the government. We are trying to do everything in order to be considered independent. We give support and political recommendations, but we also criticize when we find it necessary.”
Are you going to return to the State Department?
“I am happy with my activities in the Brookings Institute.”
