How did Verkhovna Rada’s resolution to dispatch a peacekeeping contingent to Iraq influence the Ukrainian-US relationship? Why did some Ukrainian politicians actually oppose the Western course despite their stated devotion to it? Did a standing pro-European majority form in the parliament? These and other questions were posed to The Day ’s guest, People’s Deputy Oleh ZARUBINSKY, deputy chairman of the Verkhovna Rada Committee on European Integration and a man who can be listed among our most conspicuous second echelon political figures, owing to his well-argued and clear stand.
A month ago, Verkhovna Rada decided to dispatch a Ukrainian contingent to Iraq. How do you feel about now that we all know the response from both domestic politicians and the international community?
Zarubinsky: First, I’d like to stress that it was a very important decision for the Ukrainian state and that making it was far from easy. Proceeding from an utterly popular-pandering standpoint and considering the Middle East situation, we could have looked the other way, the more so that most our people did not favor the intervention in Iraq. They had a point. Some might consider my stand cynical, but let’s face it. There are certain regular features in the foreign policy of any given country, regardless of what the majority of the population may think. There are far-reaching national interests that are not always perceived by public opinion. These interests must be taken care of by the experts. What I have in mind is that Iraq ranks as the world’s second oil-producing country after Saudi Arabia. On the other hand, per capita energy consumption in Ukraine is among the world’s highest. Therefore, in order to secure the national strategic interests, we had no alternative but take part in the settlement of the Iraqi issue. Precisely how we should do it is another story. I think that our president and most people’s deputies adopted a sufficiently cautious and considered approach from the outset. We sent a battalion to Kuwait, although Verkhovna Rada formally condemned the aggression against Iraq. Then we sent two battalions to Iraq, which was a perfectly sound decision to make, from the military, geopolitical, and economic standpoints. First, our soldiers should learn warfare rather than build cottages for generals and tidy up the parade grounds from morning till night. If our two battalions have good combat training in Iraq, this will only benefit Ukraine and our national security. Second, the stabilization forces are made up of contingents supplied by countries on which Ukraine largely depends financially, economically, and politically — first of all, the United States and Poland. In politics, one must regard everything from various perspectives. Look at what happened to Ukrainian-US relations after we decided to send our troops to Kuwait and Iraq. Does it mean that the Americans suddenly fell in love with our political leadership? I don’t think so. Ukraine came out in support of the US when that country badly needed it, and the result is there for all to see. At present, Ukrainian WTO membership largely depends on the US stand on the matter, as Washington exerts major influence on the process of Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic and European integration. The US and Poland are actually the promoters of our Western integration. Third and last, the economic, oil factor is quite important, as I mentioned before.
There is a certain domestic paradox in this context. The Right opposition in the parliament — Our Ukraine and Tymoshenko’s bloc — appears as the most outspoken exponent of Ukraine’s integration into the West. Their leaders travel there and meet with various people. Still, when it came time to decide on participating in humanitarian and peacekeeping missions in Kuwait and Iraq (in other words, when Ukraine had to make decisions that would largely affect its relationship with the West), both political forces stepped aside. Rather, Tymoshenko’s bloc was adamantly opposed and Our Ukraine divided. How would you explain their conduct?
Zarubinsky: Without doubt, the opposition seeks political support in the West, among other things in view of the approaching presidential campaign, which determines the theme of their statements and interviews abroad.
In Verkhovna Rada, their stance changes. Suppose we analyze Yuliya Tymoshenko’s speeches or those of other opposition figures. Who do they refer to more often than not? Fellow deputies? No, they address the esteemed electorate. The opposition constantly proceeds from the fact that it is heard and watched by millions in Ukraine. Naturally, assuming that 80% if not more of the population take a dim view of the US and UK stand with regard to Iraq, it serves the opposition to adopt the same attitude. In other words, these lawmakers pressed the nay button when voting on the said resolutions primarily because they expected to boost their popularity by it. There is a well-known formula for pandering to popular prejudices: tell people what they expect to hear from you.
Do you really think no one in the West sees the difference between what some Ukrainian politicians say and do — their stated support of the West and actual opposition?
Zarubinsky: Of course they know about it, so that no one is sure any longer that Candidate X, while posing as a member of the opposition, is the only acceptable candidate to be the next Ukrainian president.
The Parliamentary majority declares its support of the so- called European vector in the development of Ukraine. It is generally known, however, that the opposition includes a powerful Russian lobby that actually serves Russia’s interests.
Zarubinsky: Here the watershed does not follow the majority-minority pattern. It’s true that the majority has forces with varying interests to pursue. Some depend on Russian capital, so the European choice is just words to them. Fortunately, the current Verkhovna Rada, unlike the previous one, has produced a conspicuous European-minded majority. Last October, the European Integration Committee arranged for Ukraine’s first parliamentary hearings concerning Ukrainian-NATO relationship. In October, the parliament analyzed the Ukrainian-EU status. Then the findings were put to the vote. Those on NATO read that Ukraine considers Euro-Atlantic integration (i.e., eventual NATO membership) as its objective. The vote showed 261 ayes, or considerably more than half. Where did the ayes come from? All the majority? No. All the minority? No. The yes button was pressed by people who must have felt the need deep inside. And EU integration received 328 ayes, more than a constitutional majority.
The polls show, however, that Ukraine has fewer supporters of European and Euro-Atlantic integration than the Eastern European countries being actually admitted...
Zarubinsky: At the time Hungary began moving toward NATO, the alliance was favored by 30% of the population. Ukraine showed about the same percentage prior to the Iraqi crisis, and then it dropped to 22-23% (I believe courtesy of the media, as most portrayed NATO as the aggressor, going along with public opinion), although we know that the alliance had nothing to do with the invasion. I think we shouldn’t beat our chests, saying our people don’t want NATO. Suppose we look at it from a different angle. Who is there to help the masses understand that NATO is a security system, the strongest in the world? Turn on your television, switch to any channel, will you see or hear anything about any actual NATO efforts? At best you will be told about its negatives, scandals, and so on. I see this as perhaps a coordinated policy. It takes normal explanatory work (I don’t mean propaganda, of course), telling people what NATO is all about, how this bloc maintains the security of the member countries, I’m sure we would have some 50% supporting it in a couple of years. Here is a simple argument, and I’d like to see anyone try to oppose it. At present, practically all the European countries outside NATO are standing in line to join it. NATO doesn’t invite them, nor is it conducting any subversive activities to pressure such countries to become members. On the contrary, we know that Brussels is slowing down the process, with the candidates having to prove that they would be useful members. Some ask here, what do we need this for? I ask why all those normal countries want to join it. Obviously they see NATO as a collective security system capable of protecting them against external as well as internal threats (by internal, I mean terrorism, for example). Therefore it won’t do to juggle with statistics.
