The subject of Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic integration was not “in fashion” during the presidential campaign, although it is still the official strategic course. In fact, statements and assurances about Ukraine being outside all blocs are meant for the electorate and do not mean that the government has discarded close cooperation of the Alliance. Moreover, the people in NATO headquarters have noted Kyiv’s substantial progress in carrying out a number of tasks, especially in the sphere of defense. Michel DURAY, Director of the NATO Information and Documentation Center in Ukraine, shares his views on the current status and prospects of the Ukrainian-NATO relationship.
Five NATO missions visited Kyiv last week. Was it because of the presidential campaign?
Duray: It’s true that five NATO delegations visited Ukraine last week. One arrived to assess the performance of the 2004 Ukraine- NATO Target Plan, another dealt with certain aspects and prospects of scientific cooperation, the third one held consultations relating to economic issues within the target plan’s framework. Its members also took part in two economic seminars. The fourth group of NATO experts held training courses in defense planning and program development. Finally, the fifth, US-led, group discussed the possibility of carrying out a project in Ukraine within the framework of Partnership for Peace, aimed at the utilization of surplus munitions and firearms. In addition, most of these measures had been previously agreed upon and it is sheer coincidence they are taking place at the same time. There is nothing extraordinary about this, merely proof of good organization. The Ukrainian side also thought it best to invite the experts together, so that they could take part in various missions. Their visit, coming during the elections, is also purely coincidental. No politics were involved; these missions were planned long ago.
How effective are these kinds of seminars? Who is usually more interested in them, Ukraine or NATO?
Duray: I think that such courses are effective. We started holding them five years ago. Owing to NATO expert consultations, we have supplied enough data to the Ukrainian side so that Ukraine can develop its military budget-planning system and make the best use of our countries’ experiences. This trend is continuing. Whereas before the Ukrainian military budget was comprised of a single sum, now it contains specific expense items. I think that, owing to its cooperation with the alliance, Ukraine has learned much and been able to adjust various systems and ideas to its specifics. No one knows the absolute truth. I’d like to point out that during these training courses NATO countries critically assess themselves and recount their mistakes lest they be repeated in Ukraine. I think that this is a very healthy approach; please don’t repeat our mistakes.
I believe that we have passed the phase when our contacts were only at the governmental level, so now such groups can also participate and elaborate on their views on economic security. This approach is explained by the fact that other experts, not just those employed by the government, are involved. Nongovernmental organizations with experience in this sphere also play an important role and can exchange ideas.
A seminar on restructuring the Ukrainian defense-industrial complex was held last week. Are there any preconditions for NATO experience being effectively used in the restructuring of this sector?
Duray: It is already evident that a tactical kind of compatibility is being developed between the Ukrainian and NATO military. This is very important. Moreover, other countries wishing to understand how Ukraine has accomplished this are already considering this experience, as well as inter-operability (possibility of interaction). It’s very important to understand one other and how we can work together. I believe that progress in Ukraine and the idea to develop what we know as the Prague Capability Commitments are proof that we are of one mind. Defense planning and military reform in Ukraine are governed by the principles used by our countries. This is a great achievement. We mustn’t forget that our experts are assisting Ukraine, at its request, with the elaboration of a defense bulletin. This is another very important achievement. Ukraine currently has an idea about its future armed forces and knows where it is headed.
This year is drawing to a close and the performance of the 2004 Target Plan is already being assessed. Do you think Ukraine will be able to implement the document this year?
Duray: As Robert Simmons, Deputy Assistant Secretary General for Security, put it, we may consider the glass to be more than half full. I think this a very high assessment. It means progress, especially in the sphere of security and army reform. I would say the process is underway, and we held consultations between the two rounds of the presidential campaign. We are continuing to cooperate with Ukraine. We don’t have a favorite candidate. Of course, the electoral process will determine our future stand.
What will be the emphasis in the 2005 Plan?
Duray: We are discussing this, and I would say that all NATO members and Ukraine have expressed their desire to keep expanding this plan with even more concrete things. It should be kept in mind that the Target Plan is part of the Ukraine-NATO Action Plan, which by its spirit is very much like the Membership Action Plan (MAP). The purpose of this plan is to bring Ukraine closer to the level where it can quickly develop a single MAP. I would say that, although Ukraine is not a candidate member, NATO countries support Ukraine’s Euro- Atlantic strategy. Therefore, I believe that we will work along more specific lines, although I must admit that we are very impressed with what has been done, especially in the sphere of defense and upgrading legislation. This shows that the Ukraine-NATO Target Plan is a genuine tool of national development. It is very important for us to emphasize this fact. After meeting with many experts, who did their best, using their resources, to carry out such a colossal and important plan, it is necessary to acknowledge that real efforts are being made on the part of the state and those individuals who believe in the integration of Ukraine into NATO. I think that we don’t see such concrete efforts in other integration trends.
