President Leonid Kuchma visited Warsaw where he spoke to Aleksander Kwasniewski and the Secretary General of the European Union Council Javier Solana on completion of the international conference, Ukraine in Europe. His visit gave Ukraine an opportunity, above all, to save face in the eyes of the neighboring Poland, a strategic partner. It highlighted a situation where not only the West but Poland as well no longer seem to understand what is going on in Ukraine. All the more because it was an unusually high-ranking conference attended by the president and Prime Minister of Poland, the Prime Minister of Sweden, and the EU Council secretary general.
On the one hand, the Ukraine in Europe conference indeed was planned as a forum, determining how the European Union, Poland, and Ukraine itself view Ukraine’s future. It identified the most urgent issues to be addressed as well as the opportunities and challenges for both Ukraine and Europe following the expansion of the European Union and NATO. Whether Ukraine has European prospects is obviously a question common for all Ukrainian political forces without exception. Especially taking into account that on the eve of the 2002 parliamentary elections practically all the parties that had taken part in them declared, in one way or another, that European choice was one of their key program provisions. What is more, Kyiv has so far received no Western proposals about discussing the new strategy of relations between Ukraine and the EU. The new concept was expected to be proposed on September 30.
On the other hand, the conference was originally publicized as something like a round table to solve Ukrainian problems, which undoubtedly it could not be. But Ukraine might also have refrained from giving the Polish press a reason for this kind of interpretation. President Kwasniewski of Poland had to point out before opening the conference that Ukraine would be solving its own domestic problems, while the conference was just a conference. He said in his speech that Poland would like the NATO-based security system to hold a special place for Ukraine, that every effort should be made for Ukraine to find its place in a unified Europe. At the same time, he noted the important fact that the conference was attended by representatives of Ukrainian governmental bodies and the opposition (a rare case indeed) and that Poland is watching the demonstrations and other actions organized by the opposition with alarm. Mr. Kwasniewski also pointed out that “in view of its European future and the tasks set, Ukraine should take a well- balanced approach and clarify all the misunderstandings that can hamper the development of a democratic Ukraine, cast doubt on its status, and blemish its current image in the eyes of the world.” This must be interpreted as a reminder, for otherwise the president of Poland would hardly have ventured to express his viewpoint in such categorical terms.
Javier Solana also spoke about uneasiness. A TSN news bulletin quoted him as saying that Ukrainian instability is a threat to European security, Ukraine has shown no positive changes after the parliamentary elections, and “sometimes Ukraine seems to be playing with, not by, the rules.” Mr. Solana noted that if things went on like this, if Ukraine did not exercise caution in arms trade, it would face isolation in “the backyard of Europe”.Yet, in the words of Mr. Solana, who has always stressed his positive attitude to Ukraine, the EU does not want Ukraine to feel forgotten and abandoned while the Union is expanding. In his words, the EU is going to draw up a package of proposals for Ukraine well after its expansion. “This is not about Ukraine taking a Brussels-bound train. This train should be changed, and we want to offer a new package which will bring you closer to the EU,” Interfax-Ukraine quotes the EU Council secretary-general as saying.
So the discussion of Ukraine’s domestic problems was pre-planned. The main goal of this, as well as of talks between Kuchma and Kwasniewski and between Kuchma and Solana “off screen,” was evidently to make it clear to all participants of the Ukrainian process that the road to Europe will be closed unless the domestic problems are solved to European standards. The key words dialog, tolerance, and responsibility should apply not only to government but also to the opposition – especially in the context of the opposition’s request that Kwasniewski and Solana help arrange a meeting with Kuchma.
Viktor Medvedchuk, head of the Ukrainian President’s Administration, told the conference that the socio-economic situation in this country is far better than it was two or three years ago. At the same time, the political problem lies “not in the replacement of some politicians but in the depth of the transformation of power relations”. Mr. Medvedchuk also emphasized that the Ukrainian government is prepared for a dialog based on respect for the Constitution.
According to Yevhen Marchuk, Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council, debates should focus on different demands of the political forces, concrete facts of human rights abuse, and government maladies.
It is hardly a normal situation when Ukrainian politicians go to Warsaw for discussions. It is at least good that the conference showed that Ukrainians are prepared for dialog and that there is so far no question of Ukraine’s isolation. It would also be good if nobody ever asked “not to teach me right from wrong.” The Day turned to some conference participants for comments.
FLASH INTERVIEWS
Yevhen MARCHUK, Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine, answered The Day’s questions about the Warsaw meeting, while still on board the plane.
“Mr. Marchuk, what was the atmosphere of the conference like? Which of the agenda items were of the greatest interest to participants?”
“The atmosphere was amicable and conducive for a frank debate. The hosts did not openly say that we Ukrainians should make peace and live in friendship. This means they were aware of the delicacy of this question, and I think all our participants appreciated this. The problems of our state’s integration into Europe were high on the agenda. In this respect, the Poles, including President Aleksander Kwasniewski, delivered very interesting speeches. Our Polish counterparts said frankly that the path to the European Union is very difficult and thorny. There is such a problem as public support of this process because key decisions are made by way of referendums. In Poland, for instance, although over 50% of the population approve the integration, full support is still far away. Their representatives emphasized that only strenuous and painstaking efforts will help explain to the populace all the pros and cons of EU and NATO membership. Poland is full of anxiety over European integration, especially with respect to the agrarian sector. We are yet to face this process, so we have a chance to take into account the experience of our neighbors.”
“Now about discussing the domestic situation in Ukraine: was there an actual dialog between representatives of our leadership and the opposition?”
“I can only recall the words of Mr. Solana who said that Ukrainian politicians should ‘play by, not with, the principles.’ Incidentally, this politician cannot be accused of bias or prejudice against our state because it is he who has done so much to expand our cooperation with NATO and the European community. As to whether or not there was a dialog between the opposition and government, I would say this: the Ukrainian sides held talks about dialog rather than dialog as such. We really had dialog with the Europeans. And, surprisingly, representatives of the executive power and their European counterparts managed to conduct a more meaningful dialog than did the opposition and the Europeans. In my view, the opposition was mainly lodging complaints about the leadership, which everybody had had enough of. Listening to the speeches of opposition figures, one could think they came to Poland just to complain about the ‘bad’ executive power in Ukraine. They presented various, including rational, arguments. But they did not go beyond the point that power should be changed. They failed to explain what should happen to power except that it should be taken by other people. What is more, those who criticized had recently been, and some of then even more than once, in power: I mean Viktor Yushchenko, Oleksandr Moroz, Mykola Zhulynsky, and many others. Judging by comments, including those in the corridors, our foreign counterparts were rather surprised by this behavior of the opposition.
“It seems to me we should not convey to our foreign counterparts that we are only settling scores. I said in jest during the conference that it would be a good idea to put a large complaint book at the entrance, so that all, especially representatives of the opposition, could write whatever they want but then speak to the point at the rostrum. We must understand that being European means being transformed. Ukraine does have a chance. It can remain just a chance or may become a remedy for Ukraine. We must first create a Europe at home. I said in my speech that European integration does not mean that we must arrive in Europe. It means that we must create a Europe in our own home so that Europe could come to us and feel at home. This is ‘homework’ for us all. Ukraine should be ‘healed’ by the legislative and executive branches of power.”
“Can we say that the attempted dialog at the conference inspires hope for the solution of concrete problems of the current political situation in Ukraine – both in Verkhovna Rada and the country as a whole?”
“I think there will be positive results. But taking concrete steps is the job of the politicians who take part in both the opposition and the executive power. Both Viktor Medvedchuk and Viktor Yushchenko told the final press conference they were prepared for dialog. So let’s hope so. There is dialog in parliament too. It would be wrong to say it does not exist at all. We can say the Polish roundtable dialog will help persuade the opposition and the leadership to throw loudmouth accusations against each other and place the conversation in a more constructive channel. That our President met the president of Poland and other topmost officials attending the conference is also a good sign for our state. I would not like the conflicting sides to understand the necessity of a consensus only after they have reached the extreme point in the conflict. For in that case we will have to pay a very high price. Polish premier Miller said that Poland went through a far-from-simple phase of development in the early 90s, but there was a consensus over fundamental values and the strategic choice. I think when Ukraine reaches this kind of consensus, the rest of the problems will be solved quickly. The concluding stage of the conference heard a wish that this ‘spirit of Warsaw’ be also felt in Kyiv. I hope it will.”
Oleksandr CHALY, State Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ukraine:
“The conference saw a heated debate on the domestic situation in Ukraine. It is important to note that the debate was held in the context of Europe, i.e., in favor of Ukraine. I would note that Messrs. Medvedchuk and Moroz together laid flowers at the Shevchenko monument in Warsaw and Messrs. Medvedchuk and Yushchenko sat at the same table and talked informally. Therefore, there are values that do not depend on any domestic political disputes – these are European values and Ukraine’s European integration. But it is important to remember that tolerance and dialog also belong to basic European values. From this point of view, we can say that the conference was to our benefit.
“Now about Javier Solana’s statement that Ukraine plays with the rules instead of playing by the rules. Yes, he said these words. But the context was that there should be no impression that Ukraine behaves in this way when somebody means a certain Ukrainian policy. In general, his speech was built on the idea that Ukraine has European prospects but it must first show political will. This applies, above all, to domestic dialog.”
Borys TARASIUK, Chairman, Verkhovna Rada Committee for European Integration (Our Ukraine faction):
“Both Javier Solana and Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski expressed two very important ideas in their speeches. Firstly, they pointed out Ukraine’s great importance for both Poland and Europe as a whole. And, secondly, both of them expressed a serious concern and alarm about the state of affairs in Ukraine. This was quite a sincere worry of true sympathizers of Ukraine, unfortunately not so numerous among the European leaders. Our participants made different, sometimes diametrically opposed speeches. At the same time, journalists kept asking the question, ‘Why did you come here to argue with each other? Couldn’t you do this back home?’ which sounded insulting. Undoubtedly, it is not very good that this meeting was held in Warsaw, and the decision to hold new meetings of this kind in Kyiv would have been a really positive result. Finally, the fact that the main actor was missing from the conference will hardly add to its positive image.”
