In the late 1990s Slovakia was named by Madeleine Albright “a black hole on Europe’s map,” because of Vladimir Meciar’s rule and widespread corruption. How has Ukraine’s neighboring country managed to whiten its image? Why have Slovaks refused from neutrality? How have their ruling and opposition parties managed to agree on priorities and keep to them? Answers to these questions are given below in the interview Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Slovak Republic to Ukraine, Pavol HAMZIK, has given to The Day. Hamzik held the post of the foreign affairs minister, was a vice prime minister twice, and took a direct part in implementing reforms in the country.
“Above all, after the 1998 elections we created a new governmental coalition, which understood what we needed to develop and move out of isolation. The new coalition definitely wanted to integrate the country into the European Union and NATO. These elections resulted in the launch of negotiations on NATO and the EU membership, which opened a new prospect for the country’s development in all spheres.
After the country moved out of the cul-de-sac in the 1990s, the support of our citizens was very important. The situation was complicated, because independent Slovakia was established only in 1993. Unlike our neighboring states, Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary, we had to establish all this in the beginning. After 1998, the opposition in the majority also supported the entry into the EU and membership in the North-Atlantic Alliance. Owing to this the citizens started rendering greater support in realization of these priorities.”
Mr. Ambassador, we know that there was an attempt in your country to hold a referendum concerning NATO membership, which was unsuccessful. And Meciar was against joining the Alliance. How did you manage to persuade the population that joining this military-political alliance was necessary?
“In principle, Vladimir Meciar was not against NATO membership. It is simply that nobody in Europe understood his policy. He was seeking ways and possibilities to develop relations in Europe and keep power in his hands. Ten months before this referendum was held I was the foreign affairs minister. And because of the manipulations during this referendum, I resigned my office the next day. I think Mr. Meciar knew that there was no other way.
“Society and the citizens understood that to improve life standards we had to open up. We needed a prospect of development, and only integration could give us such prospect. And after joining the EU and NATO, the country’s economy started to develop in an intensive way, which has led to higher life standards and economic and political stability. Besides, we have acquired stability in the sphere of security. We did not have any security guarantees, so we joined NATO to acquire them.”
What threats was your country facing?
“The world is not safe. We know what happened in Europe, in Yugoslavia, in the 1990s, as well as about the situation in, for example, Georgia or Transnistria. Those are areas of instability.
“I think that your country, too, should have security assurances. This was a no-brainer for us: we had to join NATO. Since those times we have stopped thinking about this. We are surrounded by friends with whom we cooperate. Above all, we have Article 5 of the Washington Agreement, that’s all.
“We are living in the world of globalization. Therefore, we need to unite the forces in our region. This region is Europe. We regard Ukraine as a European country. Despite the fact that all of us have their own feelings, experience, culture, and history, we still can understand each other. Ukraine is very close to Slovakia, to our citizens. We understand, know, and perhaps perceive some difficulties better than others.”
Once I came across publications saying that neutrality was fairly popular in Slovakia in its time. What was the reason for that?
“This was mentioned in 1997 when we had a referendum. But I would not say that neutrality enjoyed popularity in our country. This topic was imposed by politicians who opposed Slovakia’s joining NATO. At that time, Meciar (specifically his way of thinking) and his party did not have understanding in Europe. Under such circumstances politicians try to find a way out in order to close the topic, thus he wanted to impose neutrality. People did not support this. The world is very complicated, and at the moment it offers no place for neutrality. You should be aware of your location. How can such country as Ukraine be neutral? In our country only those who opposed NATO were speaking about neutrality.”
What is your country’s attitude to the European system of collective security, which is much discussed by those who are against Ukraine’s entry into NATO?
“We may discuss this idea, but we are not going to support it, not to violate our commitments to NATO, the EU, as well as other organizations. We are a NATO member, which gives us the guarantees we need. But we are ready to take into consideration all the proposals that refer to the improvement of security on our continent.”
Judging from the history of your country, Slovakian reforms have been implemented owing to the endeavors of right and liberal forces, not Meciar’s authoritarian regime. The reformist forces suffered defeat. Why didn’t Slovaks support them?
“They supported Mikulas Dzurinda twice, and he has stayed in power for eight years. People tend to want changes after eight years. This is a normal thing. I want to note that the reformist coalition included liberals, conservatives, the left SDL (Party of the Democratic Left), and my left political party which I created jointly with Ex-President Rudolf Schuster.
“All of us, both right and left forces, held negotiations and came to an agreement that it was necessary to carry out the reforms, specifically those in the finance, taxation, and pension systems, as well as many others. Usually countries with dominating left forces do not implement this kind of reforms. But time has proved that we did a right thing. And the new social-democratic government has not messed up any of those reforms, because they helped and continue to help develop our country.
“We carried out these reforms and four years later, in 2002, SDL and my political party ceased to exist. But the priorities we had were as follows: integration into the EU, NATO, and the reforms. Everything we did was a pragmatic policy.
“At the moment, politics in Ukraine or Slovakia is not based on ideology. And it’s good. One should focus on what one should accomplish. I can say that pragmatism in Slovakia has yielded good results. Whereas in the early 1990s the GDP per capita made 40 percent of the average index in the European Union, while now it is 70 percent.
“For people it is important that there is improving, the country is developing, and politicians understand that without political stability and agreements there will be no economic development.”
You must know that a part of the Ukrainian population considers that an authoritarian leader is needed for the country to ride out the crisis and achieve economic development. Can authoritarianism be efficient for modernization of the country under current circumstances?
“No, and no again. The thing is that development can take place only based on democratic agreements, with all political forces sitting at one table. Both coalition and the opposition should understand what the priorities are. Their views on ways and details may differ. Ukraine is a fairly important country with its own difficulties. And it is very important that the political elite (although I don’t like this definition) came to a consensus.
“Authoritarianism is no way out. It can be efficient at the beginning, but after that it will spoil everything, because authoritarian politicians want to strengthen their power. And this has a negative impact on everything. Politics is a struggle for power. At the same time, political priorities should remain the same: the development of the country, good relations with all countries, and first and foremost improving of the citizens’ life.”
According to the reports of the Slovakian mass media, corrections have been made in the forecast for growth of the Slovakian economy, which is to make 3.1 percent instead of 1.8 percent. What is the basis for this growth, which is taking place against the background of the current economic and financial crises, and how does the fact that your country remains in the Eurozone help in this?
“Indeed, the factor that we entered the Eurozone in 2009 has been helpful for the growth of our economy. There was no financial crisis in our country; however we felt it, being a pro-export country. Let me remind you that back in the period preceding our entry into the Eurozone, we reformed the banking sphere. After we joined the EU, our country received great investments and new technologies. If there were no crisis, we could take the world’s top place in terms of the number of cars produced per capita this year.”
Recently your prime minister stated that Slovakia should be “social” and “strong.”
“Citizens should have the first place in any country. Therefore, every country should be ‘social.’ I worked in two governments, Meciar’s and Dzurinda’s, so I can note that our current government is the first one to provide possibilities for implementing the social policy the way people feel it. Robert Fico’s words mean that the government should have the possibility to influence the development and approve decisions that refer to the main directions of the development, so that the decisions were adopted not only in favor of entrepreneurs and shareholders, but also citizens.”
You have noted that the government should take care of people. How is Slovakia resolving the question of language? The world mass media have reported that your country had approved a contradictory law on language which roused dissatisfaction in the Hungarian minority. As far as I know, the Slovakian language is the state language in your country, and the Hungarian one is used along with it.
“We passed the law that has no effect on using Hungarian by ethnic Hungarians, citizens of Slovakia. At the same time, there is a political game going on around the ‘language’ issue. We have two political parties that want to ‘earn points’ on ethnical ground. One of them, the Hungarian National Party, wants to create the cultural-linguistic autonomy and perhaps a territorial one later. We cannot accept this. I should note that Hungarians live together with Slovaks largely in southern Slovakia. They have no problems and live calmly. But if somebody wants to do politics using this question, we don’t like it. We want our country to develop within the frameworks of the international agreements and the Charter on Regional Languages and Minorities.”
Are there any problems with realization of the rights of the Slovakian minority in Ukraine?
“Our minority lives in the Transcarpathian region and comprises around 15,000-17,000 Slovaks; its living conditions are not bad, and it receives support for development from Ukraine. Conditions have been created for studying the Slovakian language. On our part, we, too, are supporting the Ukrainian minority in Slovakia. There are no problems between us. If everyone was working the way Ukraine and Slovakia are working for the sake of the development of minorities from other states, this would be wonderful, and no problems would occur.”
Now let us speak about the EU. Don’t you think that Europe has made a mistake when it did not say in an unequivocal manner what awaits Ukraine? Does your country support the concept of development between the EU and Ukraine that says that Brussels should make a clear statement about whether Ukraine has real chances to join the EU. Perhaps, not today and not tomorrow, but after it has met clear-cut conditions, as noted by the European MP Pavlo Koval in one of Den’s publications?
“We, I mean Slovakia, have said in an unequivocal manner that Ukraine should become an EU member. Hopefully, this year you will sign the Association Agreement and the Enhanced Agreement on the Free Trade Zone. These will be good steps ahead.”
In our country many think this is a substitute for possible membership in the EU.
“This is no substitute. One should understand that the country should be ready for membership. The country should be stable. When you have political stability, all of us will be ready to say this. As for NATO, we have said: we are ready if you are ready.”
But the EU has not said anything of this kind.
“It’s okay. The one who wants it written on paper should keep to all agreements reached before and should say in an unequivocal manner: our prospect is the EU. The process will be speeded up once your leadership states this, simultaneously with performing the obligations which your country has voluntarily undertaken.
“Your country is big and complicated and very important to us. But the process of entering the European Union is also very complicated. And one should understand that the decision about entering the EU is not only a political one. We have clear rules and criteria that should be taken into consideration. Once Ukraine is ready to join the EU, this will be 100 percent in favor of Slovakia. Frankly, if you are ready and join NATO, this will also be 100 percent in favor of Slovakia.”
What will be the reaction of the EU to Ukraine’s possible joining the Customs Union? These statements are aired by the narrow circle of Viktor Yanukovych, the new president of Ukraine.
“We can only wait for the decisions to be taken by Ukraine. But the entry into the Customs Union does not meet the process of negotiations concerning the enhanced agreement on the free trade zone with the EU. This decision by Ukraine will affect the negotiations. As yet Ukraine has been preventing us from giving a definite answer. You could have received the MAP by now, but your representatives (Viktor Yanukovych in 2006. – Ed.) declared that you did not need this plan. You could be proceeding on the way to NATO membership. How can we be unequivocal when you are so ambiguous?”
In your opinion, why is the question of visa waiver regime with Ukraine being so slowly resolved in the EU? It appears that Russia is more likely to acquire this regime with the EU, although it did not cancel a visa regime with the EU, unlike Ukraine in 2005.
“That would be illogical. It is impossible that the EU implemented a visa waiver regime with Russia before doing so concerning Ukraine. The visa regime impedes the development of contacts between our countries; it works against our political and economic interests in Ukraine. Already last year we simplified the conditions for receiving visas. We have national and Schenghen visas. We are drafting the agreement with the Ukrainian side which will provide for receiving Slovak visas free of charge. As for Schenghen visas, 40 percent of them are now being issued free of charge. We support the steps towards visa liberalization and preparation of the road map, so that it was clear what one should accomplish on the way to the visa-free regime with Ukraine. I know that many EU countries share this opinion. One should only keep to agreements. I am sure that we will have visa-free relations in a couple of years. This meets not only Ukraine’s interests, but also those of Slovakia.”
