It seems that both Ukraine and the European Union are sticking to their positions. Kyiv keeps insisting on including the prospect of EU membership in the text of the agreement, even in the form of a “political association.” Brussels does not even want to hear about the prospect of membership. Instead, its officials are talking about Ukraine’s important role in the new policy of good European neighborhood.
The EU Troika-Ukraine meeting held on the foreign ministers- level in Kyiv last Monday, gave rise to these conclusions. It should be noted that the EU delegation was missing a few people. Xavier Solana, the EU’s highest representative, did not come to Kyiv because of problems in Kosovo. Benita Ferrero-Waldner, the European Commissioner on foreign policy, got sick right before the meeting. Frank-Walter Steinmeier (see photo), Minister of Foreign Affairs of Germany, which now holds the EU presidency, was accompanied by Eneko Landaburu, Director General of the Foreign Affairs Department of the European Commission, and Manuel Lobo Antunes, the State Secretary on European Affairs of the Portuguese foreign ministry. At the meeting Ukraine was represented by Volodymyr Ohryzko, Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs.
The meeting’s participants were of one mind about the idea of the negotiations being the start of concluding a new broader agreement between Ukraine and the EU, which mandate was given by the EU Council of Ministers on Jan. 22. With his decree President Yushchenko appointed the members of the Ukrainian delegation that will negotiate with the EU on the issue of the new basic treaty with Ukraine. The delegation is headed by Andrii Veselovsky, Ukraine’s Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs.
The prime ministers of Germany and Ukraine noted the importance of the start of these negotiations. Prime Minister Yanukovych expressed the hope that both sides will develop the new enhanced agreement with the European Union, which will enable Ukraine to proceed along the path to European integration at maximum speed.
Steinmeier said that Germany will take an active part at the start of the negotiations, adding that the first meeting of the working group will be held in early March. He also remarked that the current negotiations create “a wonderful opportunity” to map out and designate priority areas of cooperation between Ukraine and the EU. Among these he mentioned the economy, the creation of a free trade zone between Ukraine and the EU, and justice, noting the significance of cooperation in the areas of defense and security policies. “All those issues will soon be negotiated on in every detail,” said the German foreign minister.
Oleksandr Chaly, the deputy head of the Presidential Secretariat, expects that the negotiations between Ukraine and the EU on the new basic agreement will be completed by the end of this year. He also noted that Ukraine’s vision of the major elements of that agreement differs somewhat from that of the EU. “Our position at this stage of the negotiations is political association with the EU aimed at cooperation in the areas of security and defense.”
According to Chaly, the key element of the economic block of the new agreement will be the creation of a free trade zone between Ukraine and the EU, and intensification of cooperation in some sectors, particularly energy. The EU mandate does not contain a distinct prospect of Ukrainian membership in the EU. At the same time, according to Chaly, the Ukrainian president expects “some compromise formulas that would keep the doors of the EU open for Ukraine to be found during the ongoing negotiations and which could serve as a clear beacon of aspirations for Ukraine’s integration into the European Union.”
The Ukrainian prime minister also wanted to hear from the delegation of the EU Troika their vision of Ukraine’s European prospects. “To get your vision of Ukraine’s European prospects and how they will be reflected in the new agreement is of great importance for us,” said Yanukovych. The prime minister emphasized that Ukrainian society as well as the president, government, and parliament are united on Ukraine’s Eurointegration direction. The head of the Ukrainian government thinks that the absence of a distinct position of the European Union concerning Ukraine’s prospects for joining the EU in the European Council’s negotiations mandate “has increased the disappointment of Ukrainian citizens.”
In response Steinmeier emphasized that Ukraine “plays a very important role in the European Union’s good neighborhood policy.” But neither Ukraine nor the EU should “demand or expect too much from each other.” Germany’s foreign minister also said that the European Union is in the middle of adopting its constitution. “The ability of the European Union to develop and its ability to expand are closely connected,” he said. Steinmeier emphasized that there is a “realistic program” in the cooperation between Ukraine and the European Union, which sets out a num ber of goals for both sides.
COMMENTARY
How do experts evaluate the results of the Ukraine—EU Troika meeting in Kyiv? What is the probability that Brussels will agree to Ukraine’s demands that the key concepts of political association and economic integration be included in the agreement? Did the lack of a foreign minister in Ukraine and the continuing struggle for power between the president and the prime minister, particularly in the area of international relations, influence the results of the negotiations?
Arkady MOSHES, Finnish Institute of International Relations:
“The assessment of the EU Troika meeting in Kyiv is cautiously positive. On the positive side are the facts that the process is unfolding and the formal start of the negotiations took place: expert-level meetings were scheduled. Bureaucratic inertia has been preserved. On the other hand, the fact that there was not a full complement of the Troika is a bit alarming. No matter what the explanations, it is hard to believe that something happening in the Balkans made Solana cancel his visit to Ukraine. It is more likely a diplomatic trick, which of course should be regarded as a warning signal about Ukraine’s position at the negotiations.
“What can I say about the reaction of Brussels to Ukraine’s proposals about political association and economic integration? I don’t think there are any insurmountable obstacles for the medium— and long-range prospects of Ukraine’s economic integration. It all depends on the course of reforms in Ukraine. Those can’t develop rapidly, and the European position on this was pronounced quite clearly. But the process will develop anyway and I don’t see any particular problems there. As for political association, the concept itself is not clear. It may mean a relationship between political allies resulting in Ukraine following the course of European policy, or Ukrainian support for European positions. From the point of view of Ukraine’s choice to join the European Union, such a position is correct. But it isn’t enough.
“The other meaning of this concept is granting Ukraine the status of relations that was given to the countries of Eastern and Southern Europe in the mid-1990s. However, to my mind, the European position has not changed yet. That is why I don’t feel optimistic about this issue, at least in its short— and medium—range perspective. Of course, both the lack of a foreign minister in Ukraine and the struggle between the president and prime minister have influenced the result of the negotiations. There are no two ways about it. It is not clear who is going to be responsible for the steps that are being negotiated. Surely, from the point of view of logic and common sense it is wise not to accelerate the process, and the negotiations are postponed. At the moment, the lack of a legitimately appointed minister, all the speculations about the intentions to change the Law ‘On the Foundations of Foreign and Domestic Policies,’ the lack of clarity in the question of the president’s authority to appoint a foreign minister — all these things affect the decision-making process. There is a great risk here, and without a doubt Ukraine is losing a lot from the negotiator’s point of view.”
Oleksandr SUSHKO, Director of the Center for Peace, Conversion and Foreign Policy of Ukraine:
“Expected results were achieved during the meeting of the Troika. In fact, the decisions adopted there were the ones that had been planned for that meeting. They also settled the date of the negotiations, just as it had been pre-planned. No breakthrough or revolutionary decisions were made, but they were not supposed to be made under the given circumstances. To start the new negotiations officially was the most important thing.
“We can say that Ukraine appears to have an advantage there. First of all, similar negotiations with Russia have not started yet. We are the first to proceed along this road. Second, the European Union has withdrawn its demand to start the negotiations only after Ukraine joins the WTO. That is, it was decided to start the negotiations before finalizing all the formal procedures. In the current political circumstances in Ukraine and the European Union such decisions look quite logical. As for political association, this is just a matter of speculation and somebody’s vision of the concept. There is no such term in the political vocabulary. There are associate relations with the EU, and they are of different levels. They do not necessarily pre-suppose the prospect of membership. But, as far as I understand, they mean some sort of preferential political relations. It does not matter how they are called. I think that if the agreement under discussion becomes a real step forward in relations between Ukraine and the EU and provides the necessary mechanisms and tools to develop those relations, it will de facto constitute associate relations. It will become possible if we meet the requirements written in the new treaty.
“As for economic integration, this terminology is being used. The European Union, in announcing the Neighborhood Policy and Action Plan, does not avoid the term ‘integration’ with regard to economic relations. At issue here is the gradual integration of Ukraine into the EU’s internal market. Even though this format is officially called the “Troika” on the ministerial level, the main goal was to hold a meeting with the top authorities: the president and the prime minister. Under these circumstances the foreign minister’s role is not the key one. However, even when Tarasiuk held this office, the EU had certain doubts about him because he was not unanimously recognized by all the Ukrainian authorities. After this problem was resolved and an acting minister recognized by everyone was appointed, the problem disappeared.”
