I ndependent Ukraine’s diplomacy, judging by what Minister of Foreign Affairs Anatoly Zlenko said at the April 19 conference on Ukrainian Foreign Policy and Diplomacy During Ten Years of Independence, the goals enunciated are being achieved, creating a favorable external climate for our state and achieving stability in the region. He was seconded by another participant in the conference, Secretary General of the Council of the European Union Javier Solana, who emphasized that Ukraine had opted for the right course toward reform and democracy.
Mr. Zlenko is convinced that consistency and farsightedness have been the two principal features of Ukrainian diplomacy in the years of independence. With which it is difficult not to agree with. The previously-proclaimed so-called multivector approach meant in practice that Ukraine was not always a self-sufficient player on the international stage, for it had to reckon with the interests of its strategic partners, sometimes to the detriment of its own national interests. This multivector approach required constant zigzags, which in fact forced Kyiv to be farseeing and consistent. Meanwhile, Western diplomats consider that Ukraine, still at a critical stage of its statehood, just could not act otherwise and coped with its task very well. On the other hand, we also failed to finally suppress our love for high-sounding slogans.
Minister Zlenko, however, takes a more upbeat view of Ukraine’s ten years of diplomacy. In essence, it is he who was and still is largely setting the pace of Ukraine’s diplomatic work, being at the head of the Foreign Ministry at the dawn of an independent state and then again from the second half of last year until now. Speaking of the gains of Ukraine’s “foreign politicians,” Mr. Zlenko singles out, first, Ukrainian victory in the far from simple conflict with Russia over the status of Sevastopol in 1993. At that time, the issue was raised to the level of the UN Security Council, with the international community finally taking Ukraine’s side. Among other achievements, the minister named the signing of the Treaty on Friendship and Cooperation with Russia. One more contribution, which on the contrary some analysts view as a blunder, is our nation’s renunciation of nuclear weapons. Still another gain is last year’s closure of the Chornobyl Nuclear Power Plant. In addition, Ukraine is represented in many world hot spots by significant peacekeeping forces. In terms of the number of peacekeepers participating in UN missions, Ukraine ranks first in Europe and seventh in the world. Moreover, our top diplomat believes that Ukraine’s presidency, first of the UN General Assembly and then of the Security Council, indicate “the maturity of and broad vision of problems by the Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs... But will these contributions of Ukraine get the praise they deserve?” Mr. Zlenko asked, rhetorically. The question remained unanswered precisely due to its rhetorical nature. However, the implied answer is quite obvious and a bit different from the soliloquies of our European Union guest.
High-ranking EU representative Javier Solana admits Ukraine’s key role in maintaining stability and security on the European continent. He is convinced that the EU and Ukraine are important to each other. European Union enlargement will, he says, give Ukraine better trade and investment opportunities. Our state will be able to export goods to the common market, which will greatly promote trade and economic growth. He noted the EU would also benefit if Ukraine were more prosperous.
Ukrainian diplomats will have to believe the EU representative and hope that “Ukraine’s finally established course toward integration into the European community” will not remain unfilled in the long run. Meanwhile, the Foreign Ministry seems to harbor some doubts about this if you go by Mr. Zlenko’s phrase that “Ukraine is prepared to wait its turn for EU membership, but we want to know with certainty that our turn will come.” The minister also reiterated that Ukrainian diplomacy had already scrapped the old multivector policy and finally chosen its “basic reference points,” the European Union, Russia, and the United States.
The decade when Ukraine was working out and developing its own foreign policy has shown that, although the latter is still rather far from being ideal, it is dynamic enough to set an example for domestic policy, which more often than not has been less a source than a burden for diplomacy.
