In late January, Ukrainians’ attention was focused on a number of international events, which were important for national security. The political issues subgroup of the Tripartite Contact Group held a meeting in Minsk, which saw representatives of the so-called Donetsk and Luhansk ‘people’s republics’ issuing ultimatums demanding a permanent special status for these illegal entities. Kyiv, meanwhile, hosted international roundtable “Ukraine in the Priorities of Germany’s Presidency in the OSCE.” It seemed that it was precisely these events that had to be the main topic for Ukrainian diplomacy and media debates. However, the media’s main topic turned out to be the Ministry of Foreign Affairs releasing online a list of 230 persons who had had their diplomatic passports revoked. Surprising, this list is all mixed up. Quite a few decent people are on it alongside those who are on the wanted list. “The dead and the living, old gangsters and statesmen,” an MP told The Day commenting on the list. Indeed, it includes dead legislators, like Ivan Pliushch, and many former Party of Regions’ members who have fled Ukraine. Perhaps the biggest surprise is Yevhen Marchuk’s presence on the list. We have learned that his diplomatic passport expired six years ago and he never renewed it. However, Marchuk is currently conducting a diplomatic mission as head of the security affairs subgroup of the Tripartite Contact Group as a volunteer, paying for tickets to Minsk and back out of his own pocket.
The Day asked Foreign Minister Pavlo Klimkin to comment on the appearance of such a list and answer some questions.
“IT IS NOT A LIST OF BAD PEOPLE”
“I already know about the situation. This is our consular department having performed a bit of technical work. It turned out that Marchuk had been put on a list alongside some people with whom we do not want to have anything to do.
“I will call Marchuk today in the afternoon [the interview was recorded on January 28. – Ed.], congratulate him on the occasion of his birthday and offer an apology, saying that this is just a technically logical list, not a result of any selection. He appeared on the list not because he had broken some law, but just because his passport is no longer valid. It was just a technical statement that such and such diplomatic passports had been revoked.
“I would like to mention that the idea of publishing a list of revoked diplomatic passports has no quasi-political context. It is the work of our consular department whose task under the new diplomatic passport regulations is to publish such lists. The department went on to formally publish it. Incidentally, this department did not seek approval for the list from anyone else. The idea was to do an honest and transparent report. This is the second such disclosure, by the way. It turned out to be done in a dumb way, however. Unfortunately, we have idiots who do everything right, but sometimes you need to do the right thing wisely.
“I have already instructed our spokesperson Mariana Betsa to make an appropriate comment and say that this is a technical list, not a list of bad people.”
“THEY WILL NOW PLAY ENDLESSLY WITH THE SPECIAL STATUS”
As you know, Russia’s representative in the Minsk group Boris Gryzlov demanded at the talks held in the Belarusian capital on January 28 that Ukraine link the vote on constitutional amendments to simultaneously amending Articles 1 and 10 of the law on the special status, so as to make the special status permanent, as provided in the “Steinmeier formula.” What do you say to that?
“They will now play endlessly with the special status and how it should be enshrined. The problem is not that the special status should be maintained for three years or more, but their desire to include some provisions into the Constitution. I believe it is fundamentally unacceptable in terms of the logic of the whole process. And of course, they will play with this topic. After all, they are not interested in the Donbas, but rather in rocking the Ukrainian boat. And they will keep trying to do it. This is the logic of their stance, which, unfortunately, has not changed.”
“THERE SHOULD BE SAFEGUARDS ENSURING THEY WILL KEEP THEIR SIDE OF THE DEAL”
Minister, why have we failed to achieve a clear sequence and deadlines for fulfilling all 11 provisions of the Minsk Agreements? It turns out that our partners demand that we fulfill all political conditions, while Russia and the separatists it supports do not fulfill even the first provision, speaking about the cease-fire, not to mention the withdrawal of illegal armed formations and Russian weapons and return of the border to Ukrainian control.
“Our logic is simple: we need a clear sequence, deadlines and safeguards ensuring that they will keep their side of the deal. This should apply to arms control, OSCE access to areas beyond Ukrainian control, withdrawal of weapons, and OSCE border monitoring to be followed by the transfer of control to Ukraine. This must all be clearly stated. Of course, we have to be sure that Ihor Plotnytsky and Oleksandr Zakharchenko will at some point exit the scene and not interfere with remaking the region. Without it, the whole process does not make sense. All this should be very clearly linked. All Minsk commitments should be clearly linked to specific criteria when we can say that this or that commitment is fulfilled or not.”
How can we make the opposite side do it all? Because we see only pressure on us to make us fulfill all the political conditions.
“It can only be done as we are trying to do it now, together with our partners in the Normandy format, as well as the US and other countries. There is no other way, because the opposite side sees as important objective not the Donbas, but the whole of Ukraine.”
“APPROVING THE ‘57 – 1’ FORMULA WOULD SET A PRECEDENT”
Now, what can you say about our expectations regarding the German presidency of the OSCE? Will Germans be able to enforce the “57 – 1” formula, which provides that a party directly or indirectly involved in a conflict should be blocked from participating in its resolution, which is totally relevant in the case of the Russian aggression in the Donbas?
“In terms of reaching consensus on this proposal, it will be difficult. But we are ready to discuss this subject, in particular through strengthening the coordination of certain parameters of the OSCE’s future. In fact, adopting the ‘57 – 1’ formula would set a precedent, as it can greatly change the OSCE. We would benefit from it, of course. I highly appreciate Germans’ ability to promote the OSCE, but am generally skeptical about the idea to change the fundamentals of this international security organization which is based on consensus decision making.”
