“What were the reasons why your candidacy was put forward?”
“This step was well justified and logical. Having one of Europe’s best laws on national minorities, which meets the high OSCE and Council of Europe standards, Ukraine (both the executive and legislative branches) has created all the conditions to put into practice these high standards. All political parties in Ukraine have reached a consensus about national minorities. These policies and practices have resulted in Ukraine having 270 registered non-governmental national minority organizations, with their representatives working in executive and legislative bodies of all levels. Thousands of schools and newspapers, dozens of television channels teach, write, and broadcast in the languages of ethnic minorities.
“Ukraine became the only state where the OSCE mission, set up in connection with the situation in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, has successfully carried out its mandate and terminated its activities in 1999, a step highly praised at the OSCE summit in Istanbul. That same year the Ukrainian leadership invited the OSCE to found a Center for Ethnic Studies in Kyiv, which would be subordinated to and enhance the analytical and forecasting functions of the High Commissioner on National Minorities (HCNM).
“ Ukraine has established constructive cooperation on national minorities issues with all neighboring states, concluding the relevant bilateral agreements or including special clauses into the treaties signed with these states.
“Our state has managed not only to maintain interethnic peace and harmony inside the country but also to act as an intermediary or a peacemaker in the countries or regions where interethnic conflicts had broken out (Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Abkhazia, and Nagorno-Karabakh).
“Finally, neither Ukraine nor any other new independent state has ever been represented in the OSCE and Council of Europe leadership. Conversely, a representative of Western Europe has held the office of the HCNM for seven years.
“This was a far from easy decision for me. I was aware that my chances to get the HCNM office were fifty-fifty. But they still were real. As has already been noted, this office has been continuously held since its inception in 1992 by Dutch Foreign Minister Max van der Stoel. In November 1999, on the eve of the Istanbul summit, the OSCE attempted to elect a new High Commissioner out of three candidates officially proposed by EU members Portugal, Austria, and Sweden. But this proved unsuccessful, and Max van der Stoel had his powers renewed as an exception for one year until November 2000.”
“As of October this year, the EU countries were even farther from consensus about a single candidate than they were a year ago. This raised a natural question: is there a reason why a representative of Ukraine, a state that has achieved generally recognized progress in the sphere of national minorities, should not vie for this office?
“In October I, as a person well versed in these issues, suggested we should enter the race for this office. In coordination with the President, on October 19 Minister of Foreign Affairs Anatoly Zlenko officially proposed my candidacy, as a person “well known in OSCE countries as well as to Austria, which currently chairs the OSCE. I was well aware that losing could injure my prestige. But I was not at all worried over this because I understood that somebody had to begin... I would like to tell the skeptics straight away that I have never regarded working abroad as my ultimate goal. So this was not the decisive motivation for me. What prevailed was the aspiration to prove that Ukraine can contest high offices in overall European structures, which would fit in with its role and place in the strengthening of stability and security. I am convinced this time has come.
“As soon as the candidature was mooted, all foreign institutions of Ukraine in OSCE member states were given the respective instructions. I personally had meetings or telephone conversations with almost fifty heads of foreign policy agencies and international organizations. The first conversation of this kind took place as early as October 20 with Russian Minister Igor Ivanov. The next week our representation in Vienna met the heads of about thirty OSCE delegations. To meet personally the ministers of foreign affairs, I took part in the Rome Conference (November 3-4) dedicated to the fiftieth anniversary of the European Covenant on Human Rights and in the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg (November 8-9). Our own foreign based institutions also did much work. As a result, on the eve of the OSCE Vienna summit we had enlisted the support of the governments of almost twenty countries representing the OSCE’s five regions, eleven of twelve CIS member countries, and nine of thirteen countries subject to the HCNM mandate. All this testified to the prestige Ukraine had obtained as a result of its well-balanced foreign policy and, in particular, its role as an unbiased intermediary and peacemaker.”
“What can you say about your rivals?”
“There were three of them on the eve of the Vienna summit: Portugal’s Jose Cutileiro (former Secretary General of the West European Union), Sweden’s Daniel Tarschis (former Secretary General of the Council of Europe), and Belgian Senator Alain Destex. I have known the first two in person for many years and in various offices. I met Mr. Tarschis during my routine visit, as of deputy minister, to Sweden, well before he was elected CE Secretary General. I have known Cutileiro since I was ambassador in Brussels. Incidentally, immediately after my candidature had been advanced, I phoned both of them because I put normal human relationships above all. I learned precisely at that time that the Swedish government was going to replace Tarschis’ candidacy with that of Ambassador Rolf Ekeus, who had been UN mission head in Iraq, ambassador to the US, and also dealt with disarmament issues (contrary to some media reports, he has never been Foreign Minister of Sweden).”
“So why were you not elected?”
“As you see, my rivals were strong and experienced enough. Yet, none of the countries wanted to give up. There was a struggle inside the European Union to put forward a single candidate. On the night of October 31, the EU states reached consensus on the candidature of Mr. Ekeus who was also supported by some EU membership candidates. Thus, the Ukrainian candidate was opposed not by a different candidate but by a whole group of countries.
“In addition, the Russian stand was far from supporting me. In this connection I cannot agree to the claim that there was no hand of Moscow here. It was there. Suffice it to recall the appeal of the Duma International Affairs Committee, made public by Dmitry Rogozin just before the vote, to Minister Ivanov not to support the Ukrainian candidate. This appeal was heeded (I know this for certain). Incidentally, the EU countries used this as an additional argument and a lever of pressure on the Ukrainian delegation, demanding that the latter ‘not stand in the way of consensus’ (do not forget that even at this moment the Ukrainian candidate was supported by 18 countries).
“I will not comment on the motivation and explanations of our delegation’s leadership. The result is universally known: Ambassador Ekeus was elected OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities, but because he is otherwise engaged he will assume office only next July. And until that time Max van der Stoel’s authority was renewed, once again ‘exceptionally.’
“Incidentally, a few words about Max van der Stoel. He had to launch and develop the institution of the High Commissioner. For seven consecutive years, he has performed his delicate missions irreproachably, demonstrating the finest examples of quiet diplomacy. I also know this from my own long experience of cooperating with him in connection with the situation in the Crimea, as well as with the groundless accusations by our ‘strategic partner’ of about official policy on the Russian language in Ukraine. I was pleased to hear the warm words of gratitude addressed to Max (he and I are on a first name basis) at the OSCE ministerial meeting, which he undoubtedly deserves.”
