During his last visit to Kyiv two weeks ago, NATO Secretary General Javier Solana presented his new proposals on Kyiv-NATO cooperation.
However, apart from the question of how to implement these proposals, there is a more basic question of whether it is worth the trouble. While in Warsaw, Bratislava, Budapest, and Bucharest the political elite and most of the population associate the future of their countries with NATO membership, and while in Moscow the alliance is still viewed to a large extent as a threat to Russia's national interests, Ukraine has still not reached any consensus on the issue. Instead, there is lack of determination that does not at all facilitate an effective foreign policy.
With the intention to launch a serious, substantial debate on this issue, The Day held a duel in its editorial office between Ivan Zayets, head of the Rukh faction in Parliament and ardent supporter of Ukraine's accession to NATO, and Volodymyr Malynkovych, a well-known lawyer and a convinced opponent to the idea.
V.M.: First of all, I am alarmed by the one-sided media coverage of the issue of joining or not joining NATO. The media that claim to be democratic practically ignore the opinion of Ukrainian citizens. The debate clearly reveals the provincialism and inferiority complex of our political elite that assesses the issue mostly in black and white terms.
I. Z.: I am also unsatisfied with the media coverage of the problem-there are not enough analytical publications that examine the issue from different standpoints. In general, I cannot even say that there is one-sided coverage of the topic—I think there is no coverage at all. This is the reason why I am so much interested in this kind of discussion.
I think that Ukraine must join NATO, and I view its membership in the alliance as an important element of Ukraine's integration with the rest of Europe. When raising this issue, it is necessary to take into account our legislation. Our Constitution stipulates that it is Verkhovna Rada that determines the basis of domestic and foreign policy. In 1993, Verkhovna Rada approved the main principles of Ukraine's foreign policy, according to which "creation of an all-European security system based on such existing international institutions as OSCE, NATO, or WEU will become a priority once Europe is no longer divided by opposing alliances." The presidential address to Verkhovna Rada two years ago said, "Ukraine will focus on accomplishing its strategic goal – integration with leading European and Euro-Atlantic organizations." Thus, our legislation encourages us to come back to our home, which is Europe. We consider this to be a willingness to live a European way of life with the standards characteristic of the democratic world. I think it is in this context that we should talk about our membership in NATO.
V.M.: Our road to Europe does not go through NATO. In his interview for The Day, Secretary General Solana pointed out that the EU and NATO are two different organizations, and there is no link between them. I agree that we should move in the direction of the European Union, but we do not have to arrive there through NATO. And the issue here is not just legislation. For some reason, joining the EU is associated with and even made contingent on NATO membership. However, Europe also has its opposition to NATO.
Our movement to Europe through NATO will prevent us from resolving a number of other important problems. In an article published last October, Zbigniew Brzezinski noted that NATO pursues many different goals. In particular, NATO is an instrument that the US uses to consolidate its domination in Europe. He also said that the only real alternative to US domination is international anarchy. This view frightens not only me, but also many democrats in Europe, such as Helmut Schmidt and Richard von Weizsaker. In their view, NATO enlargement without Russia's approval will result in new confrontation and creation of additional barriers on the way of post-Soviet countries' integration with Europe.
Europe can become an independent, powerful economic entity. This is the kind of Europe we should join. It is possible to set up a number of institutions that would help countries to integrate with Europe, for instance, Black Sea cooperation and many others. I think Helmut Schmidt's proposal to adopt a European security charter merits a lot of attention, and so does Weizsaker's suggestion to create a security council in the OSCE.
I. Z.: NATO has proved its effectiveness over the last fifty years, and it remains as effective as ever. It is clear that due to NATO candidacy requirements Ukraine was able to avoid territorial disputes with its neighbors and to sign respective agreements with Romania, Poland, and Hungary. These agreements legally settled issues that have been subject to much controversy since the end of World War II. Of course, the treaty with Russia is also very important.
When the municipal sewage system collapsed in Kharkiv, NATO supplied special pumps to the city, which helped to quickly bring the situation under control. Of note is also Ukraine's cooperation with NATO in jointly planning natural disaster and crisis management.
NATO wants to build a new Europe without the dividing lines that resulted from Yalta. There were two dividing lines in Europe-the border between NATO and the Warsaw Pact, and the border of the former Soviet Union. NATO is erasing the first line by enlarging itself, and it will eventually eliminate the second line as well by inviting Estonia to join the EU or any Baltic state to join the alliance.
Our contribution to NATO can also be quite substantial. First, it is stability in the region. We are willing to live by European standards, and in this way we free Europeans from fear of us.
I am not entirely pessimistic about our potential in the military sphere. We can also collaborate in the area of science and technology. We have many technologies that could supplement the capabilities of Europe in general.
Such non-allied countries as Austria and Switzerland have joined the Partnership for Peace Program, which means that no country in modern Europe wants to be outside the process of creating a European security system.
I think that NATO enlargement signifies enlarging the area of peace, security, and cooperation.
Ukraine cannot be some kind of an exception in this respect. Eleven Central European countries have applied to join NATO and are all moving in one direction. Why should Ukraine move in the other?
Ukraine must become a NATO member. However, we should also protect our interests and address the issue of military cooperation. We cannot allow the demolition of high technologies in Ukraine. If we do not demonstrate our willingness to accept democratic principles, nobody will ever use Ukraine for transporting energy or building transport corridors.
V.M.: The need for NATO's existence today is a very controversial issue. The alliance was created in 1949, at the beginning of the Cold War, when Stalin and the Soviet Union pursued an extremely aggressive policy. No doubt, there was a great need to protect democracy from the then USSR. Today we have a totally different situation – there is no threat to Europe from the East. Ukraine is now locked between Russia and NATO, and I think that the repercussions of our accession to NATO will be immeasurably more dangerous for our living standards and stability than all the assistance we are now getting from NATO. We should continue our movement towards Europe, but we should do it together with Russia. In case Ukraine joins NATO, it is the Ukrainian-Russian relations that will suffer the most.
For me, it is essential that Russia simply cannot squeeze into the NATO door. If Russia continues to exist as an independent country, its current relations with Ukraine will change drastically when Ukraine joins NATO. There will no longer be transparent borders – Russia will be forced to militarize its borders against the opposing alliance since, in one way or another, NATO is aimed primarily at Russia. Ukraine will have new problems with gas and oil supplies from Russia, and Ukraine's debt to Russia will be restructured in a different way. Apart from this, the Ukrainian political forces that want union with Russia will become very active. All this may result in new conflicts, and we do not really need them now.
No doubt, Russia is very much concerned about NATO enlargement. It brings out the country's imperial instincts and drives Moscow into a corner. This is exactly what we should avoid doing, and this is the reason why NATO membership is so dangerous for Ukraine—it could bury both Ukraine and Russia.
I. Z.: I think it is inappropriate to play down the cooperation that is going on between NATO and Russia. One also cannot say that Russia's political elite is really disturbed by NATO enlargement. The facts refute this argument and show that Russia's elite uses the NATO factor in their own internal struggle. Russia is convinced now that its anti-western position is not going to do Moscow any good. What remains now is a myth born of great fear. I am sure that if Ukraine applied to join NATO now – and the only reason why Kyiv is not capable of doing it is the government's unclear position on the situation in Europe and Ukrainian-Russian relations – Russia would get used to the idea very quickly. I see a future for Russia only if it decides to move closer to the West, which is in line with Ukraine's aspirations. This is why I would not exaggerate the danger of the Russian factor—after all, Russia also wants to see Ukraine a stable country.
NATO signed a founding act with Russia, and they closely collaborate in the former Yugoslavia. The alliance is in the process of transforming itself from a purely military organization into a military and political one, which allows it to expand the areas of its influence and to become a leading element in the European security system.
Photo by Oleksiy Stasenko, The Day:
Consensus proved impossible to attain
