European integration has been a priority direction of the Ukrainian leadership’s foreign policy for more than a year. But many obstacles have been cropping up on this road. When Leonid Kuchma was in power, the European Union would brush off official Kyiv’s declarations, interpreting them as an attempt to curry favor: today the main vector is Russia and tomorrow, Europe. Brussels began to take a different, overtly friendly, attitude to the Orange leadership: the EU frequently sent its emissaries to Ukraine and initiated 10 steps for effecting a rapprochement with Kyiv.
Yet it never came down to the main thing — accession to the EU. Kyiv indefinitely dismissed the idea of applying for EU membership, while Brussels also took an equally indefinite pause, without promising Ukraine at least the possibility of being admitted to the “European club.”
Last week an alarming signal came from European Commission Vice-President Guenter Verheugen, who predicted in an interview with the German newspaper Die Welt that no ex-Soviet countries will join the enlarged EU in the next 20 years. “In 20 years’ time the European Union will comprise all the European countries except for the former countries of the Soviet Union that have not yet joined the EU,” Verheugen said.
What political consequences can this new signal from Verheugen have? This was the main question of a roundtable debate held at The Day‘s editorial office with the participation of Borys TARASIUK, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine; Ian BOAG, Head of the EC Delegation to Ukraine; Oleksandr CHALY, former deputy minister of foreign affairs in charge of European integration; and Andriy KURKOV, a writer known in EU countries. The debate started with comments on Verheugen’s statement.
“How high is the risk that the process of Ukraine’s European integration (which will undoubtedly have positive consequences) will never achieve the coveted goal — EU membership?”
Oleksandr CHALY: “Straight off I would like to note that European integration and membership are different things. Membership should not be a goal in itself. European integration is a variable idea, and we can implement it in different periods. We should understand that the problem is not so much in us as in the EU. The latter is now going through a grave systemic crisis.”
Borys TARASIUK: “Firstly, I would like to say that Mr. Verheugen is a consistent person...”
Larysa IVSHYNA: “Which is bad...”
Borys TARASIUK: “...With a minus sign. Secondly, no matter which European Commission officials of any level issue statements on this subject, their powers cannot outweigh the legal nature of the fundamental documents outlining membership conditions. Therefore, with this statement Mr. Verheugen did not repeal Article 49 of the Amsterdam Treaty, which sets out conditions for obtaining membership. In other words, the EU membership issue depends on Ukraine, not on Mr. Verheugen.”
Oleksandr CHALY: “We could have characterized Verheugen’s statement in this vein before 2004. This was in fact done. But during Leonid Kuchma’s presidency it became clear, at least to me, that the reason why Ukraine was denied membership prospects is to be sought not only and not so much in Ukraine. Above all, the reason lies with the European Union. After the recent riots in France and serious economic processes now underway in Germany and France, we must admit that the European Union is in a grave systemic crisis and will be in search of itself for the next 7 to 10 years. Following this, there may be talk of Ukraine’s prospective integration into Europe.
“So Verheugen knew what he was talking about. He is aware that after the French said that any new enlargement will be decided upon during a referendum, it will be more and more difficult or impossible for states to join the EU. There will be no consensus among the old European democracies about a new enlargement in the next 10 years. This was clearly indicated in the European Union’s new budget: there is no money for enlargement until 2013 (except for the countries already chosen). In other words, any new countries are out of the question. At the same time, in my opinion, this does not cancel out European integration.
“We need it as an idea by which Ukraine will be transformed. I do not agonize over whether Ukraine is Europe or not. Ukraine is Europe. Moreover, Ukraine is ‘a value-added’ Europe. We have some features that the old Europe does not. We are the young Europe, but many confuse the EU with Europe. We are transforming our society on the basis of those values and at a pace that will best suit our national interests.”
“Mr. Boag, is the EU crisis really the root cause of Verheugen’s statement?”
Ian BOAG: “There are several causes. I would treat Verheugen’s statement as a prediction. I would like to repeat Mr. Tarasiuk’s words, that what Verheugen said does not cancel out the legal foundations of European Union membership. However, Verheugen’s statement rests on several other factors. The European Union is not in a position now to consider the possibility of further enlargement. Ten new members recently joined the EU. Two more new members (Bulgaria and Romania — Ed.) are going to join in the next few years. Next in line is another very large and very difficult country — Turkey. Later, some more Balkan countries will join this queue. This is why there is a very complicated situation in the European Union as far as absorption of new members is concerned.
When we speak about the Copenhagen criteria, we should understand that they pertain not only to democracy, human rights, and a free market economy but also to the European Union’s ability to admit new members. Another reason lies in the problems of budget and referendums on EU enlargement. I would not call this a crisis. Experience shows that crises in the European Union do not last as long as some people think.
Another factor in this statement is the preparedness of Ukraine and other countries to join the EU. I do not think there are many people in this country who do not admit that Ukraine is still not prepared for EU membership. That is why the common Action Plan and the European Neighborhood Policy were mapped out so that Ukraine might be transformed and ready to apply for EU membership. I do not think that Verheugen’s forecast should be taken as a signal for disappointment. On the contrary, it encourages one to see what we can do in the next few years. And, of course, we are approaching an important date, 2008, the year when the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement and the Ukraine-EU Action Plan will expire, and we will have to draw up new documents to replace these. The more we achieve by 2008, the more we will be able to plan after 2008.”
“One can agree that Ukraine is really not quite prepared for EU membership, and obviously the European Union is equally unprepared to admit Ukraine. But on the eve of the parliamentary elections, Verheugen’s words seem to be not only a forecast but also a certain program statement. Will this have any political consequences?”
Borys TARASIUK:
“One should not exaggerate the importance of Mr. Verheugen’s statement, for it will hardly play any role in the long term, even until the elections. Nor is it going to influence the election results. We have already heard many statements of this kind. Ukraine is not prepared for EU membership. But please tell me which of the new European Union members have achieved the same standards as the other EU members? Ukraine is not an exception when it is bargaining for some kind of preferential treatment.
What is Ukraine striving for? Ukraine is striving to become a member of a united Europe by participating in the European Union and NATO. What is hindering this? It is the procedure that Ukraine must go through to meet the Copenhagen criteria. Our partners should admit that this is a common goal. Unfortunately, the EU has not yet admitted this. I think this is a serious strategic mistake of the European Union.
What is the way out? The way out is that Ukraine should activate its policies related to the fulfillment of the Action Plan and the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement, thereby proving that it has not only declared a wish but also taken concrete action. The European Union should in turn revise its concept and accept the prospect of Ukraine’s EU membership. It is not after a state has met the Copenhagen or Madrid criteria that membership negotiations should begin: negotiations and other actions aimed at EU membership begin with a common agreement. Only then is a plan drawn up in the shape of a treaty, and stages are set for a country to prepare for membership by meeting the criteria.
No other country has ever had to meet the criteria before its membership process began. Satisfying the criteria is the final stage of an EU membership agreement. So I don’t think that it is in 2008 that the European Union and Ukraine should identify the type of treaty that will govern our relations from 2008 onwards. We must draw up this document before then, sign it, and then begin the ratification procedure in order to start 2008 with a new framework document. Unlike many other new European Union members (no offense intended), Ukraine is not a supplicant. Ukraine is a country that has been, is, and will be making an ever greater contribution to joint European security and stability. This is what Ukraine is giving the European Union today.”
“Mr. Tarasiuk, there was a space of one year between the euphoria of the Orange Revolution and Verheugen’s statement. Is this statement perhaps a sign of the European Commission’s disappointment over the concrete steps of concrete governments? Can one extrapolate Ukraine’s overall ability to meet the criteria from his statement? After all, the new president came to power on a slogan of European goals and radical transformations. Is the statement by this Brussels official a kind of knockout punch?”
Borys TARASIUK:
“Verheugen’s statement is not based on any European Commission decision, it is his personal opinion. As for assessing the performance of President Yushchenko’s new team, I think it will not be an exaggeration to say that Ukraine has done much more over the past year than in all the previous years as far as fulfillment of its European integration commitments is concerned. This made it possible for Ukraine to obtain market economy status in the field of antidumping laws.
This also made it possible to enter into negotiations on a relaxed visa treatment of Ukrainian citizens. Has this been achieved in the past year? Yes. Is this not the result of the fact that European Union countries have seen Ukraine as a new country where there is democracy and whose citizens do not pose many threats when they travel to the West? It was last year that Ukraine and the EU agreed that consultations and talks will begin in the nearest future on implementing the idea of a free trade area. It was last year that the European Union noted considerable progress in Ukraine’s implementation of the Ukraine-EU Action Plan. This is not what we want to say about ourselves. This is what the European Union said about us in the common statement of Dec. 1, 2005.”
“Let us turn to Andriy Kurkov, a person who moves freely through European Union countries and knows the European public very well. What is the attitude of EU citizens to Ukraine? What do you think about Mr. Verheugen’s statement, since it is the pivotal point of our discussion?”
Andriy KURKOV:
“I have often dealt with members of the European Parliament and the European Commission, and I often heard them say that they do not expect to see Ukraine in the EU. Yet there have always been different views: some have treated Ukraine with sympathy and others with antipathy. I don’t think we should tally up which of the two were more numerous. All we have to do is choose a course and stick to it in spite of all these statements. There was a huge upsurge of interest in Ukraine during the Orange Revolution: that was an enormous free advertisement. We ‘hyped’ ourselves and are still feeling it now. Mr. Verheugen’s statement is an impetus for Ukraine to develop in a certain direction, as is President Putin’s policy to raise prices for Ukraine to the European level. Since Russia already considers us a European country and we are paying European prices, I don’t see the reason why we should cast doubt on Ukraine’s ‘Europeanness’ and future.”
Oleksandr CHALY:
“I agree with Andriy Kurkov that European bureaucrats have been consistent all these years. They have not only been denying us membership but even raising the question of membership prospects. Borys Tarasiuk was right to say that it should be stipulated that membership is our common goal. I absolutely agree with him: we are far better prepared for prospective membership than corruption-ridden Albania or totally unstable Macedonia. May I remind you that Ukraine is helping the EU free of charge to stabilize Macedonia by stationing its troops in that country? The EU is taking a good, absolutely positive, attitude to the new Ukrainian leadership. The point is that it is not changing its strategic line because the objective situation is not allowing it to. The new government should drop its romantic perception of EU membership and adopt a normal pragmatic concept of European integration.
“When Leonid Kuchma came to power in 1994, he set a goal to integrate into the Russian bloc. This was the pivotal idea of his election program. As a result, he wrote the book Ukraine Is not Russia, his foreign policy testament, so to speak. It seems to me Yushchenko will end up with the book Ukraine Is not the EU. The new government should take a realistic look at membership prospects and say that accession to the EU should not be the goal of our European integration. We must not concentrate on this today; we should be focusing on a pragmatic vision of our interests in the context of our integration — in the cultural, human, and business space.”
