“The Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic is announcing its future intention to become a permanently neutral state that will take no part in military blocs and will adhere to the three non-nuclear principles: non-possession, non-production, and non-importation of nuclear weapons.”
Politicians and experts frequently quote this provision from the Declaration of the Political Sovereignty of Ukraine signed on July 16, 1990. Opponents of NATO membership allege that this document enshrines our state’s neutrality, so the Ukrainian leadership has no right to pursue a Euro-Atlantic course. In all probability, no one but those directly involved in drawing up the document can best clear up this matter.
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Ukraine, Volodymyr VASYLENKO, is well known in diplomatic and juridical circles. In late 1989 he was instrumental in establishing the legal groundwork for Ukraine’s economic independence. In 1990 he drafted the first Declaration of the Political Sovereignty of Ukraine and participated in drafting the final version of this act. The Day asked Mr. Vasylenko, as a foreign-relations lawyer, to help unravel the knot of contradictory interpretations of the Declaration of Ukraine’s Political Sovereignty.
“UKRAINE IS NEITHER A NON-ALIGNED NOR A NEUTRAL STATE”
Is there a risk that Ukraine will change its strategic goals of joining the EU and NATO?
“Strategic goals should not be changed. They were in fact spelled out when Ukraine’s independence was restored. These goals meet the state’s important interests, so they must not be changed.”
Will the political forces of the future government share your confidence? Are you well aware of the stands taken by leaders of the political forces that may form the parliamentary majority?
“I am aware of the stand of at least those politicians who are determined to defend the national interests of Ukraine, not of a foreign state.”
Why is Ukraine, in the 15 th year of independence, still rife with debates on its foreign political goals?
“This is very easy to explain. Ukraine is about to join NATO, but some Ukrainian politicians believe that these goals should not run counter to the interests of Russia, which in principle opposes Ukraine’s accession to the alliance.”
But the Ukrainian public also has a contradictory view of this issue, while some politicians, citing the public’s animosity towards NATO, call for legalizing Ukraine’s nonaligned or neutral status.
“Election campaign claims that Ukraine has some kind of neutral or nonaligned status are far from the truth. Some politicians have even tried to persuade Ukrainian citizens that neutrality is spelled out in the constitution. Take a closer look at the Fundamental Law. If you find even a hint at neutral status there, I am ready to buy you a truckload of whisky.
“In all likelihood, speculations about our nonaligned status emerged because the Political Sovereignty Declaration proclaimed the intention of Ukraine to become in future a nuclear-free, nonaligned, and permanently neutral state. At the time the declaration was passed (July 16, 1990), Ukraine was part of the USSR. The Soviet Union was the leading member of the Warsaw Pact and the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance.
A movement for restoration of political independence was on the rise in Ukraine. So the clause on Ukraine’s intention to become a permanently neutral, nonaligned and nuclear-free state was added on the initiative of the People’s Council of Ukraine (the then parliamentary faction of popular democratic forces) in order to lay the political and legal groundwork for peaceful withdrawal from the USSR.
“In what way? After announcing its intention to become a nuclear-free, nonaligned, and neutral state, Ukraine could no longer remain part of the Soviet Union because the latter was a nuclear state and part of a military-political bloc. This is why that clause was added to the declaration. After gaining independence, Ukraine fulfilled one of its intentions: it became a nuclear-free state. But the intention concerning neutral and nonaligned status was never met, and today’s Ukraine is neither a nonaligned nor a neutral state.”
But Ukraine is not part of any military-political blocs.
“Look at permanently neutral Switzerland. Its status is enshrined in international law. Conversely, in Ukraine you will not find a single juridical document that says that Ukraine is a neutral or nonaligned state. Nonaligned countries have also acquired legal status by joining the Nonaligned Movement. Has Ukraine joined this movement? No. What status does our state have within it? — that of observer.”
“THIS IS RUSSIA’S PROBLEM NOW, NOT UKRAINE OR NATO’S”
Why do you consider statements about neutrality speculative?
“First and foremost, they have nothing to do with reality and mislead Ukrainians. Second, the ideas aimed at achieving this status, instead of Euro-Atlantic integration, jeopardize the vital interests of our state. If Ukraine assumes neutral status, it will simply be of no interest to Western democracies. It will end up one-on-one with Russia — and Russia’s attitude to Ukraine is common knowledge. The influential Russian political elite as well as the vast majority of ordinary Russians are thoroughly convinced that:
1. Ukraine is to blame for the collapse of the USSR and the current quandaries in Russia.
2. Independent Ukraine is a geopolitical aberration and a threat to Russia.
3. Without Ukraine, Russia is geopolitically incomplete and unable to revive as a great power.
4. The Ukrainian people are part of the great Russian nation, and reunification is just a matter of time.
These postulates prevail in Russian society and politics.”
This is a frank and acute statement. Aren’t you afraid that the Russian foreign ministry may deliver a protest note in this connection?
“No. Because what I say is true. In the event that the status of a permanently neutral state is proclaimed, our security policy will practically cease to exist. In fact, Ukraine will not benefit from this as an independent state. Look: Ukraine has been an object of provocations and aggressive propaganda for the past 15 years. The Russian press is full of contempt and hatred for Ukraine.”
Can Ukraine integrate into NATO while its relations with Russia are tense?
“Ukraine can become a NATO member if it satisfies the mandatory membership criteria. Ukraine is doing its best to normalize its relations with Russia on the basis of international law. It is not Ukraine’s fault that relations with Russia leave much to be desired, to put it mildly. I have a question of my own: can you name at least one Ukrainian action that contradicted international law, countered the legitimate interests of Russia, or was hostile towards Russia?”
This is a matter of interpretation. While we do not consider NATO-bound movement hostile towards Russia, Moscow is convinced that it is.
“That is Russia’s problem, not Ukraine and NATO’s. The accession of former Warsaw Pact members and ex-Soviet republics also irritated Russia, but they still became NATO members.”
At that time Russian threats were largely declarative, but on the agenda today are ‘energy supplies diplomacy’ and energy blackmail, which may be more successful compared to Ukraine’s achievements on the road to Euro-Atlantic integration.
“Joining the alliance is Ukraine’s absolutely legitimate aspiration, while Russia’s efforts to prevent Ukraine from doing so are illegitimate because this amounts to interference in a sovereign state’s affairs. Every state has the right to choose how, when, and with whom to establish relations and what organization to join.
“Now let’s talk about attempts at blackmail. In the previous cases of states entering NATO, Russia also resorted to tough statements and threatened to use some asymmetric measures in response. Nothing of the sort was done, even when the Baltic countries were admitted to the alliance. Experienced diplomats saw it as a test of strength, and Ukraine was the object of bargaining. In exchange for its ‘compromising stand,’ Russia tried to extract a promise from the West not to admit Ukraine to NATO. Why? Because, in the light of Russian conceptual approaches, it is impossible to revive a great Russia without Ukraine. This is the cause of the rabid campaign against Ukraine’s NATO membership.
“Now, let’s proceed to the question of fuel supplies. Of course, Russia could resort to using its energy clout for some time. But what will this lead to? What will Russia do with its oil and gas reserves? This will mean the final breach between Russia and the West. Russia cannot exist without normal ties with the outside world; it cannot isolate itself. This would be unrealistic and unwise.”
“TENSE RELATIONS WITH MOSCOW ARE TO EXPECTED”
Russia will hold its next presidential elections in 2008. According to our diplomats, Ukraine may be invited to NATO that same year. Some experts believe that the West will stop short of inciting nationalist sentiments in Russia with the ‘Ukrainian question’ in order to forestall the ascent to power of a radical politician. This is why Ukraine’s accession to NATO will be allegedly postponed indefinitely. What do you think of this viewpoint?
“I do not think somebody is attempting to speed up Ukraine’s integration into NATO. Things are following their natural course. What we have is normal and planned cooperation. It is only natural that Ukraine has done the bulk of the job (90-percent readiness) to meet NATO membership criteria. Meanwhile, predicting who will be Russia’s next president is a thankless task.
“The point is not one individual but the mentality of a nation and the power-wielding political elite that represents this nation. I think the West is well aware (I wish Ukrainians were, too) that tense relations with Russia at this stage are to be expected, unfortunately. This tension emerged not because somebody banned supplies of meat and milk or is going to sink Tuzla Island. Tension between the two states was caused by a deep-rooted conflict of civilizational, national, state, and geopolitical interests.
“What does a conflict of civilizational interests mean? Ukraine has embarked on the road of democratic development, building a civil society, and safeguarding fundamental freedoms and human rights. Russia has not done so. That country is a controlled democracy, as Russians themselves say. In terms of civilization, this approach runs counter to European values and standards.
“What do national and state interests mean? Russia’s goal is to be restored as a single, great Russia by swallowing Ukraine. Ukraine’s goal is to remain an independent state and not become part of Russia.
“What is the difference in geopolitical interests? Our goal is to reassume our place in Europe in the political, cultural, and civilizational sense by joining the EU and NATO. Russia’s goal is to stay away from NATO and the EU. Russia positions itself as a self-sufficient geopolitical entity, with Ukraine being in its gravitation field.
“I hope the NATO member states are well aware of this, too. Therefore, whipping up tensions in Ukraine-Russia relations should not be an obstacle to Ukraine’s membership in NATO. Moreover, only Ukraine’s NATO membership will normalize Ukrainian-Russian relations. This will not happen overnight, but quite soon. The Russian power-wielding political elite and its most aggressive representatives will understand that the bus has departed and Ukraine will never reunite with Russia. In other words, this will put the skids under Russia’s neocolonial and neoimperialist encroachments. Aware of this, the Russians will channel their energy into carrying out other, more constructive, projects rather than destabilizing Ukraine and ruining its independence.”
“But what are we to do with those Ukrainians who categorically oppose Ukraine’s accession to NATO? Official Kyiv announced its intention to enter the alliance back in 2002, but the level of public support for this action has been at a stable 20-25 percent during these four years. The new government, in spite of far better opportunities for Euro-Atlantic integration, has failed to reverse this tendency.”
“Unfortunately, even after the Orange Revolution almost nothing changed in public outreach efforts about NATO. I will tell you my frank personal opinion. Apparently, with due account of public misgivings about NATO, an erroneous approach was taken: not to raise the question of Ukraine’s membership in the alliance during the last election campaign. But I think that was the very time when we should have begun to systematically and impartially explain to Ukrainian citizens the nature, objectives, and directions of the alliance as well as the advantages that Ukraine will enjoy after becoming a member of NATO.”
