George Robertson, Secretary General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, said the proposal of Ukraine’s Minister of Defense, Volodymyr Shkidchenko, on deepening Ukraine-NATO relations is “quite a promising plan.” The plan revealed at a Ukraine-NATO Commission session on the level of defense ministers offered nothing sensational or unpredictable. Still, alliance representatives remained satisfied with the proposal, for this is to a certain extent a milestone in relations with Kyiv, which has recently announced its strategic intention to join NATO.
Nobody expected Gen. Shkidchenko to announce Ukraine’s desire to immediately enter NATO because this kind of a statement would have appeared premature at the very least. Yet, the Ukraine-NATO Commission’s June 7 session was destined to be unusual for the simple reason that it was held for the first time after the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine decided on moving in NATO’s direction. What, then, did alliance representatives hear from the Ukrainian minister? First, any country, when it sets out to reform its armed forces, must choose where and what to change — so Ukraine believes this revision should be intensified with the aid of NATO experts. By so doing, Kyiv could draw up a program to bring the Ukrainian armed forces up to modern standards. Secondly, Gen. Shkidchenko announced Ukraine would draft an information protection agreement with the alliance. Third, the defense minister said again that the Ukrainian military needs a NATO-sponsored course of the English language. Alliance sources also claim Gen. Shkidchenko said the Ukrainian NATO mission was understaffed.
“The experience of NATO countries shows that defense reforms require an appropriate level of resources and constant devotion to the idea of change... But this in no way means the reforms and changes will be very popular in the country,” NATO Secretary General George Robertson said. “NATO member states are prepared to offer Kyiv support and assistance, but the main responsibility for this work will, naturally, lie with the government of Ukraine... The reform chiefly aims to let Ukrainian taxpayers get better quality for the money they pay.” Lord Robertson said he was very pleased to receive a letter from President Kuchma which expressed Kyiv’s wish to integrate more closely with Euro-Atlantic structures. Today, Lord Robertson says, we must “concentrate on the already existing working programs.” NATO is satisfied in general that Ukraine has not only stated its intentions but also brought specific proposals. “Now let us look at the way the plans are fulfilled,” an alliance representative said. It is widely believed that the Prague summit will be a kind of moment of truth for which Ukraine must prove its ability to quickly translate its decisions into deeds. In any case, Kyiv and the alliance will have several good opportunities — well before the November summit — to probe each other’s seriousness of intent. On July 9 the Ukrainian capital will host an ambassadorial-level Ukraine- NATO Commission session to mark the fifth anniversary of the Charter on Ukraine- NATO Special Partnership. This event will be attended by NATO chief Robertson who will go the next day to Donetsk to witness the destruction of 400,000 land mines.
In October, Ukraine is slated to host a session of the defense reform task force. “The meeting was held against the background of Ukraine reiterating its hopes for close Euro-Atlantic integration,” the NATO secretary general said last Friday in his concluding statement. “These hopes will receive strong support from NATO.” The document says the details of closer cooperation will be worked out before the NATO Prague summit in November. The next date is July 9. On that day the Ukraine- NATO Commission session, to be held in Kyiv, will analyze the current state of relations between this country and NATO, Ihor Kharchenko, Deputy State Secretary at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, said addressing the ministry’s press club. He said he did not quite agree that Ukraine and NATO were now revitalizing their relationship, for the NSDC’s May 23 decision had resulted from this country’s previous foreign political course.
The reasons why a decision was made to map out a strategy culminating in Ukraine’s membership in the NATO-based collective security system are also well known. First, as no country can feel safe from now on, the post-September 11 challenges can only be taken up by cooperative efforts. Moreover, participation in the collective security system will cost the domestic taxpayer far less than an attempt to build a self-sufficient system. Ukraine has received a chance — this is how the current international security situation is being assessed by both Ukrainian and foreign diplomats. The only question is whether this chance will be seized.
Meanwhile, the oft-repeated words that NATO keeps its door open to any North Atlantic country which has expressed a wish to join and meets the membership criteria still remain a formality. It is very difficult to claim today that NATO looks forward to Ukraine or that Brussels really understands that it was decided to raise the level of the previous relations.
In particular, despite the upbeat tone of official statements, there is no consensus today among the nineteen NATO member states about the prospects of relations between the alliance and Ukraine. According to a well-informed diplomat, only “one and a half” NATO members are prepared today to support a relationship as close as possible with Ukraine, while a large group of member states is still undecided on this matter and another group of countries opposes, directly or indirectly, the likely rapprochement between NATO and Ukraine because they look on Ukraine, not without reason, as a rival in too many spheres. In addition, Kyiv positively comments now on the Russian factor, although Russia continues to take a dim view of the further expansion of NATO, which Gen. Shkidchenko’s Russian counterpart Sergei Ivanov recently confirmed. Incidentally, Kyiv does not hide that the problem of Russian Black Sea Fleet (BSF) bases still remains extremely sensitive. Some diplomats cautiously hint at the efforts being made by the Ukrainian side to prove that the presence of the BSF on Ukrainian territory runs counter to the law that allows this fleet to be based here only temporarily. Russia meanwhile does not even consider the question that the BSF will have sooner or later to leave Ukraine. This problem will undoubtedly stand in the way of Ukraine if it finally decides to apply for NATO membership. US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Steven Pifer has already said Ukraine will have to prove in practice the seriousness of its wish for rapprochement with NATO. Indeed, Ukraine will have to do a huge amount of work of primarily domestic (economic and, what NATO specially stresses, military reforms, democratization of the political life, etc.) and foreign policy or diplomatic nature. Ukraine must look for approaches, form a “pro-Ukrainian lobby,” soberly discuss problems with Moscow, and reach a consensus in its own society and among all the political forces. We must not waste the time left if we really want to seize this unique opportunity.
