Your previous visit to Ukraine took place on the eve of the presidential elections. This time, again, you came to Ukraine on the elections eve. Do you see any changes?
I think the economic situation has strikingly improved. One can see it, one can feel it, and that’s very important. It gives to the society more optimism. The political situation is more mixed and more complicated. Mukachevo was a surprise, and it has generated some concern. I think it is very important that Ukraine continues on the democratic course and demonstrates to Europe and to America that it is going to be both an economic and political success. It will also have a very important impact on the transformation of Russia. Obviously, it is also in everybody’s interest. Ukraine is an important country and what happens in Ukraine therefore has international ramifications.
Your most renowned book is called The Grand Chessboard. What role on this chessboard would you assign to Ukraine?
I can’t exactly assign the figure. It certainly is not a pawn; it may not be the queen, but it certainly is an important element on the chessboard — one of the most important. The future of Ukraine is important to the future of Europe because Ukraine is a European state with great traditions. It should at some point be part of Europe if it wishes to be part of Europe, but it is up to Ukraine to decide whether it wishes to be part of Europe and not wait for Europe to invite Ukraine. The Baltic republics and Poland demonstrated their determination to be part of Europe, of the European Union to be more specific, and as a result they are today part of the European Union. In addition, what happens in Ukraine is going to have enormous influence on the future of Russia.
Are you sure the European and US leaders share your views?
I think they share them up to a point but they are also more preoccupied with their own affairs, and their political horizons are necessarily narrower. They don’t have a luxury that I have: of being sufficiently free to look further ahead.
You mentioned the Baltic States and Poland. Could you describe the difference between them and Ukraine?
The differences are important. Ukraine has bigger negative legacies to overcome. Poland was part of the Soviet bloc for forty-five years. It was under a Communist dictatorship and this dictatorship was never completely totalitarian. The Baltic republics were incorporated into the Soviet Union but were also fully dominated by it for only forty-five years, though that domination was considerably more extensive than in the case of Poland. Ukraine was under Communism for seventy years and was part in effect of the Russian Empire on a continuing basis for several hundred years, since the eighteenth-seventeenth century. That lives its imprint, and it is bigger burden to overcome.
However, it seems that Western leaders give much more attention to Russia than Ukraine, which they probably don’t see as an important enough country.
I think they certainly pay more attention to Russia than to Ukraine and to certain extent this is understandable. I think one has to be realistic in these matters. I don’t quite agree that they have no interest in Ukraine. However, it is a fact that Western leaders are preoccupied with more immediate problems. The European leaders now face the task of digesting ten more countries. That’s a big step. America is preoccupied with what I call in my most recent book “the new global Balkans,” that huge area from the Suez Canal to China’s frontier, from Russia’s Southern frontier to the Arabian Sea. America is involved militarily and politically within that huge area. That necessarily focuses the attention of both the American and the European leaders on their respective more immediate geopolitical preoccupations.
You criticized President Bush’s policy toward Iraq. What do you think about it now?
I feel more strongly that my criticism was justified. I felt that there was no immediate need to launch a military campaign by the United States alone, that one could of waited for quite a long time, if necessary, to develop a common international position. I think there was insufficient planning for the post-military phase and there have been obviously scandalous human rights abuses committed against some prisoners. All of that damages the credibility of the United States and I deplore the decisions and the actions that have been involved in these developments. However, I think it is also important for the solidarity that exists between America and some countries, including Ukraine, in dealing with the problems of Iraq be continued because a deterioration of the situation would have adverse impact eventually on everybody concerned.
Many believe that due to Ukraine’s involvement in peacekeeping in Iraq the United States might turn a blind eye to Ukraine’s domestic situation.
I don’t think so. I think the United States realizes that what happens within Ukraine has major implication for the future of this country. This country is a big and important European country, and we are very aware of that. Therefore, we cannot be disinterested in what happens in Ukraine, particularly insofar as continued democratization is concerned.
In what ways can we achieve this democracy?
The first and most immediate test this year is the presidential elections. It’s essential that they be free, transparent, open, and therefore legitimate. America does not have a candidate in these elections, because it is up to the Ukrainian people to decide. However, how they are conducted will define the extent to which Ukraine is fully a modern democratic European state or to what extent Ukraine still is burdened by the twin legacies of the past which I mentioned earlier: the legacy of Communism and imperialism.
A friend of mine once described Ukraine’s political system as “mutant Soviet one.” Do you agree?
I’m not sure that I would say this about the political system as such. The political system is still in the process of transformation and it’s very much complicated by personal and clique conflicts. The party structure is still fluid and weak. But it isn’t really similar to the Soviet system. The economic system is very oligarchic, and it is a mixture of the enterprise and Soviet “statism.”
Don’t you feel that the level of relations between the Ukrainian and US leaders is insufficient?
I agree. I think it should be higher. There should be more direct contacts, more opportunities for exchange of views, more high-level visits. I am pleased that former President Bush is coming here. I think that is a good symbolic step.
As far as I understand, President Bush Sr. was among the Western leaders who didn’t believe in your forecasts.
I don’t know whether he did or did not believe my forecasts but in any case the fact that he is coming here speaks for itself and says something about his current views about Ukraine.
What should be Ukraine’s contribution into the global security system?
You are making a contribution to the global security system. You are involved in peacekeeping in the Balkans and in Iraq. You are an essential country. I mean countries like Ukraine, Poland, Italy, or the Netherlands, which have reasonably substantial forces engaged in the Middle East, for example, should also be engaged in shaping the common political prospective on the problems of that region and should not hesitate to express that common political prospective to others, including the United States as well as the United Nations. Alone, the contribution, say, by Poland of 2000 troops or alone by Ukraine of 1700 troops or by Italy of about 3000 troops doesn’t make much difference. But if you add up the troops contributed by Ukraine, Poland, Italy, and the Netherlands, it becomes a reasonably significant factor that should be translated also into political influence. Not decisive, of course — I do not want to exaggerate that, but certainly countries that contribute forces to the resolution of some conflict should have a voice in the definition of the political solution. And they will have that voice to greater extent if they express it collectively.
Does Ukraine have real chance to become NATO member?
I think so if Ukraine wants it. I want to emphasize this point very strongly. Neither NATO nor the EU are in the business of issuing invitations or of seeking new members. I think there is some misunderstanding on that subject here in Ukraine. There is a tendency to expect invitations and to expect expressions of a desire of either organization for Ukraine to join. It doesn’t work that way. The Baltic republics or Poland, for example, did two things. One, they made it absolutely clear that they want to be members, and secondly, they did everything that is needed to demonstrate that they are meeting the criteria for membership. That is absolutely essential. That is not an operation like getting a credit card. This is a serious long-term undertaking. I am impressed that the Ukrainian Defense Ministry has done a very good job in preparing Ukraine for membership in NATO. I’m in no doubt that under the present leadership Ukraine has made significant progress in meeting the military criteria of membership in NATO. But even in the case of NATO the criteria are not only military. They are also political, and the most important political criterion for membership in NATO is that the country be a proven and successful democracy.
What, in your view, will NATO’s role in the global security system look like?
NATO is clearly not just a European defense system but a trans-Atlantic security system with increasing global reach. For example, NATO is involved in Afghanistan. NATO probably will be involved in some fashion in Iraq and maybe in guaranteeing an eventual Israeli-Palestinian peace. So it is expanding its role and is becoming not just a European-focused defense alliance but a broader international security system.
Could you give a forecast for Europe’s future and trans-Atlantic relations after the Iraq crisis for the next decade?
That’s a very big question, and I don’t think I can answer it in just a couple of sentences. I’m writing a book in America that deals with that issues called The Choice. It’s a book about American foreign policy and American global leadership. I discuss in the book the choice that America has to make, particularly in relations with Europe.
Particularly, with Ukraine?
I consider Ukraine to be an important European country. But the decision whether you are going to be part of the European Union is yours, not ours.
