By coincidence, the second interview of Roman Waschuk, Canada’s ambassador to Ukraine, just like his first one, took place after a terror attack. Our readers will remember that in October 2014, a terrorist struck at the Canadian parliament. November 13 saw terror attacks in Paris, with 129 lives lost. That is why the interview began with the conclusions that Canada (which takes part in hostilities against the IS) has drawn from the drama in the French capital. It will be also interesting for our readers to know what the country does to promote the knowledge about the Holodomor and what its newly elected government’s policy is going to be towards Ukraine. In particular, given that two ladies with the Ukrainian background got posts in the government.
ON CANADA’S RESPONSE TO THE TERROR IN PARIS
“Of course, here we have to do not only with the complicated situation of terror, but also with the regional political crisis in the Middle East with element of sectarian confrontation inside the Islamic world. We also have a situation in which direct application of military power has not always led to the expected result, but often created unpredictable side effects instead. In such a situation Canada remains an active coalition member, but it is going to change the forms of its involvement over the next few months. Prime Minister Trudeau confirmed this at the summit in Antalya. We will switch from involvement in the air campaign to more extensive humanitarian activities, training local armed forces that could be more efficiently involved in real events with real people on the ground.”
Many experts believe that Russia, which imposes its own variant of settling the Syrian crisis on the world, is the biggest winner after the terror attack in Paris. What is your opinion of this?
“Sometimes global politics resembles plate tectonics. I guess all the states pursuing their own interests would like to have a precise action plan and strategy. However, the opponent or partner also has his own. It goes without saying that Russia, with its intervention in Syria, strives to achieve certain goals. We must also admit that the Islamic State’s horrible terror attacks are changing dynamics. But, given the region’s history and extremely complex surrounding situation, there are doubts as to whether it will become a clear strategic success.”
What do you think of Russia’s inconsistency? First it denied an explosion on board of its Airbus but later, after Putin’s Antalya clue about the need to look for traces of explosives, the very next day Russian secret services let know that there was a bomb planted under a certain seat on board of that flight.
“It seems to me that here everyone is playing their own game, while there is a real need to settle the extremely precarious security situation, and not only for European countries. So, there could be non-standard solutions and unexpected twists to the plot. And the recent months show that premature forecasts, hypotheses, or speculations are pointless.”
As we know, Putin’s main goal is to split Europe and also to sow antagonism between the US and the EU. And it looks as if he had succeeded at the Antalya summit, where only two leaders, Obama and Trudeau, told him straightforwardly to withdraw from Ukraine, while others, Britain’s Prime Minister Cameron in particular, spoke of the urgent need to seek compromise for involving Russia in the settlement of the Syrian crisis. Before that, the French president also spoke about the need to involve Russia. Do you think a compromise is possible, and won’t Ukraine be sacrificed in exchange for Russia’s assistance in the settlement of Syria’s crisis?
“I think the Western countries have their own analytical headquarters capable of identifying of the situation in various parts of the world and pursue differentiated policies appropriate to the given situation.”
“MOST IMPORTANT IN THE GIVEN SITUATION IS TO SUPPORT UKRAINE”
We are grateful for the Canadian government’s consistent policy and support to Ukraine in its opposing Russian aggression in Donbas. At the Antalya summit, the new Prime Minister Justin Trudeau urged Russia’s President Vladimir Putin to withdraw his troops from Ukraine and follow the Minsk agreements. But don’t you think that urging does not really have much effect on the Russian leader? What must the world community do in order to make Putin retreat from Donbas and restore Crimea to Ukraine?
“The most important thing in the given situation is to support Ukraine. Here I would like to add a positive note, if one may do it in Ukraine. May I?”
You are most welcome, why not?
“Sometimes I would think it is prohibited by the law. The macroeconomic policies, implemented by the economic team in Ukraine’s government with the support from the West, have already yielded results. The economy is stabilized, first evidence of growth is seen in the third quarter, and it is projected to continue into the year to come. In my opinion, all effort must be directed at supporting the now weak signs of the stabilization, both by foreign partners and by Ukrainian policy-makers. This is not the moment to rock the boat with populist slogans and waste all the gains. I understand that for many citizens all of this does not look like gains, with all the devaluations, partial indexation of retirement payments and wages, and so on. But on the other hand, Ukraine has settled its foreign debt, securing the IMF support; its economy is already beginning to re-orient on other markets and is getting more successful there. This is what we must support and defend now the most.”
Doesn’t it look like the Crimean issue is forgotten? We remember what happened after Hitler could get away with the Austrian Anschluss and the annexation of the Sudeten.
“As far as Canada is concerned, Crimea has not been forgotten. Somewhat later today [the interview was held on November 18. – Author] I have a meeting with Mr. Dzhemilev, who is going to Canada and intends to raise the Crimean question there. So, I think, just as the previous government said, it is not only us, but other countries as well: none of us is going to recognize the annexation of Crimea.”
“THERE ARE LEVERS, WHICH UKRAINE COULD USE IN ITS RELATIONS WITH THE AGGRESSIVE, BELLIGERENT NORTHERN NEIGHBOR”
After the first Ukrainian revolution of 2004, many observers recommended that Ukraine develop its relations with its great northern neighbor following the example of Canada and the US. You have been more than a year in Ukraine. What do you think of this comparison, and how do you see the future relations between Ukraine and Russia? When and under what conditions can they become really normal and neighborly, just like all Ukrainian governments always insisted?
“In the late 1990s and early 2000s we had a program which we called, on analogy with our experience of cooperation with the US, asymmetric relations management. Here the obvious difference is that this analogy might perhaps have worked with Yeltsin’s Russia, but it is absolutely useless with Putin’s Russia. It is necessary to look for a unique Ukrainian path, because our current North American know-how has no valuable examples. I have already mentioned plate tectonics and very slow processes. Ukraine cannot change its geography, and it must consolidate its relations with the EU partners via the Association Agreement and the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area (DCFTA), which comes into effect on January 1, as well as via the Free Trade Zone with Canada and accelerated targeting of Asian and Pacific markets. All this would give the levers, which could be used in the relations with the aggressive, belligerent northern neighbor.”
Some observers assume that by getting involved into the anti-IS coalition, Russia will make the Normandy and Minsk formats superfluous.
“The inertia of diplomatic processes is often a cause for complaining. But in this case, inertia will have certain positive effects. I think that the states, which agreed to these formats in relation to Ukraine, will continue working within them. Too much diplomatic capital has been invested, and currently there are no other forms for discussion in security, political, and other questions on Ukraine. So, I do not think that these formats will disappear.”
“BY CONTINUAL PRESSURE AND EFFORT YOU MUST TRY AND ACHIEVE YOUR GOAL”
How in this case could Russia be forced to fulfill its obligations on the Minsk agreements, such as withdrawal of troops and weapons, and granting Ukraine access to its own border? With new sanctions, maybe, but there is no sign of them.
“No, at present there is no sign of them. You just must try and achieve your goal by continual pressure and effort.”
Since we mentioned the relations between Canada and the US, would you tell us how your country took Obama’s explanation about the pointlessness of building the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada through the US territory? Do you see these reasons as adequate, given that increased supply on the market could become an additional lever to influence Russia, which uses energy like weapons?
“I think that Keystone XL is a less important factor than the pricing policies of Saudi Arabia or other countries that affect that market. The approach of the new Canadian government will be more comprehensive. It is not only the matter of insisting on one certain pipeline; it is about the change in Canada’s approach in international forums. At the oncoming climate summit in Paris, Canada is going to be a very active and constructive participant in order to change and improve the perception (first and foremost in the US, but also in the rest of the world) of the enormous energy resources which Canada possesses, and which have been blackened as a dirty form of energy. By assuming new obligations in fighting climate changes, we are going to change the general shape of this debate around our energy resources.”
(To be continued in the next issue)
