We had two notable NATO-related news stories transpiring lately.
The first one was not very pleasant. The Alliance has postponed a planned meeting with Ukrainian officials which was to discuss issues related to possible use of its missile defense system in Europe, The Wall Street Journal reports. “There is some political sensitivity in the engagement of Ukraine because obviously that could fuel an overreaction by the Russians,” a NATO source believes. As noted in the report, some diplomats said a cautious approach to discussing missile defense with Ukraine makes sense if the alliance wants to avoid further undermining relations with Russia. But other allies worry that the alliance risks inadvertently signaling that its resolve to help partners such as Ukraine may waver.
The second story was a positive one. President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko stated his firm intention to put the issue of Ukraine’s membership in the North Atlantic Alliance to a referendum. He said this in an interview with publications of the German media group Funke. According to Poroshenko, while four years ago, 16 percent of Ukrainians supported NATO membership, the figure stands at 54 percent now. “As president, I am guided by my people’s opinion, and so I will hold a referendum on NATO membership,” said Poroshenko. He did not specify, however, when exactly such a step would be taken. Poroshenko told the journalists that in case of a positive outcome of the referendum, he would spare no effort to make Ukraine a NATO member.
Firstly, how did NATO comment on the probable postponement of the plans to meet with Ukrainian officials to discuss issues related to possible use of its missile defense system in Europe? “No country has had a meeting canceled,” a NATO spokesman commented for The Day. “We will continue to share information and consult and cooperate with our neighbors and partners, as appropriate and applying a gradual and phased approach. NATO recognizes and respects the interests of other countries regarding NATO’s missile defense capabilities. In recent years we discussed missile defense with our partners and continue to interact with them on this issue. NATO aims to be as transparent as possible on missile defense, especially when we act to improve our defense capabilities.”
Secondly, what do the Alliance figures think about Poroshenko’s statement on the NATO accession referendum in Ukraine? “Every country has the sovereign right to choose its own security arrangements,” head of the NATO Liaison Office in Ukraine Alexander Vinnikov commented for The Day. “We respect the choices made by sovereign states. Currently Ukraine is focusing on key reforms and NATO provides support to these efforts. This is the top priority.” A similar opinion was expressed by director of the NATO Information and Documentation Centre in Kyiv Natalia Nemylivska, who added that “we are witnessing the growth of support for NATO and Ukraine’s membership in NATO in Ukraine after the Russian aggression.”
So based on the state in which the country is now, we need to draw some important conclusions and correct many flaws. Politicians must accept that they were wrong, and it would not hurt to repent as well, and then we need to draw upon legacy of our cooperation with NATO and confidently go forward with it. If the latest presidential statement was of an opportunistic nature, it was just too much in wartime... If it wants to succeed, the current government needs, first, to analyze the recent history of Ukraine and the path already trodden by this country in its cooperation with NATO, and secondly, to define clearly and talk firmly about our intention and desire to quickly complete this journey and make up for the lost time.
“We must consistently pursue our line regarding NATO which we have chosen and should never deviate from it,” former foreign minister Volodymyr Ohryzko commented for The Day. “The legal basis for this is there. It was recorded in the decisions of the NATO summit in Bucharest back in 2008. The final decision of the summit reads pretty clear: Ukraine and Georgia will one day become members of NATO. The goal to achieve interoperability with NATO by 2020 is a correct one, and we must do it. Of course it will take a lot of hard work, but the first steps in this direction are already being taken, and they look promising. These things do not always get publicized, but the work continues. In this respect, NATO’s caution on missile defense can be a tactical move made in order not to irritate Russia. Speaking for myself, I do not believe this tactical move to be correct, but it is very ‘fashionable’ in the West. The mantra ‘do not irritate Russia,’ unfortunately, comes quite often from some of our NATO partners. It is important for NATO not to become a modern version of the Soviet-era Peace Committee. After all, the function of NATO is not to appease the aggressor, but to stop it. Meanwhile, the decision to postpone engaging Ukraine in the missile defense project should not be interpreted as a certain turning point in Ukraine’s relations with the Alliance. Ukraine’s foreign policy should clearly articulate our interest in continued cooperation which should eventually transform into accession. I am very pleased with the president’s statement that he intends to hold a referendum on NATO membership. My only criticism is that the referendum should be held not in a few years, but in a few months. After it is done, everyone will see that integration with NATO is not the opinion of some politicians, but the shared desire of the entire Ukrainian society.”
Yevhen MARCHUK, Ukraine’s representative in the security working subgroup of the Trilateral Contact Group, member of the organizing committee of the Movement for Ukraine in NATO:
“I was pleased to see President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko making a statement on the referendum on NATO membership, but in my opinion, this statement came very late. The Law ‘On the National Security of Ukraine,’ passed in 2003, included the clause: ‘Ukraine shall implement active foreign policy aimed at acceding to... the EU and NATO.’ As you know, the law was in force during the entire time that Viktor Yushchenko was president, but this provision was not implemented at all. Later, when Viktor Yanukovych and his pocket parliament came to power, this clause was erased. Ukraine declared itself a non-aligned nation. After Poroshenko became president, this clause was again restored, but not in full, as they were afraid to irritate Russia, and so used the following wording: ‘Ukraine shall work to meet the criteria for NATO membership.’ However, this is a technical objective. The ultimate objective, which is joining NATO in the future, was not spelled out in the law. Of course, it made anyone knowledgeable in this matter ask a question: why did they soften the clause’s wording?
“Also significant is the fact that Ukraine still has not appointed its representative to the North Atlantic Alliance, which reflects the government’s real attitude to the NATO accession drive. Of course, military cooperation between Ukraine and NATO continues quite actively, but to join NATO in the future, we must complete a preparatory stage first, which is called the Membership Action Plan (MAP). This is a very complex plan for cooperation which includes not only measures of a military nature. MAP is drafted in annual installments, and only one third of it concerns the military sphere, while the rest deals with political and economic aspects, human rights, freedom of speech, and the judiciary. That is, the MAP stage is yet to be reached by Ukraine. Let us recall that Ukraine made an attempt to join MAP at the Istanbul NATO summit in 2004, but for a number of reasons, it failed to implement this idea. We then failed to join MAP again at the Bucharest summit in 2008. After the Euromaidan, the government did not demonstrate real willingness to intensify cooperation with NATO which would have made it clear that Ukraine intended to join the Alliance.
“What we have now is Poroshenko having said right things, but he did it very late, and it got superimposed on the war in Donbas. Let us recall that the civic Movement for Ukraine in NATO emerged back in 2015. It was initiated by people including Leonid Kravchuk, Yevhen Marchuk, Volodymyr Ohryzko, Volodymyr Vasylenko, and Ivan Zaiets. This organization was registered and held a series of preparatory meetings. The movement’s publicly declared goal is initiating and organizing a referendum on Ukraine’s accession to NATO. The initiative is valuable in that it was launched by an NGO. Even if some people in the government feared the reaction of Russia and its possible aggressive actions, this initiative originated not with the government, but with a civic movement that took responsibility for the technical issues of the referendum as well. It had established relevant structures in many regions. Then, when we came close enough to taking practical steps and stated that preparatory work for the referendum had to start next, government officials suggested to some of the participants that the time was not right. They claimed that Russia’s principled position was that Ukraine’s decision to join NATO would ‘inevitably spark a war.’
“It should be stressed that public support for Ukraine’s accession to NATO was significantly higher past year than it is now. Sometimes people ask: why do we need the referendum if it is an advisory vote only. I disagree: it would not necessarily amount to the decision to join NATO, but it would provide the president with a firm platform and a strong argument. Had Yushchenko had a positive referendum vote of the Ukrainian nation to point to in 2008, when he was calling for Ukraine’s accession to NATO in Bucharest, I think the summit’s participants would have been unlikely to ignore this fact. Let us recall 1991, when Leonid Kravchuk went to the Belavezha Forest. He came there with his position supported by the results of the Ukrainian independence referendum, indicating that Kravchuk went there not just in personal capacity, but representing the interests and will of his people as well.
“The NATO accession referendum is a very important step that requires serious preparation. Some say that we are not welcome there. But we do not have to put it like that now, for instance when holding the referendum. We understand that it will definitely not happen next year, but will rather take a number of years. We must be realistic, given the war in the Donbas, and be open about accession, but as a long-term objective. So, I think that the government ought to provide additional explanations already which would reveal what the president’s statement means. They ought to clarify that the referendum is a very strong factor that has no expiration date. If, for example, the referendum was to be held this year, it would have obliged the government to really show a concrete action plan for the post-referendum period. People need to get clear explanations that it is a platform, and only when the time will be right, i.e., after Ukraine will meet all the criteria and will have implemented MAP, only then the decision to join NATO will be taken. The head of state will then have a very serious argument at his disposal, which leaders of NATO member countries will find very hard to refute.
“Thus, following the presidential statement, we now need a thorough and versatile explanatory effort from the Ukrainian government, which will show people its plan regarding Ukraine’s future cooperation with NATO. Of course, the issue of occupied territories remains problematic, as there will be no plebiscite there if the government decides to hold the referendum. Accordingly, it should also clearly explain its stance on this issue and present a plan of dealing with it.”
