The latest international events — the economic crisis and the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt — were the focus of the World Economic Forum in Davos and the Munich Security Conference. The former first deputy minister of foreign affairs Oleksandr CHALY closely follows international developments and meets with his foreign counterparts. In a special interview with The Day, Chaly shared the important messages and ideas voiced in Davos and Munich, and suggested the inferences that Ukrainian diplomats must take into account for the implementation of an effective foreign policy.
“It’s quite obvious that the global and regional world is changing fast. The general outline of these changes is clear: the world is shifting from a unipolar to multipolar structure. The global economic crisis encourages the development of new ideas and up-to-date technologies in the security sphere.
“First, the era when national security was based on military power, on weapons, is over now. Both in Davos and Munich we heard a clear message about the impossibility of ensuring a nation’s security by the military force alone. Moreover, the military component must be reduced, and serious disarmament processes must be initiated.
“Meanwhile, there is a grave lack of security at the global and regional levels — security based on soft power, i.e. intelligence, diplomacy, economic development and democratic stabilization, on the growth of justice both within states and internationally. This lack of ‘soft security’ is the key challenge for both regional and global security, and for individual countries, like Ukraine.
“Thus I believe that nowadays the role of Ukrainian diplomacy is more important than ever. In the 21st century it is Ukrainian diplomacy, rather than the Ukrainian army, that must become the key tool for ensuring the nation’s security. The army is a sort of insurance, but a positive and active Ukrainian diplomacy is the key factor guarantying Ukraine’s national security.
“Second, after a wide discussion on the events in Egypt and Tunisia, most participants agreed that the world needed more social justice. People want to change a regime not so much because of a desire to have more democracy, but because they consider it to be unfair and corrupt. Stability in a state cannot be considered a security factor unless it is based on the principles of democracy. Stability on the principles of authoritarianism (which I dub ‘tense stability’) will sooner or later result in a grave destabilization both inside the state and abroad, which gives rise to serious challenges for international security. Therefore, the capability of building a democratic form of domestic stability on the principles of national dialog and consensus on strategic issues, involving all political forces (both ruling and oppositional) under the control of civic society constitutes the general formula that should be the basis of national security in the 21st century.
“Third, absolutely new security threats are arising. For the first time in the history of the Munich conference, cyber-security was discussed. I was astonished by the discussion. In some 10-15 years, many weapons which are now considered vital to a nation’s defense may disappear, just like cavalry once did. I believe this is a very serious message to the Ukrainian experts on strategic security planning, since achievements in cybernetics have always been our country’s strength.
“Last, the next real steps in nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation, and in control over conventional weapons, are going to depend on the results of the strategic dialog between the US and Russia concerning the future of anti-missile defense. This point was strongly emphasized by Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.”
If we draw a line here, how can we summarize Davos and Munich?
“In my view, under the conditions of multipolarity and a deep economic crisis in the western world, the classical, traditional Euro-Atlantic elite, engaged in security issues, is mostly aware of the necessity of creating a Euro-Atlantic security community from Vladivostok to Vancouver. By the way, the second day of the conference was held under the slogan ‘For a nuclear-free, comprehensive Euro-Atlantic security community.’ This empowers Ukrainian diplomacy with new, colossal abilities, because the creation of a Euro-Atlantic security community is impossible without Ukraine’s participation, as well as without a clear-cut solution to the problem of its status in this system. So Ukraine’s foreign policy must take this general tendency into account.
“Of course, there is a risk that it may never come to be. Yet there are many reasons to believe that in five to ten years we will have an established Euro-Atlantic security community, in which the US, Europe, and Russia will participate as equal partners. It’s time for Ukraine to start searching for its deserved place in this system, and promote its creation with its initiatives and steps in foreign policy.”
How exactly can our country help?
“By developing and publishing our own ‘Ukrainian initiative’ on the formation of a new security architecture in Europe. These are not my own words, but a demand of the president of Ukraine. Yet I haven’t heard of Ukraine’s key suggestions on this strategic issue. What is the president’s initiative concerning the formation of a new European system of collective counteraction to global threats and security challenges in the 21st century like, and what exactly does it comprise? Ukrainian diplomacy must promote this presidential initiative more precisely and publicly.”
Could you comment on the NATO Secretary General’s warning, which painted a grim picture for Europe if European governments do not allocate more money for defense?
“Yes, during his speech in Munich Anders Fogh Rasmussen stated that European countries must increase defense spending. And ‘if Europe fails to understand it, it will be of no interest for the US, which will then start looking for another strategic partner.’ On the other hand, he declared — and I think it to be a positive moment — that NATO countries need ‘sensible defense.’ However, the Secretary General interpreted ‘sensible defense’ only in military terms.
“Still, summarizing the Munich speeches made by European and other world leaders, one should mention that their viewpoint is clearly focused on one thing; the military aspects of security are doubtlessly important, yet they may only be applied after exhausting the entire arsenal of ‘soft’ security. Moreover, this arsenal must take the first stage.
“Everyone arrives to the conclusion that security, be it global, regional, or national, must be based not on the army, but on a stable economy, fair democratic law and order, and stable social development of the countries and regions of the globalized world. As the UN Secretary General mentioned in his speech, it is preventive measures that nations save money on. Yet experience shows that the military methods of settling conflicts are much more costly. He called upon nations to change their mentality and make soft security and preventive diplomacy paramount.”
Was Ukraine mentioned at the security forum in Munich? If so, in what context?
“It wasn’t, virtually. I was struck by it. And it gives some food for thought. In public discussion, the word Ukraine was mentioned only once — while discussing the protection of European routes of electricity supply, with regards to Ukraine’s joining the European Energy Community. And it was a mere statement of a fact.
“In the lobby of the conference, the minister of foreign affairs of Ukraine Kostiantyn Hryshchenko was actively working, holding numerous bilateral meetings. This is a positive moment. But in the public dimension, during the conference, Ukraine did not bring up any questions, nor did it suggest any new ideas or initiatives in the security sphere. And the main thing is, that the others, too, seemed to have forgotten about Ukraine, its role and place in the international security system.”
Wasn’t our minister’s article (“Ukraine as the Pilot Project of the Future United Europe”), published in a special issue of the German Sueddeutsche Zeitung, dedicated to this year’s Munich conference on security policy? Was this idea miscommunicated?
“First, I got an impression that today Ukrainian diplomacy was not generating new strategic ideas in the security sphere, even if it had good opportunity. Declaring our non-bloc status drew a lot of attention both around the world and among the public. The difficult decision concerning enriched uranium has also given us opportunities for certain strategic initiatives in nuclear non-proliferation. Let alone some problems of regional security, in Transnistria in particular.
“Second, this passiveness of Ukrainian diplomacy resulted in focusing the attention of the Munich conference on Turkey, which actively participated in the forum. Today that country is seen as a regional leader, which in future can transform into a subregional one. Turkey is acknowledged to have a special role in ensuring security in the region and subregion. This reminded one of the period when at any security conference Ukraine was acknowledged as the key element of European security.
“On the other hand, there is another curious tendency: the role of a certain bridge, or rather a strategic mediator in negotiations between the EU and Russia, which we have been playing for quite a long time, is now rapidly (and virtually out of any control on the part of Ukrainian diplomacy) being taken over by Poland. If it goes on like this, Ukraine will cease being an active factor for European security, and this role will be assumed by Turkey. Meanwhile, Poland will become the country responsible for the security dialog between NATO and Russia and between the EU and Russia.
“Third, Transnistria. Today, one can observe a certain consensus along the line Brussels-Moscow-Washington D.C., concerning the agreement on the formula of settling the Transnistrian problem. Ukrainian diplomacy must be the engine and leader here, as it has the most leverage, and bears the most risks if the situation isn’t settled. But where are the new Ukrainian initiatives concerning this issue?
“Then, there is the sensitive problem of conventional weapons control, i.e., the future of the agreement on flank limits. We have always been a party to this agreement. Russia has left it, many our neighbors — NATO members — have not ratified it, and we keep silent, although this issue affects the key strategic interests of our security. In my view, we might offer our own vision and strategic initiatives concerning the future of this agreement.”
By the by, an ambassador of one of the leading EU countries mentioned in a private conversation that Ukraine could influence Russia by its ambition to integrate with the EU. He illustrated this with the example of when Kyiv’s pro-European activities led Russia to start up talks on joining the WTO.
“Our European integration policy and our talks with the EU concerning the association agreement are doubtlessly issues that are of strategic interest for the Russian Federation. Therefore I believe that on certain issues we should have initiated trilateral cooperation patterns. I see some good in the fact that Ukrainian diplomacy has at last begun to actively promote the trilateral format of the EU-Russia-Ukraine talks concerning energy transit.
“As for the other formats (economic, migration, visa, or security), many politicians and analysts see Ukraine as a gray zone. Therefore, in my view, Ukraine must formulate the key element of its foreign security strategy in such a way as to get out of the gray zone in the future. And this is a very responsible mission.
“The easiest solution would be to become a NATO member, but it is inacceptable from the standpoint of both Euro-Atlantic and domestic consensus. There is another solution which we are being prompted to accept now: to enter the Collective Security Treaty Organization. I am convinced that it will not be in line with either the Euro-Atlantic or domestic consensus.
“One of Ukraine’s key strategic mistakes in foreign policy is that, upon having declared our non-bloc status, we came to a standstill. We are not discussing with the international community the terms on which we are and will be a non-bloc state in the future. Our nonalignment is advantageous to both Russian and NATO security interests, it is a real investment in global and regional security. But what advantage do we get from it? Here Ukraine must show the world that its nonalignment policy is a strategic choice, rather than a tactical one. In other words, Ukraine should raise the question of international legal acknowledgment of its established security status as a permanently neutral state. And this is absolutely feasible in the conditions of the formation of a new system of Euro-Atlantic security community, which has every opportunity to emerge in the next five to ten years.”
The European diplomat also mentioned that Europe did not turn its back on Yanukovych, and it would consider Ukraine’s messages to Europe. What messages do you think Ukraine should send to Europe?
“In my view, on the political and declarative level we have sent all the necessary messages to say that our ruling coalition sees our future only with the EU and in the EU. Moreover, these messages have for the first time been clearly supported by legislation. It is very significant that this year’s priorities in foreign policy are an agreement on association and free trade area, and real progress towards lifting the visa regime.
“The problem is how to find a balance of interests in these complex negotiations. First, today the EU is not in its best shape to make concessions for Ukraine’s sake, especially in the economic sphere. Second, there doubtlessly is a certain stability in Ukraine, and it got a positive response and appraisal at the last Ukraine-EU summit. Yet the EU doubts that this stability is based on democratic principles. And this is the key question.
“If we don’t reach an agreement with the EU in the near future we are going to have problems with the implementation of European integration policy. I don’t think that the EU will definitely bind the ‘democracy test’ to the rate of progress regarding the association agreement, but I am convinced that the domestic situation will affect the process.”
By the way, how can Ukraine join the EU?
“Before 2004, we believed that Ukraine could follow the path of East European countries, like Poland: get membership prospects in 2005, and join the EU in 10-15 years. But it is not that simple. If Kuchma proved that Ukraine is not Russia, the five years of Yushchenko’s presidency proved that Ukraine is neither the EU, nor NATO.
“This means that today we are well aware that the association agreement with the EU does not provide a prospect of membership. In fact, we must realize, whether we like it or not, that for quite a long period (by my reckoning, up to 2025 at least) Ukraine will pursue European integration without real membership prospects. And we should not make a drama out of it. Switzerland and Norway functioned like this before their full-scale integration into the EU. The main thing is to remember that Ukraine has got no alternative to European integration.”
What is the Euro-Atlantic strategic initiative, announced at the Munich conference?
“The Carnegie Foundation helped to create, in late 2009, a ‘brain center’ represented by a group of former high go-vernment officials, the most authoritative experts in international policy and security. The mandate of the group envisions the development (by 2012) of key elements for the Euro-Atlantic security community, with an equal participation of the US, Europe, and the RF. The group is led by three equal co-chairs: Senator Sam Nunn (the US), former State Secretary of the German Ministry of Foreign Affairs and current mastermind of the Munich Security Council Wolfgang Ischinger (FRG), and former Minister of Foreign Affairs of the RF Igor Ivanov.
“I was invited to represent Ukraine in this group. Today, the group is working in various formats. The problem of Ukraine’s security status is one of the key issues in the development of the future structure of the Euro-Atlantic security community by the group. In this context I am pleased to inform you that this September, a session of the group is going to be held in Kyiv, with the assistance of the One World International Foundation.”
