Dirk BRENGELMANN, Assistant Secretary General on Political Affairs and Security Policy, NATO, has come to our country at a time when the new Ukrainian government is trying to define the new status of Ukraine as a non-bloc country. In spite of many meetings and huge workload, Mr. Brengelmann has found time to tell in an interview to The Day what messages he has brought to Ukraine.
Mr. Brengelmann, have you received a specific definition of Ukraine’s status from the Ukrainian officials with whom you talked? What is your opinion on this issue?
“I think the explanation I am receiving is that this is the country that is making a policy of not belonging to any alliance, which not necessarily means that it will be a neutral country. That’s what I’ve heard. I mean every country, every sovereign nation has the sovereign right to define its own kind of foreign policy framework. So, in this sense we, NATO, have taken note of that. For us, for NATO, our situation has not really changed, in principle. We have made some decisions in Bucharest. And our thing is to say that Ukraine will become a member when it so wishes and when it meets the criteria. That has not changed and will not change. So, we have taken note of the new development in terms of the Ukrainian policy framework, this not being a member of any alliance, but at the same time – well, I’ve also expressed here today – the willingness of NATO to continue at the close cooperation with Ukraine, which is a cooperation which went on for many-many years already in many areas and we are interested in hearing from the Ukrainian side that they also are still interested in continuing this cooperation. And now it will be essential to see whether that is indeed happening in the real life situation. As the English would say, ‘The proof is in the pudding.’ We will see in the future how the cooperation will develop and whether there will be changes or not. And, as I said, our message is that we are still interested in continuing our cooperation.”
In an interview given to the Echo of Moscow radio station, Ukraine’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Kostiantyn Hryshchenko said about NATO that “they do not call themselves a bloc, but certainly they are a bloc.” Again, a play of definitions. Is NATO a bloc or not?
“I don’t think we would consider ourselves a bloc, we are an alliance, an alliance of member states bound to each other by a certain set of basic principles and values. So, NATO defines itself in the first place as a political organization, and in the second place, in terms of practice and partner, no way to deny it, but in the second place we are a military alliance. And you know, we have this common set of principles and values. And, that’s why between the member states we have a treaty obligation which is a kind of solidarity clause which binds the member states together, the famous Article 5 of the NATO Treaty, but that is an expression of solidarity between member states who share certain principles like democracy, rule of law, that is what really binds NATO together.”
Concerning Article 5, considering that there are now some discussions about the conception, will this article change or not? Will it be defined more clearly?
“I think we have had a kind of recent debate on what does Article 5 mean today, given that you have new security, threats and challenges from wherever they come, that you have new issues like, for example, cyber defense and things like that. As the discussion is going, I think the Article 5 will still be a somewhat conservative point, it will not change that much. The Article 5 will stay in the treaty as it is. The strategic concept is not about changing the treaty. The treaty will not be changed, so the Article 5 will not be changed. But sometimes, during the lapse of years, you give a new interpretation maybe, but again, I think that we will not change it that much. The real debate now is not so much any more about the meaning of Article 5, but it’s more about what the core purpose of the alliance is.”
As you know, the president of Ukraine has dismissed all government structures responsible for Euro-Atlantic integration and discussion between all government institutions in this area. Could you please comment on this?
“This brings me back to our first question where I said we hear now from various sources that the Ukrainian government would still be interested in maintaining a high level of close cooperation. We are interested in it too. And my message to the Ukrainian government on this is, but for this we need the right level of framework, which can actually do the work of coordination. This has been part of what has now been dissolved and I’m very much looking forward to see what will be the alternative, because we need a real framework for cooperation. ”
What do you think about the role of the institutes which were dissolved by the president? Do you think they helped Ukrainians to understand the role of security better?
“As far as I have seen this in the past they were doing a very helpful job. They did a good job.”
This new team consists of very pragmatic people, businessmen, etc. They would like to get some concrete results from cooperation with NATO. So perhaps it would be good if your colleagues could explain to them what these opportunities are.
“As I said before, the cooperation between NATO and Ukraine is in many areas pretty detailed in some of these areas; I think in terms of the country, what is interesting for the defense side here is the issue of defense reform, because all our member states undergo a defense reform and it’s a difficult process in every member state. I mentioned the issue of interoperability, which would include exercises. You know that the Ukrainian side has certain interest in terms of large transport aircraft — that’s been a point on other military equipment which has been discussed in the past, including helicopters, and these are just examples of the areas where we do cooperate. Quite a lot of areas.”
Why doesn’t NATO invite Ukraine to participate in creating national missile defense?
“The issue of missile defense will be on the agenda of our summit in Lisbon in November, so there has not yet been a NATO decision, It will only happen in the future. But provided that there will be a decision that NATO would be kind of framework for the new approach, called the phase-adapted approach, provided that we would have such a decision, we have made it clear, the Secretary General has made it clear that we will also be open to cooperation with Russia on that.”
With Russia. Why not also with Ukraine? Ukraine has a lot technology in this area, not to mention radars in Mukacheve and Sevastopol.
“This is an interesting question, maybe the point of Russia has been highlighted lately because Russia has taken quite a strong role in it. But I will take your question with me.”
Have you heard from Ukrainian officials that they would like to continue to reform the defense system and would like to have some help from NATO?
“On whatever area we discussed the Ukrainian government in principle would be ready to continue that close cooperation and that included the issue of defense reform. We have this joint working group on defense reform and that will continue as far as I understand. We should continue our cooperation in this area as well.”
Hryshchenko told in an interview to the radio station Echo of Moscow that he sees Medvedev’s initiative as a book in which one chapter has already been written. What can you say about the new security architecture proposed by the Russian president?
“There is a process for these proposals which is so-called “Corfu Process”, which is in the OSCE framework, and at NATO we took the view that the best place to discuss this proposal of President Medvedev is actually in the OSCE that’s why we have an agreement in the Corfu Process.”
NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said in his speech on March 27 that the European project is not finished yet. It will be if Russia builds together a new security system, participate in the national missile defense to create it as a common roof for you. It is quite strange to hear that a European project is linked with Russia, which does not aspire to be part of the EU. What is your opinion on this?
“I was there when he spoke. And he made a point that building a house is not just trying to make papers, but building a house means real life projects and programs. Then he went on, “And one of those possibilities for some real life programs could be a link-up between NATO and Russia in terms of missile defense.” That was the point he made that this is a real practical thing where you can build a common house, and not against each other.”
That is, when Russia is a part of this new security strategy…
“The Secretary General has been clear on and so were the member-states that cooperation with Russia is indispensable. The Russian role is important in many issues, they are not always necessarily NATO issues, for example some of the NATO member states, not within NATO, but in another framework work together with Russia, on questions like Iran. So I’m not just necessarily talking about issues which are relevant to NATO, but to most of our member states, and wherever you look, in most issues, there is an angle where you would say there’s a good point of trying to find a common sense with Russians as well. In this sense, I don’t believe that for Ukraine there is really so to say a contradiction in having a close cooperation with Russia but at the same time have close cooperation with NATO. I don’t think there is a contradiction for Ukraine in doing so. So when you say you need to develop closer links to Russia these days, I don’t think that this must mean to reduce the level of cooperation with NATO.”
Taking in account missile defense and Russia, what about values?
“Our values and principles are the framework also for our foreign policy.”
NATO’s Secretary General said in the closing part of his speech that he was proposing nothing else than a radical change in the way we think about European security, anti-missile defense, and Russia. What about common values? Aren’t they needed to build a common house and a security roof?
“I spoke about values when I spoke about our treaty and our Article 5. When you become a member state the most essential point is to meet the criteria of membership, which would include commitment to those values and principles. We are talking about the European security architecture, we are not now talking in this sense about membership.”
Can you define the new area of cooperation between NATO and Ukraine, because previously there was a time, according to Hryshchenko, when we strove to go in one direction.
“As I said in the beginning, NATO takes note of your decisions on your general policy framework which is a sovereign right of every nation. We hear that at the same time Ukraine wants continue its very close cooperation. And we hear that. But only the next weeks and months will tell us whether that is actually going to happen. And only then I think I can make the effort of defining it. Now I hear something and I am most interested now in seeing in several weeks and months whether that is actually happening. Only then I would dare to define the new relationship.”
