Hanne Severinsen, the rapporteur of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) Monitoring Committee, which observes the process of honoring commitments undertaken before the Council of Europe, together with co-rapporteur Renate Wohlwend, has been overseeing Ukraine since our country joined the Council of Europe. At a recent press-conference Mme. Severinsen stated that monitoring is aimed at guaranteeing the rights and freedoms of citizens and the plurality of opinions, and ensuring that the judiciary system works for the benefit of citizens according to European standards.
Severinsen emphasized that one of the prerequisites for ending the monitoring process in Ukraine was the holding of free and transparent parliamentary elections in March 2006. But in addition, rule of law must be secured in the state. That is why it is very important that a reform of the judiciary-legislative system take place in Ukraine.
The report of the co-rapporteurs on the fulfillment of the obligations that Ukraine took on when it became a member of the Council of Europe will be considered at the PACE meeting scheduled for October 2007. The preliminary report, which takes into account the Ukrainian government’s comments, will be ready in August or September.
Below is an exclusive interview with the co-rapporteur of the PACE committee, Hanne SEVERINSEN.
You have been monitoring Ukraine for 12 years. Is Ukraine moving in the right direction?
I could say that sometimes there are some steps forwards and at the same time some steps backwards. In Kuchma’s time there were steps backwards. The media were controlled by temnyky [censorship through the use of secret instructions] and unprotected. I felt at the time that Ukraine was on its way backwards. But after the Orange Revolution, it seems that people began to understand that they can do something, that democracy is a boon for them. I am sure that there was disappointment, but now people are more interested in politics than they were before the Orange Revolution.
You mean that they can influence their country’s destiny?
Yes, they have this feeling more since the Orange Revolution.
But now that the new old government has come to power, isn’t it threatening democracy?
People voted for it, didn’t they? I have been asked whether the Party of Regions is the same as it was before. I think that it has chosen another style. But when you go to a part of Ukraine like Donetsk, where one party is sitting on nearly all the power, the structure is still very tight. This is something I also see in my own country, when in some community one party holds power all the time. This is unhealthy for democracy. But being an optimist, I think that the Party of Regions is not the same party as it was two years ago.
What is your attitude to the EU’s refusal to give Ukraine the prospect of membership in the EU?
I would say that I am disappointed that the EU is not clearly stating that Ukraine is a potential European member-country. You are a member of the Council of Europe and you are also a member of many other European organizations. And the civilization here is a European civilization, so in the long run you’ll also belong to the EU, as long as you meet the criteria. Personally, in my own country, Denmark, I argue very much for recognition of Ukraine as a potential member. This does not mean that you will be a member tomorrow. It means that you belong to Europe. I hope that it will be speeded up. I do not think necessarily that the EU needs a new constitution. We need new rules of the game because there are more countries, and it is true that the EU now has so many countries that it would be difficult to go further in the near future. But we must also think of the long-term perspective.
Do you think it’s a strange situation when most of Ukraine supports EU integration but not NATO? After all, both organizations have identical values.
I think some parties have criticized it a lot. Also some parties are perhaps afraid of what the impact will be on relations with Russia. Some parties occupy a middle position and do not support integration with NATO.
Do you think that Yushchenko and Yanukovych have common priorities concerning the development of democracy and introduction of Western values? Is there an understanding between them on these questions?
We have to judge them by their words and remind them about “saying the right things.” In fact, this is what monitoring is about. We have to hear what is promised and remind them that now it is time for action.
Do you have a clear picture of what the Ukrainian government should demonstrate before efforts are made?
Rome was certainly not built in a day! I started the monitoring procedure in 1995. On my first monitoring visit I visited Serhii Holovaty, who was Minister of Justice at the time. He had a long list of Ukraine’s commitments. He showed us a whole list of legislation that was already drafted and what was on the first reading at that time. But then there was a change of government and everything started all over again. Then there was an election, and it started all over again.
There were small steps forward, and then again we saw promising debates after the new first reading, and then nothing happened. You should always give a government a chance of a hundred days and also give the new parliament time to decide. But if again you feel that they are telling us how they are about to have the first reading, persuading us that this must be a positive sign, it is a kind of “deja vu.”
And yes, it COULD BE a positive sign, but we have to see more than a positive first reading in parliament. We need to see the legislation. And we need to see that the legislation is implemented.
How do you assess the constitutional crisis that emerged after the political reform was adopted? Do you believe that Yushchenko and Yanukovych will find common ground, a way forward for the country, that they will stop this quarrel?
It is quite difficult to say. The constitution is used very much in the political game. This is a pity, because the constitution normally should be the rule of the game, and now it’s the game itself, and therefore I hope that there will be some roundtable with the participation of all political forces, where they will reach common agreement on how to interpret and perhaps amend the present constitution. Unfortunately the amendments from 2004 are not consistent and will cause problems. But if there is a will, there should be a compromise, and the political forces should clarify for themselves what role in the future they want their president to have. Should it be a president without any political power — a guardian of the Constitution of Ukraine? Or should the president have the same power as in France? That is a decision that has to be taken, and not just relying on an interpretation from the Constitutional Court. You need a truly political, broad, and long-lasting solution.
Our readers would like to know why you took the job of monitoring Ukraine?
It started in 1995. At the time I was preparing a report on Ukraine’s accession for my committee, which included countries that were not members of this organization. Since I was the vice-president of the committee, I was persuaded to take the job because Ukraine was regarded as a very important country. By that time I had already been in Ukraine twice: in 1989 as a member of the Danish Environmental Protection Committee, and in 1993, as a member of the PACE committee. After Ukraine became a member, I was elected to the newly-formed committee to monitor Ukraine.
Were you not disappointed by this task in Ukraine?
No, it has been a big and very interesting part of my life. The monitoring started with a very serious case, when Kuchma, after having promised to abolish the death penalty, nevertheless ordered the execution of many prisoners by turning it into a state secret. Then there were all sorts of problems with the mass media, freedom of expression, ending up with the temnyky. I visited imprisoned journalists and observed all the elections. I saw various problems and followed all the quarrels about the constitution.
Would you like to live in Ukraine?
I would like very much to travel around Ukraine. When I was an election observer, I had an opportunity to see parts of Ukraine where I could never go as a tourist. For instance, the Carpathian region: I was so charmed by it. I would certainly like very much to be just a tourist in Ukraine. My mother went on a big sailing tour a year before she died, and she loved it.
One of the things I would have done another way if I could go back. I would have started learning Ukrainian, because that’s real laziness: to be here for 12 years and not be able to speak Ukrainian. I am not very sure I would like to live here. I am probably too old to make such a change.
What is your hobby?
Political science is my profession and hobby. I am a historian and political scientist, and I think constitutional questions and questions about the history of your society are very interesting. To follow change in such a big and important country is a privilege
Have you read anything by Ukrainian writers?
No, I did not have much time. I have read the literature of modern Ukrainian politics on the Internet, and people are sending me stories, so I read a lot. But I will do that after I retire.
Could you please tell our readers about your parents and how they influenced you?
They are dead now. My father was a lawyer and my mother was a housewife. There were three children in the family.
Where did you get your education and what did you study?
I grew up on the outskirts of Copenhagen, and I studied history and political science at the University of Copenhagen. After that I was a high school teacher. I was elected to the City Council of Copenhagen in 1974 and the Danish Parliament in 1984.
How did you get involved in politics?
My father was very interested in politics, and he was the local chairman of the Liberal Party, and politics was often discussed at home.
Who was (or is) your ideal in politics?
Internationally, Nelson Mandela is one of the greatest for me. Instead of revenge, he managed to heal his society.
