the year I was invited to Ukraine by the Ukraine Society for Contacts with
Michel Durey, director of the NATO Information and Documentation Center in Kyiv, has been dealing with matters relating to NATO-Ukraine cooperation since 2002, so he knows more about this cooperation than anyone else. Have any changes occurred in NATO- Ukraine relations after the anticrisis coalition came to power? Why did the NATO secretary general tell a press conference that it is necessary to give an impetus to NATO-Ukraine relations? Why only some 20 percent Ukrainians are supporting the idea of Ukraine’s NATO membership after almost a decade of cooperation with the alliance? Below the NATO official shares his ideas with The Day.
Many experts in referring to Ukraine-NATO relations in 2006 describe last year as one of lost opportunities. How would you briefly describe the relations between the Alliance and Kyiv that year? If possible, please specify what you think was achieved and miscalculated during that period. Why Ukraine failed to take advantage of the opportunities it had last. Will Tarasiuk’s resignation affect Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic integration?
A lost year? I do not think so, but no doubt that it depends upon each individual position and the level of understanding of what is possible or not and what you are expecting.
From an institutional point of view, we never have been deeper and franker in our relationship in the framework of Intensified dialogue. High-level delegations did visit Brussels, from experts to the prime minister, and we had this real political dialogue between the Allies and Ukraine. We hope to continue in that vein in 2007. Since the new Verkhovna Rada was elected, we, together with Allies, have invited about 10 percent of the MPs to visit NATO and have a chance to receive normal information.
From a practical point of view, there were positive programs in 2006, mutually beneficial ones, I would say. We have seen the long-awaited ratification of the Memorandum on Strategic Airlift, which gives mutually advantageous opportunities. Ukraine has proceeded with its defense and security sector reform, though the general political environment was not easy. Ukraine did publish its first ever “white book” on Defense, with a great deal of transparency. A decision was made to participate in the NATO-led anti-terrorist operation “Active Endeavor” in the Mediterranean, and such a decision is highly appraised by the Allies. Other concrete discussions on Ukraine’s participation in major NATO-led operations, such as the ISAF in Afghanistan, took place. Our NATO Liaison Office has been intensively developing practical training processes linked with good governance of the security sector. Hundreds of technical integration related events happened last year! More visible, practical programs such as the Trust funds for the destruction of obsolete ammunitions and small weapons had started tactually operating in 2006. Another Trust fund to help Ukraine tackle social consequences of the released military personnel was launched in Khmelnytsky last April, and NATO resources for such practical cooperation programs increased significantly. Even the Security Service of Ukraine has created a working group with NATO to streamline its reforms towards European standards. Had the Allies not felt a real sense of commitment toward Ukraine, they would not have supported all this.
Institutionally speaking, Ukraine has the ownership of its reform. You do not reform for NATO, but for yourselves. In all new NATO countries, political consensus has been a prerequisite to implement the reforms linked to the security sector. Of course, there has been an intense politicization of NATO and polarization on Euro-Atlantic questions in the run-up of the parliamentary elections and after. I have noticed that myths and stereotypes, some of them so primitive, have made a comeback, fueled by some well-financed PR.
I even saw last December in the Crimea plakaty (posters) accusing NATO of launching a war in the Philippines in ... 1948. If you trust such lies ... NATO did not even exist at the time! If something can be improved here, it’s the understanding of NATO by the people and political parties, and the truth being said frankly. Many still view the Alliance as the “old enemy” or as an anti-Russia plot, and I believe that it must be changed. Russia, with which we are preparing to meet the 10th anniversary of the NATO-Russia Founding Act, is our strategic partner, and we have no conflict at all with our partner, whose ships came from the Crimea to participate in NATO’s fight against terrorism.
What is behind the Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer’s statement on Jan. 18, to the effect that NATO expects from Ukraine more dynamics and practical results in 2007? What practical results does the Alliance expect from Ukraine this year?
NATO is a performance-based organization, to which countries are admitted proceeding from their actions and reforms, not words. It is not that we are “waiting for results”, we are just looking forward to deepen our practical cooperation, as it was actually announced in September 2006, during the visit of the Prime Minister of Ukraine to Brussels. We were also told that a lot would happen, so we are looking forward to see deeds matching words. This also includes an information effort, not limited to paper plans...
By the way, has the Ukraine-NATO Target Plan for 2007 been prepared? When will the 2006 Target Plan be assessed? Perhaps there are preliminary NATO estimates. If so, what do they look like?
All previous years the same discussions took place and action plans were published during the first semester. It is not easy to put together such a plan, which is mainly Ukrainian owned, and as you know the resource question is the key. Our discussions continue, the draft is being examined in Brussels and there is no doubt that it will be ready soon. The 2007 version is very concrete and prioritized at the same time.
After passing the 2007 budget bill, how do you estimate the current government and prime minister’s intention of keeping the promises made on Sept. 14 in Brussels about better informing the general public of Ukraine about NATO, particularly with regard to building a positive image of the Alliance? When do you think the Ukrainian population will show a more positive attitude to NATO?
You have asked two questions. Let me start with the second one. This will happen when people will not feel obliged to do something they may not fully comprehend as yet. For sure, one should not force people to act against their own will and accord. On the other hand, honest and fair information, with a rich informative and not emotional content, is the key. For this, you need a comprehensive and fair information strategy, with real resources, backed by a political consensus between parties. As to the first question about resources, a minimum is needed but you can get high quality value for a small investment. It’s all a matter of resource management and political will. On the other hand, is the Ukrainian taxpayer ready to spend tens of millions for a popular consultation on a virtual question, when hospitals are in dire need of modern equipment and getting a few hryvnias per bed per year? In the new NATO countries, all the information-related money did not come from the state, but mainly from private investors, through NGOs, interested in the long- term effect of reforms on the stability and transparency of their businesses. In other words, Euro-Atlantic integration processes are not a state monopoly, since they concern all social strata.
You have been in Ukraine for quite a while. How, in your opinion, can the Ukrainian population be better informed about NATO, especially, in the context of advantages and profits of Ukraine’s membership?
Compared to 2002, I would say that the process has started and is developing. Having a discussion on NATO today in Ukraine is no longer regarded as “exotica”, but attracts a lot of attention and interest, if not passions. Almost everyday, somewhere in Ukraine, we hear of a roundtable, a conference, or hromadski slukhannia public discussions relating to NATO. The debate is on, and like it or not, it cannot be switched off so easily. Of course, if one looks at the experience of the countries that recently joined the Alliance one can see that to explain the plusses of joining was only possible through a political consensus, involvement of leading political, economic and cultural elites, and some resources, although it certainly does not mean that you must spend millions. Scarcity, if well used, can deliver more quality than abundance.
The chairman of the Verkhovna Rada’s committee on foreign affairs Vitalii Shybko said in an interview with The Daythat Ukraine’s joining NATO will depend on what Ukraine will find of interest in this bloc. If NATO can offer Ukraine something interesting that will help solve not only security but also many other domestic and social problems, it will become a serious argument for NATO membership. Why do you think the Ukrainian people have not been shown any such interesting things? Is it because there aren’t any or maybe Brussels and Kyiv can’t do so because they don’t know how?
NATO is not actively looking for new members, but has an open door policy. You want to join or you don’t. That’s the choice of the Ukrainian people. NATO is not here to convince but to tell the truth about the alliance and explain our policy. New NATO countries (40% of the Alliance members are former socialist countries, including orthodox ones) are not complaining. Nobody is complaining actually. And historically, even political parties which were against the entry of their country in the Alliance later became hyper-motivated to stay in, as was the case with Spain and the 1986 referendum. I might add that last summer there were more Serbs willing to enter the Alliance than Ukrainians. I just want to show that, when making a choice, you have to weigh all the pros and cons and listen to your own consciousness. Draw columns, with the various options for Ukraine’s long term security on one side, and on the other the advantages stemming from a reform, better economy, well-being, democracy, independence, freedom, energy security, and so on. Add up the points and make up your mind. NATO is not going to advertise for membership in any country and it has never done so. It exists and is evolving of its own, with its members representing 840 million inhabitants and more than 60% of the world GDP, and offering a lot of opportunities to its aspirants and partners. So today we are ready to team up with Ukrainian authorities and NGOs to explain NATO (as we do in our own countries), but pleading for the cause of membership is a matter to be coped with by Ukraine and its society in particular.
By the way, I would like to ask you as a NATO official: What impact is the struggle between the president and the prime minister having on the relations between Ukraine and NATO? How will Tarasiuk’s retirement affect Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic integration? Will it slow down Ukraine-NATO cooperation?
We consider this to be an internal issue and do not comment on internal political situations of that kind. We have framework documents, established cooperation and consultation mechanisms, and continue to work.
The Secretary General has always praised personally the dedication and professionalism of Boris Tarasiuk, and even as I speak he is drafting a letter to thank him as a personal friend, to wish him successes in his future career. We are looking forward to working with the future Minister of Foreign Affairs, whoever it will be. We hope that the quality of the relationship will remain as high as it was until now. On the second question, we have an intensified dialogue, identified priorities of work, such as the reform of the security and defense sector, practical cooperation including Ukraine’s participation in international operations such as “Active Endeavor” in the Mediterranean, in the Balkans, military medical support for our operation Afghanistan, strategic airlift, which Ukraine is providing to NATO for its various missions, including our logistical support to the African Union in Darfur, so you see, a lot is happening on that front, thanks to which the image of Ukraine is high, as a security “donor”. On the integration side and speed of reform, let me simply put it as follows: you are not reforming your country for NATO but rather for yourselves, aren’t you?
What about Emergency Management Minister Nestor Shufrych’s statement that NATO membership should be postponed? Do you think that the Party of Regions will “mature” enough to support Ukraine’s NATO membership? When could this happen?
Achieving a political consensus is an internal issue. For our part, we have good relations with all political parties. As for the Emergency Management Ministry, let me remind you that this ministry has a long record of successful practical cooperation with the Alliance, including even a Memorandum of Understanding on Civil Emergency Planning and Disaster Preparedness (signed in 1997) to develop plans and effective disaster-response capabilities to deal with natural emergencies such as avalanches and earthquakes, or man-made accidents or terrorist attacks involving toxic spills, or chemical biological, radiological or nuclear agents. Ukraine has been a particularly highly appreciated partner in that field over the years, and we are looking forward to continue our cooperation.
Last year it was announced that the NATO Secretary General would visit Ukraine this year. When will it happen?
This year we shall mark the 10th anniversary of the NATO-Ukraine Charter for a distinctive partnership. A lot of events illustrating the ongoing processes will be organized to commemorate this important anniversary. It is a bit early though to go into details.
