Who will be in charge of European integration? This question was raised immediately after Oleh Rybachuk left his post as vice-premier for European integration. Later, this sparked another question: Did the vice-premier achieve much in the integration field? Last week the subject of a “Euroministry” came into focus again. Rybachuk, who is now chief of the president’s staff, said, “The idea of setting up a structure in Ukraine that would deal with European integration, be it a ministry or a committee, like in Poland, is a question of time.” Other officials have hinted that a “European ministry” will be formed before the end of this year.
As a matter of fact, the idea to create this kind of agency in Ukraine is by no means new. In 2001 the then Prime Minister Anatoliy Kinakh had a burning desire to set up a ministry for European integration. In his vision, this structure would coordinate the activities of other ministries and agencies in the field of cooperation with the European Union. Later, the prime minister had to drop the idea. Many experts interpreted this unrealized administrative project as Kinakh’s attempt to show his partiality for European integration as a kind of publicity stunt. There has been no shortage of similar institutional manifestations of love for the European vector in Ukraine’s modern history. Here is just a short list of the “European structures” that once existed or still do: the Interdepartmental Committee for Ukraine-EU Relations, the National Agency for Development and European Integration, the State Council for European and Euro-Atlantic Integration, the Ministry of Economy and European Integration, etc. As recently as a year ago, there was even an office of the commissioner for European and Euro- Atlantic integration, held by First Vice-Premier Mykola Azarov. Ironically, by dint of his political persuasions, he tried to push the state in a slightly different, non-European, direction. (Azarov represented Ukraine on the SES High-Level Task Force).
Why did the position of vice-premier for European integration in the “Orange” administration never play the role that was so hyped by the holder of this office? It may be that the government could not decide on the range of its duties. Although Borys Tarasiuk and Oleh Rybachuk always denied they were in conflict, it is hard to believe that from the very outset they knew exactly what their “turf” was. The minister of foreign affairs makes no secret of his continuing dissatisfaction with the discussions centering on the creation of a separate “Euro-agency.” Nor did the vice-premier manage to keep his promise to recruit a staff of professional “Eurointegrators” with a command of two or three languages. Among the reasons why the ministry of European integration was not set up (and may never be) are the lack of a clear-cut concept and shortage of staff. When Mr. Tarasiuk objects to the formation of a “European ministry,” he cites these very reasons. He also notes that the countries that recently joined the EU never set up special ministries that would be exclusively in charge of European integration: they usually formed interdepartmental boards headed by the prime minister.
The Polish expert Anna GORSKA confirmed to The Day that there has never been a ministry in charge of European integration in her country. Poland first had a European integration bureau, and from the late 1990s a prime-minister-headed European integration committee whose executive board dealt with the routine work to bring Poland in line with European standards. According to Gorska, “only the premier can coordinate other ministries and agencies,” and a separate ministry cannot wield the same clout as the head of government: the “European” minister would simply be unable to play the role of coordinator. The Polish expert believes that the office of special vice-premier (as was the case in Ukraine until recently) is more effective and meaningful. She says that there was much debate in Poland in the early 1990s on whether to set up a “European ministry,” but when the Poles weighed all the pros and cons, they opted for a special body answerable to the prime minister.
Which way will Ukraine go? We can, of course, try to reinvent the wheel and establish a ministry. But are there any guarantees that it will not turn out to be as ineffective as all the governmental “councils” and “centers” that have existed in the past few years? That ex-Vice Premier Rybachuk failed to make his office an influential force is no argument for setting up such a ministry. We can try to follow the route of other countries. As far as we know, the office of vice-premier was modeled on the Polish pattern, but the idea “didn’t work.” Would it not be better first to analyze the factors that caused this failure and only then claim the need to form a body to deal with European integration? After all, we may end up having a host of “European bodies” and no European integration at all.
