Yesterday new NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, former foreign minister of the Netherlands, visited Kyiv. The visit was primarily of a get acquainted character, although Secretary Scheffer has already met Ukraine’s ministers of foreign affairs and defense. This time he came to familiarize himself with Ukraine as “NATO’s special partner,” its ambitions, potential, correlation between its declared goals and reality, and especially with the country’s domestic situation on the elections eve. The special feature of the new Secretary General’s visit is that it took place immediately after seven countries (Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, and Romania) had joined the alliance. Visits of the alliance’s high representatives to Ukraine, which in the last decade have became common, never ceasing even during Ukraine’s diplomatic isolation, have a simple explanation: Ukraine is NATO’s special partner, and the latter gives considerable attention to this relationship.
In his address after the meeting at Ukraine’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs the secretary-general stressed that the alliance attaches great importance to the strategic partnership between NATO and Ukraine. In his words, the sides have good relationship but it can become even better. He said that yesterday they discussed [at the Foreign Ministry] precisely the measures able to improve interaction between Kyiv and Brussels. Scheffer stressed Ukraine’s practical contribution to global security, in part, our peacekeepers’ missions in Iraq and Kosovo. Foreign Minister Hryshchenko, in his turn, informed the high guest on considering the documents important for securing effective interaction between Kyiv and Brussels. He mentioned that the memorandum On Using Ukraine’s Military Transport Aircraft is to be ratified soon.
One of Scheffer’s major messages was that Ukraine should give attention to such values as democracy, the rule of the law, and the freedom of the press. Obviously, both the probability of a Ukraine-NATO Commission meeting during the June 28-29 Istanbul Summit and the level of Ukraine’s representation at this summit will depend on how well these instructions are implemented. Diplomats from individual NATO countries hinted that the meeting could fail to take place for various reasons. Some connect such a course of events with Ukraine’s pre-election situation, others, with the still undefined agenda of the summit. It is not ruled out that it will be completely devoted to Iraq. Therefore, the meeting’s participants might simply reject negotiations in a special format (as is the case with Ukraine and Russia). Scheffer stated that during the Kyiv negotiations the parties have briefly touched upon the Istanbul Summit. Pointing out that NATO is an organization working on the consensus basis, meaning that the decision will be made by all its members, the secretary-general said that so far no decision has been made as to the level of Ukraine’s representation at the Ukraine-NATO commission meeting. However, he stressed that a meeting on a high level is not impossible, adding that a positive decision on this subject will depend not only on NATO but also on Ukraine.
Today Ukraine can demonstrate to NATO certain achievements. In part, Defense Minister Yevhen Marchuk has presented the draft Defense Bulletin in Brussels, the work on which began as early as two years ago with a support from the NATO Headquarters representatives along with separate alliance member states. NATO’s Political and Military and Political Committees, it is reported, highly praised the document. The bulletin contains, in part, data on the Armed Forces and ideas concerning the state’s further need in the Armed Forces in terms of their functions. After revision, the document will be presented to the National Defense and Security Council of Ukraine. It is to be approved by the president of Ukraine.
Speaking about NATO’s evaluation of Ukraine’s performance regarding the Action Plan and Target Plan 2004, ratified in Prague, while, on the one hand, in the words of Ukraine’s Deputy Foreign Minister Oleh Shamshur, “NATO partners’ evaluation is highly harsh and critical,” on the other, the alliance recognizes that Ukraine has made considerable effort and “achieved fundamental progress.”
Perhaps in international diplomatic language this means simply, “it didn’t fail... but we cannot be completely satisfied,” the diplomat says. Not all the laws required by the Target Plan 2003 were adopted; there also remain problems connected with the course of the election campaign (democratization and securing free elections are among Ukraine’s priority tasks according to the documents signed with NATO) and the freedom of speech (the same refers to it). Some of the clauses not implemented were, in Mr. Shamshur’s words, “incorporated” into the Target Plan 2004, which had recently been made public. By this document Ukraine is to, in part, approve 37 new laws.
The defense reform in Ukraine traditionally receives positive feedback in the West. However, much remains to be done in terms of implementing civilian command over the Armed Forces and reforming law enforcement bodies and special services, which at present are almost totally closed.
Chairman of the ad hoc parliamentary Committee on Cooperation with NATO and First Deputy Chairman of the Committee on European Integration Oleh Zarubinsky states that “a tendency has been formed in Ukraine for slowing down the rate of movement toward NATO.” In his words, the deputies have not seen yet the complete text of the Strategy of Ukraine’s Relations with NATO; moreover, “It is still unclear whether this text exists at all.” The deputy also spoke about the virtually nonexistent information policy regarding the Ukraine-NATO relations along with the fact that leading television channels present information on NATO in either neutral or critical form, which, in his view, is absolutely unacceptable, unless the state policy aimed at Ukraine joining the alliance has changed.
Representatives of the United States of America, Great Britain, and Poland continue to make statements on their countries’ support for Ukraine’s intentions to join the North Atlantic alliance. Similar statements can be heard from representatives of the leadership of Turkey, the Baltic States, and Bulgaria. Ukraine-NATO relations were among key topics of the recent Kyiv negotiations with US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. Simultaneously, there is no clear idea of how these relations are to further develop or whether the 1997 Charter on Special Partnership is sufficient for their legal securing. There is no clear answer to the question, how Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic prospects can be affected with its not always understandable steps in its relations with Russia, which, demanding a truly special status in its relations with NATO, in fact denies such a right to anyone else. However, yesterday the secretary- general stressed that other countries have every right to take even decisions to which the Kremlin might develop a political allergy, expressing his confidence that Russia will treat this with understanding.
