276

Finally, the issue of ways of ensuring the security of this country has been clarified. From now on, NATO membership will be one of the priorities of Ukraine’s foreign policy. This decision was supported by 276 MPs in the June 8 vote. The amendments concern the Laws “On the Principles of Domestic and Foreign Policy of Ukraine” and “On the Fundamentals of National Security of Ukraine.” Previously, the documents called for “achieving the criteria necessary for gaining membership,” while now, they state clearly that “gaining membership” in the Alliance is an objective.

“The aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine and the annexation of part of the Ukrainian territory have obliged the Ukrainian state to take urgent measures to actually ensure national security of the country. The experience of a number of Ukraine’s neighbor nations shows that under the current conditions, they consider collective security structures that function on the principles of progressive democratic values to be the most effective instrument of ensuring security, preserving territorial integrity and sovereignty, and the most effective of such structures is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The substantial expansion of this organization in recent years is a convincing proof of this. Ukraine has sufficient political and legal preconditions for full institutional rapprochement with the North Atlantic Alliance, among which is the well-known decision of the 2008 Bucharest Summit to unambiguously recognize the prospect of membership of Ukraine in this organization, the need for which is an irrefutable imperative of the time,” the sponsors of the bill noted; Andrii Parubii, Iryna Herashchenko, Hanna Hopko, Iryna Friz, and Borys Tarasiuk were among them.

For a deeper understanding of the problems of Ukraine’s relations with NATO, one must look into the recent history of Ukraine. This issue is extremely important for us, especially given the loss of Ukrainian territories and the war the Kremlin is waging against this country. It is important to understand what opportunities and chances Ukraine had, why it squandered them, and how to make up for these losses now, in more difficult conditions of Russian aggression. In just a month, on July 9, the Charter on a Special Partnership between Ukraine and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization will turn 20. Before that, Ukraine cooperated with NATO within the framework of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council and the Partnership for Peace program (1994). After the signing of the Charter, the Ukraine-NATO Commission began operating, various meetings and working contacts took place, and an atmosphere of trust between Ukraine and the Alliance was formed.

IN THE WORDS OF YEVHEN MARCHUK, UKRAINE NOW NEEDS A POWERFUL REACH-OUT EFFORT TO EXPLAIN TO THE POPULATION WHY WE CO-OPERATE WITH THE ALLIANCE AND OVERCOME POST-SOVIET PHOBIAS

The then Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council (NSDC) Yevhen Marchuk was appointed head of the State Commission for Cooperation with NATO in December 1999. He recalled the chronology of the events (which we offer below) himself during the roundtable “Ukraine-NATO: 20 Years of the Charter on Special Partnership,” held at the National Institute for Strategic Studies on June 8. Marchuk was responsible for bringing about a radical change in the external security vector in the early 2000s, moving it from simple cooperation to legal enshrining of Ukraine’s NATO accession course.

It is interesting that a historical retrospective of this issue was also recalled simultaneously in the parliament during the debate on the abovementioned changes regarding Ukraine’s NATO membership aspirations. In particular, head of the Radical Party faction Oleh Liashko said from the rostrum: “The Ukraine-NATO Charter was signed 20 years ago. During that time, Ukrainian leaders had many occasions to fulfill all the conditions that would allow Ukraine to enter the Alliance. Instead, they disorganized the entire security and defense system in these 20 years, sold off all military property, and missed the unique chance that Ukraine received at the Bucharest Summit in the form of the NATO Membership Action Plan. Ukrainians today are paying with blood for the mistakes of president Leonid Kuchma, prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko, prime minister Viktor Yanukovych, and other national leaders. All of them together are responsible for the fact that Ukraine has not become a member of NATO and is suffering from Russian aggression.”

THE TITLE OF THE DAY’S ARTICLE PUBLISHED ON MAY 25, 2017 “20 YEARS NEARBY. BUT NOT TOGETHER...” WAS CITED DURING THE ROUNDTABLE

It is important to place emphasis where it is due. Even before the premiership of Tymoshenko and the presidency of Yanukovych, following the titanic work done in that field by Marchuk (no MP dared to mention him on June 8 in the chamber), Ukraine was very close to signing the MAP (Membership Action Plan). But in the summer of 2004, after the Istanbul summit of NATO, Kuchma made a U-turn away from the Alliance. After a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Kuchma gave the order to immediately remove from the Military Doctrine the abovementioned formula on cooperation with NATO... Even when Viktor Yanukovych was prime minister, his Party of Regions voted for a law in 2003 which set accession to the Alliance as Ukraine’s ultimate objective. It was only later, when Yanukovych became president in 2010, that he removed this formula through parliament from the Law “On the Fundamentals of National Security of Ukraine.”

Therefore, it was Putin and Kuchma, first and foremost, who took Ukraine on a course that led away from NATO. The Bucharest Summit of 2008 came later, and then the lack of unity in this issue within the Ukrainian political class (manifested by Tymoshenko’s actions), and also the insane pressure of Russia, caused German Chancellor Angela Merkel and the then French president Nicolas Sarkozy to block the MAP for Ukraine and Georgia. And as a result, in August of the same year, Russia attacked Georgia and illegally occupied part of its territory. In 2014 the Kremlin, obviously realizing that NATO would not react just like it did not in the Georgian case, illegally annexed Crimea and launched an aggressive war in the east of Ukraine.

By the way, the Kremlin has already reacted to the decision of the Verkhovna Rada. Russian presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that his government was concerned about the expansion of NATO (rbc.ru). Ukraine, according to Peskov, is a country “engulfed in a civil war” [?!! – Ed.]. “We in Moscow are traditionally distrustful and concerned about the process of NATO expansion towards our borders. We believe that this threatens our security and the balance of power in the Eurasian region. Of course, Russia is taking all necessary measures to rebalance the situation and ensure its own security,” he stated. Peskov also said that the decision to admit new countries to the Alliance “is being taken in Brussels and in those capitals which generally manage this process.”

FORMER MINISTERS OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF UKRAINE BORYS TARASIUK AND KOSTIANTYN HRYSHCHENKO

Russia’s reaction is predictable. Therefore, the real issue is with Ukraine itself, both in the 2000s and now. We need to talk about ourselves: how will we solve the issue of security? We should not bother with neutrality, which is once again talked about by such retired politicians as Oleksandr Moroz and constantly forced on Ukraine by Russia. We also should not worry that NATO will not accept us because of the military conflict that we are involved in because of Russia’s aggression. In general, we should finally appoint a Ukrainian ambassador to NATO as a first step.

COMMENTARIES

“THE GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO GET ITS EFFORTS COMPETENTLY ORGANIZED NOW”

Yevhen MARCHUK, statesman, Prime Minister of Ukraine (1995-96), the NSDC Secretary (1999-2003), Defense Minister (2003-04):

“After the Charter’s signing in 1997, a particularly organizationally important and well-documented stage of Ukraine’s movement to NATO began. For example, the NSDC was developing a National Security Strategy, and the whole intellectual potential of Ukraine was involved in the process. In 2002, I managed to complete it, and then the Strategy was adopted by the NSDC. The document stipulated that the ultimate objective was Ukraine’s accession to NATO. It is important to note that at that time Russia even more actively cooperated with NATO than Ukraine did. Russia rushed to hold the Russia-NATO summit in May of the same year, but we got ahead of Russia by three weeks, and the NSDC adopted the document. Thus, we excluded the possibility of speculations on the part of Russia, since after the Rome Summit of NATO in 2002, there would have been a completely different information background, after all. After the adoption of the decision, we conducted a number of specific actions in the framework of the Ukraine-NATO Committee, and I traveled with NATO Secretary General George Robertson to Donetsk and took part in the events there together with him.

“In 2003, the Law ‘On the Fundamentals of National Security of Ukraine’ was adopted, in which the phrase ‘Ukraine can join military and political blocs, in particular the North Atlantic Alliance’ was clearly spelled out, and the Communist faction was very insistent and got it qualified with the clause ‘while maintaining good-neighborly relations with Russia and other CIS member nations.’ The same formula was adopted today, but without this end clause. But everything did not end with the law: on the contrary, we created the State Commission for Cooperation with NATO, designed to provide institutional support for the partnership. Many people were greatly amazed on learning the extent of NATO’s non-military activities. A comprehensive state program was introduced, new offices were created, sociological services were involved, public information work was carried out. We reached 35-36 percent public support nationwide, with it reaching 70 percent in the west of Ukraine and standing at 12 percent in Crimea. The key for us was explanatory work, because Russia did not sit idly by, it aggressively, impudently, provided information through specialized bodies, as it is doing today. We can see this today on the example of Montenegro. The Kremlin banned the Montenegrin legislators who voted for NATO membership from entering Russia, and there is a ‘savage bout of media hysteria.’

“Consequently, Ukraine carried out its work, joining the Partnership for Peace program in 1994, signing the Charter on Special Partnership in 1997, and providing the legal framework in 2003. And in the summer of 2004, at the Istanbul Summit, we were already ready for the MAP, but US President George W. Bush said that the decision would be made only after the presidential election, which was due in a few months. It was a great disappointment for us. And some time after the summit in Istanbul, Kuchma met with Putin in Crimea, and on his return to Kyiv instructed us to remove the NATO item from the Military Doctrine. Imagine how we looked in the eyes of our partners, when at the peak of cooperation, Ukraine made a U-turn.

“The government needs to get its efforts competently organized now. If after the vote in the parliament everything remains as it is, and we are facing a problem that the public support for Ukraine’s accession to NATO is creeping down, nothing serious will be achieved. The question arises: is it necessary to hold a referendum on NATO, which the president spoke about? This is difficult and dangerous. We need a powerful reach-out effort to explain to the population why we co-operate with the Alliance and overcome post-Soviet phobias. When trying to assess our contest with Russia in the terms of impudence and aggressiveness, we lose. Russian propaganda is very strong and has a tremendous impact on the formation of public opinion in Ukraine, and a half of our society is effectively in its sphere of influence. As soon as today, they will comment, invite experts, give their interpretation to the decision of the Verkhovna Rada, but will our governmental institutions offer explanations to the society? I doubt it. So what has changed in the structure and work plans? We must not ignore the fact that Russia will actively work in the direction of discrediting this idea.”

“I NOTE THE IMPORTANCE OF APPOINTING A PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE OF UKRAINE TO NATO”

Kostiantyn HRYSHCHENKO, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine (2003-05, 2010-12):

“Today’s adoption of amendments to the relevant laws was preceded by many persistent efforts that will be inscribed in the history of Ukrainian diplomacy. Discussing the 20th anniversary of the Charter on Special Partnership, I want to emphasize that we have not used it effectively in all this time. From the moment of its signing, a unique period in the life of our nation was to begin, as it was a great tool for communication with partners, promotion and ensuring of our national interests. But it remained a ‘formality’ only, and when the critical situation of Russia’s aggression emerged, we did not feel its impact. The Charter and the instruments it provides are still important for us, but a completely different context has emerged, so we need to carry out our work in a completely different way. I think that it is necessary to return to the days when the NSDC, the Presidential Administration, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the Verkhovna Rada worked as one body. Without proper organization, there can be no effective foreign policy. I once again note the importance of appointing a permanent representative to NATO and the need for coordination between key agencies.”

“NATO SUPPORTS UKRAINE’S EFFORTS, WHICH ARE CONCENTRATED ON REFORMS AND MODERNIZATION OF THE DEFENSE AND SECURITY SECTOR”

Daniele RIGGIO, Press Officer, Media Relations Division, Department of Public Diplomacy at NATO Headquarters, Brussels:

“We have taken into consideration the decisions of the Verkhovna Rada. Ukraine has not applied for immediate membership in NATO. Its attention is focused on reforms and modernization of the defense and security sector, and NATO supports these efforts. This is a priority. At the Warsaw Summit past year, NATO heads of state and government stated: ‘We stand firm in our support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity within its internationally recognized borders and Ukraine’s right to decide its own future and foreign policy course free from outside interference, as set out in the Helsinki Final Act.’ This statement remains in force. NATO-Ukraine cooperation is an important part of the Alliance’s contribution to the spread of stability in the Euro-Atlantic area and beyond.”

“THE DECISION OF THE PARLIAMENT FITS THE TREND OF RETURN TO THE ORIGINS, TO UKRAINE’S NATURAL ROLE”

Volodymyr OHRYZKO, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine (2007-09):

“It was not Ukraine that made that turn away from NATO, but rather its corrupt leaders. They did not care about national interests, but only about lining their own pockets, which they did through joint corruption business with Russia. One can talk a lot about many occasions when we were led off the road to the Alliance. Nevertheless, the latest decision of the Verkhovna Rada returns us to the hard-won European development path. Together with the decisions on association with the EU and visa-free travel, this recent decision fits the trend of return to the origins, to Ukraine’s natural role. Therefore, of course, I am very glad that the Verkhovna Rada took such a step, which sends a very serious signal to our Western partners. They were often irritated by our inconsistency and uncertainty. Since such a decision has already been adopted at the level of the parliament, any further interpretations and assessments will be superfluous. Will our decision cause enthusiasm in the West? I do not think so. But on the day when the Western countries will understand that Ukraine as a potential member of NATO will make this organization stronger and better, they will not tell us ‘No’ then. As long as we are a country that carries with itself problems and threats, there are a million reasons to tell us that our NATO membership is untimely.

“The biggest obstacle on Ukraine’s way to NATO now will be our internal problems, primarily corruption and a lack of unity. These factors have caused extraordinary harm to Ukraine. The question of the referendum on NATO was raised by us, the Ukraine to NATO movement, the year before last. I believe that this should be done in order to stop all possible speculation. This will provide our supporters in the West with a powerful argument for the approval of Ukraine’s progress towards NATO. I think that this referendum should be held together with an election or some other event, so that it would not be a big burden on the budget.”

“WE ARE BACK TO THE LAW OF 2003”

Borys TARASIUK, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine (1998-2000, 2005-07):

“With the decision of the Rada, we are back to the point where we started when the 2003 decision of the NSDC clearly spelled out our strategic intention to join NATO. However, a metamorphosis took place in 2010, when the presidential candidate Yanukovych won using the anti-NATO rhetoric and then, having come to power, destroyed our NATO course with a decision of the Verkhovna Rada. It took four years after Yanukovych’s flight to resume the course. We could pass a law that would resume the course as early as three years ago, but, unfortunately, the Verkhovna Rada of that time did not have enough courage to call things by their own names and a law was adopted in a weakened version, stating that Ukraine was striving to achieve the criteria for NATO membership. The Charter was a civilizational watershed, but, like the Budapest Memorandum, it did not work. I hope the Ukrainian politicians will have the wisdom not only to declare the course, but also to actually lead the country to NATO membership.”

“IN FACT, WE HAVE BEEN ON THIS COURSE FOR A LONG TIME”

Dmytro TYMCHUK, MP, the People’s Front faction:

“I do not think that something extraordinary happened in the parliament when it voted for the NATO course. The course towards the Alliance is logical and justified. It is surprising that the parliament voted for this decision as late as in the fourth year of the war and three years after the Yanukovych regime was overthrown. Considering the assistance that the NATO countries provide us, including sending us instructors, personnel training, developing and implementing the reform plan for the transition to NATO standards in the field of defense and national security, we can say that quite an intensive cooperation exists between Ukraine and the Alliance. Groups of NATO advisers in the Ministry of Defense and the General Staff are very active. That is, in fact, we have been on this course for a long time. The real issue was enshrining it politically and legally.

“It should be recalled that the NATO course became a law back in 2000. Kuchma then abandoned it, because such decisions were part of blackmail and attempts to bargain for personal benefits with the West and Russia. For Kuchma, the path to NATO was not a national objective in terms of the foreign policy course of this country. Let us recall how he conducted the so-called multi-vector foreign policy, which eventually confused the country. If it were not for this multi-vector pattern, Ukraine would move to NATO rather quickly and a lot had already been done for it. The military understood well that one could not stick to the Soviet army ways, and the future laid with NATO. It was impossible to keep using post-Soviet approaches. Soldiers who were involved in cooperation with the Alliance and took part in joint peacekeeping operations saw the effectiveness of decision-making, the effectiveness of logistic support in the armies of NATO countries and compared with what we had. Unfortunately, even now the effectiveness of our defense is at the level of the mid-20th century at best. In the 21st century, such approaches which involve cumbersome structures, bureaucracy, and ultra-low efficiency of resource use cannot continue.”

“IN THE YEAR OF THE CENTENNIAL OF THE UKRAINIAN REVOLUTION, IT IS APPROPRIATE TO RECALL THAT NON-ALIGNED STATUS HAS HAD DIRE CONSEQUENCES FOR UKRAINE”

Ihor TURIANSKYI, former Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Ukraine:

“We are facing an urgent need to gain actual membership, and not only declarations, because one can reach the criteria for entering a higher education institution and never enter it. We need to set an objective and achieve it step by step. In the year of the centennial of the Ukrainian Revolution, it is appropriate to recall that non-aligned status had dire consequences for Ukraine then just as now. Some forces find it advantageous to hide behind the thesis that ‘we must not anger Russia,’ but Ukraine needs to stop being an easy and tempting target for Putin’s Russia. The experience of other countries – Poland, which joined NATO in 1999 during Boris Yeltsin’s presidency in Russia and despite the Russian hysteria, the Baltic countries which did so in 2004, already when Putin was in power, and now Montenegro – proves that one must go one’s own way. Even the entry of Turkey into the Alliance in 1952, that is, in Joseph Stalin’s time was a response to the USSR’s demands to lease it land it needed to establish a military base in the Bosporus Strait. Ukraine is now a contributor of security. Unlike the First World War situation, the West is de facto united in supporting Ukraine. In the end, the experience of the Baltic countries proves to us that joining NATO should precede accession to the EU.”