Do You Want an English Lawn Outside the Window?
Over the past month we have witnessed a change of tone in foreign politicians’ forecasts concerning Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic prospects, from a rather humiliating to the exact opposite. In early May, The Financial Times quoted EC President Romano Prodi as saying that Ukraine, like Belarus, did not stand a chance of joining the European Union. This statement was promptly carried by other media, also those in Ukraine, causing quite some reverberations. However, in an exclusive interview with The Day (see page DAY AFTER DAY), Romano Prodi said he had made no such statements, adding that the European Union welcomed Ukraine’s European choice, that Ukraine was the EU’s partner and closest neighbor, in view of the Union’s expansion; that the EU and Ukraine were working to strengthen their relations in the context of the European neighborly policy. Last week, Wesley Clark, former commander of NATO troops in Europe, while on a private visit to Ukraine, was even more outspoken. Stressing the great importance of the Ukrainian peacekeeping contingent as part of the stabilization forces in Iraq, he said he was sure that the military reform and positive trends in the Ukrainian economy and democracy (to be evidenced by a transparent presidential election) without doubt allow this country to eventually become a member of NATO and European Union (see page DAY AFTER DAY).
Of course, it is nice to hear foreign guests make such optimistic forecasts. However, this does not mean that the reasons for the above amplitude of oscillation should not be analyzed, including obviously Ukraine’s inconsistent stand in implementing its European choice. Our readers must remember this newspaper’s front-page question in block letters, Why are We Not in the European Union?
And an answer to it, accompanied by a photo showing a stray dog purposefully running somewhere and a group of workers taking their time to resume work after having a smoke.
Ukraine’s first President Leonid Kravchuk (currently an MP) told The Day recently that we must build Europe in Ukraine, rather than move to join Europe; in other words, we must establish a European lifestyle here. It is thus the task was formulated; although we could not carry it out quickly, frankly speaking, we have made certain steps. We made the right kind of declarations, but practically diverted from them. We proclaimed a multivectoral policy and identified a number of strategic partners, so that in Brussels it was often stated that Ukraine was for the European choice, and Moscow that ours was a different choice. In other words, the Ukrainian leader emphasized different vectors and demonstrated different efforts, depending on where he was at the moment. Verkhovna Rada has served as a good illustration of an answer to this question of late; the people’s deputies are so engrossed in political struggle (using mostly nonparliamentary, forceful means of pressuring their opponents) as having had no time left for making vitally important decisions for a number of days, particularly with regard to the military reform, the one which, in Wesley Clark’s opinion, if implemented, will bring Ukraine closer to NATO and EU membership.
However, those in power should not be blamed for everything. In a series of articles discussing the kind of the president Ukraine really needs, The Day has noted a paradox in the Ukrainian public opinion. Whereas polls carried out by the National Academy’s Institute for Social and Political Psychology point to over two-thirds of respondents wishing to have someone like Putin as the next president, both candidates with the leading ratings (according to poll turnouts) are very different from Putin... By the same logic, it seems possible to assume that the Ukrainian electorate is prepared to choose between two scenarios meaning a puppet or a criminal regime. In actuality, most Ukrainian voters are unlikely to reduce their choice to these two options, the more so that there is a third one, meaning Ukraine as an influential player in the European game, as a leader in its geopolitical region... What is to be done so as not to pass up this opportunity again? Why is there such a difference between how we want to live and who we elect and how? One is reminded of the noted journalist Shenderovich who said, What makes you think that you will have an English lawn and Dutch cows grazing outside your windows if you vote for Shandybin (an outspoken Russian Communist)?..
COMMENT
Oleksiy MATSUKA, political analyst:
Why do we live worse than we want to? We see a better kind of life in commercials, images we watch every day. It’s a problem for many people in this country, for they can see how things could be and how they actually are.
Of course, they blame those wielding power for seeing a better life only on their home screens, so that every new election campaign fills them with hopes that what they watch on the screen will become a reality.
Which of the candidates can improve the situation?
Either of the two leading ones will certainly change the situation. In the case of Yushchenko, we would get back to where we started: Galician romanticism with its consequences, crisis, underdeveloped regions, and so on. Ukraine has experienced that Galician romanticism and we know that outcome. As for Yanukovych [representing] the so-called Donetsk group, their practice and experience, as well as more pragmatic and moderately aggressive approach have not been put to the test in Ukraine. They practiced it in the Donbas, Yanukovych’s homeland. Perhaps the above Donetsk traits could help us narrow the gab between what we want and what we actually have.
This is precisely why we have to follow our own road, so that any foreign experience isn’t likely to help us choose the right path leading to [a happier] future. We are still Russia-oriented and regard Putin as a person that could help us, but do we actually need another Putin? The Ukrainians are more loyal, kind- hearted, and loath to see another tsar make his own decisions. We should choose from what is offered us by our own realities.
