Rutte’s legislative “compromise”

On December 15 Brussels hosts an EU summit which will be crucial for our country seeking to complete the ratification of the Association Agreement. We would like to remind our readers that currently the Netherlands is the only one out the 28 EU member states not to have ratified this document. At the summit a compromise will be sought, which, on the one hand, would meet the Dutch interests, and on the other, those of Ukraine and other EU countries which have already completed the ratification procedure.

Characteristically, today it is unclear if the European leaders will be able to rescue the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement. A proof can be seen in the statement made by Hugues Mingarelli, EU ambassador to Ukraine. Recently in Kharkiv Mingarelli said with confidence that the ratification problem will be settled in the nearest two or three days. According to him, the Dutch leaders are now negotiating with their EU counterparts to find a way of removing the “Dutch obstacle.” Mingarelli also expressed confidence that this decision will, on the one hand, fully preserve the current content of the Association Agreement intact, and on the other, will address all the concerns which worry the Dutch.

As it is known, the Netherlands demands that the Association Agreement contain no additional obligations on Brussels’ part before Ukraine in what concerns security or financial issues, and not become the first step towards Ukraine’s future EU membership. Moreover, according to Prime Minister Mark Rutte, the legislative compromise which can unblock Ukraine must be legally binding. “If not, I do not want to go back to parliament here,” said he in an interview to The Financial Times.

Ukraine’s foreign ministry also confirmed that our diplomats are still working with their Dutch counterparts on a solution to the problem. A source on Mykhailivska Street informed The Day that when it comes to Rutte’s interview to the British paper, one should read between the lines. “The Association Agreement says nothing about membership, which is why it is not mentioned in the draft statement either. Membership through the Agreement is not foreseen, so a repetition of this does not rule other ways out. This holds for each clause which is not included in the Agreement. A statement will not add anything, but will create an impression that the concerns of the Dutch opponents were taken seriously. What matters for us as a result, is the Agreement, not the process,” emphasized our interlocutor.

According to him, today Rutte has secured a majority in the lower house, although it is not openly advertised. “He will have the support of D66, a liberal left-wing party. In the Senate the disposition will only be known after the voting in the lower house. The principle of party discipline does not hold in the Senate, although party affiliation could affect the voting,” explained our interlocutor.

All in all, this entire story should have long prompted Kyiv to decide what standpoint the government needs to take in the relations with the EU, on the one hand, and on the other, with its own people, by expounding to them the goals of European integration and the ways of achieving EU membership.

“THE NETHERLANDS’ STAND HAS PRODUCED TWO CONFLICTS”

Mykola KAPITONENKO, executive director of the Center for International Studies, Kyiv:

“At a certain point in time, we made the talks of European integration a key factor of our domestic political life. Unfortunately, it was talks, not results; and it happened not yesterday but at least 11 years ago. Today, Ukraine is becoming a factor of European domestic policy. Our high profile efforts in the eternal struggle for visa liberalization create demand for cautious rhetoric among European voters. The Netherlands’ attempt to force Ukraine to formally give up those serious benefits (security assistance, right to live and work in the EU, direct financial help), which it actually does not have, and will not have for a long time yet, is certainly a step to impress the Dutch voter. The Dutch prime minister is perfectly aware that the Association Agreement does not grant Ukraine any of these privileges, but why not grab this opportunity to flirt with the electorate? The more so that Ukraine itself has turned its modest effort in the European direction into a show.

“The decision-making mechanism inside the EU, particularly in the sphere of foreign policy, has never been normal. Harmonizing the interests of more than two dozen member states has always been a painful, long, and inefficient process. Signing the Association Agreement we should have realized that this is an advance made to the post-Maidan Ukraine, which will very soon end up in disappointment and skepticism in the case of preservation of a weak, corruption-ridden and poor country on the EU’s eastern borders.

“Today the Netherlands’ standpoint has created two conflicts: inside the EU and between the EU or its individual members and Ukraine. It is pointless to wait for the first one to settle: this is a usual state of things. A provisional settlement can be found in a formal support for the Dutch demands by other member states. Meanwhile, the absence of a shared perspective of the future Ukraine-EU relations (their format, content, shared interests and values) offers a challenge first of all to our foreign policy, almost completely based on European rhetoric. If we sign something like what the Dutch prime minister demands today, would it not be best to change the title of the document to the ‘Protocol of Suspending Ukraine’s European Integration’?”