Synchronizing watches

The 8th meeting of the diplomatic corps in Kyiv took place recently in a new format, at a time when the two key branches of power are competing for control of Ukraine’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. President Viktor Yushchenko was the first to communicate with its officials, followed by Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych. The meeting took place on the eve of the early parliamentary elections to the Verkhovna Rada, which has the constitutional right to determine Ukraine’s domestic and foreign policy guidelines.

Was the meeting a success? Did the two Ukrainian leaders hit the right note and assign our diplomats adequate tasks? These and other questions are answered below in The Day ’s exclusive interview with Volodymyr YELCHENKO, the permanent representative of Ukraine to various international organizations in Vienna and Ukraine’s former Ambassador to Austria.

How do you assess the 8th meeting of the heads of Ukrainian diplomatic missions and the tasks drafted by the president and the prime minister?

Yelchenko: First of all, I would not divide these meetings into parts. This one was a complex project that included several sessions. Of course, the tone was set on the very first day when the president and the prime minister put in an appearance. For me, the important thing was that the president and the prime minister spoke the same language. Their viewpoints did not contradict each other; it wasn’t a political struggle. Our leaders calmly voiced their views on our foreign policy. Neither expressed any radical, revolutionary ideas. The thing is that this meeting was not meant to air such ideas. First and foremost, it was an opportunity for our ambassadors to communicate freely with each other and with the new foreign minister - five or six months after his appointment. In other words, the minister, and all of us, had an excellent opportunity to exchange ideas. What I like about him is that he is an absolutely pragmatic individual. He is not a theoretician, like some of our past cabinet members, but a person who sees concrete tasks and wants to hear from our ambassadors about how to turn these tasks into something beneficial for Ukraine. This was the main theme of the meeting; there was also a meeting that took place informally within the framework of the talks and one in Odesa, where we had more opportunities to talk with the foreign minister.

On the other hand, what made this meeting unique was the fact that it took place one month prior to the elections. The president and the prime minister emphasized the same thing: that Ukrainian embassies should not, under any circumstances, become involved in the political struggle, politicize it, or side with any political forces. I clearly remember how it was in 1999, when the picture was totally different. Therefore, our task is to organize normal and transparent elections for Ukrainians abroad, so that they can cast their ballots in accordance with set procedures, without any excesses. In view of the changes to the election law adopted by the Verkhovna Rada, I believe it will be somewhat more complicated to organize this process in foreign electoral districts.

Do you believe that the government leaders on Mykhailivska, Bankova, or Hrushevsky streets are listening to the ideas submitted by Ukraine’s ambassadors? In other words, are you sure that your recommendations and memos, and those of your colleagues, won’t disappear down a “black hole”?

Yelchenko: It’s hard for me to talk about the embassies, but from my experience in Vienna I know that whenever we are preparing some really important information, at least 90 percent of it reaches people who can relay it to the president or the prime minister, if not directly to the heads of state and government. I could cite several examples when such data concerned the CSCE and questions that are important to Ukraine, such as the settlement of the Transdnistria and Kosovo issues. I know for sure that these issues were brought to the attention of the president and the prime minister. Personally, I have never heard any complaints along these lines. I think this is a bit of an overstatement. After all, every ambassador sincerely believes that his report concerns the most important issues that require immediate attention on the highest level. Now this can be a somewhat biased approach. There are people on the president and prime minister’s payrolls who have a broader view of a situation, who can read an ambassador’s message and pick up precisely what they think should be reported upstairs.

Do you think that the current situation, with the president and the prime minister trying to influence Ukraine’s foreign policy, is narrowing Ukraine’s opportunities in the international arena?

Yelchenko: I think it’s a good sign that our president and prime minister are speaking the same foreign policy language. Yes, there are certain differences in their tactics, but I don’t see any in their views on global issues; at least I have never heard any complaints in Vienna, from the OSCE or UN people about our partners not knowing with whom they are dealing. All of them are perfectly aware that there is the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, where tasks set both by the cabinet and the head of state are duly analyzed before they are carried out, with the president formulating a stand and conveying it to an embassy. These tasks are then relayed to our partners. This is a normal situation. By the way, you know very well that there are many countries facing as many problems as we are. There are also differences between the heads of the government and the state, yet this in no way prevents these countries from implementing their foreign policy course.

As an ambassador of Ukraine, you conveyed our president’s edict dissolving the Ukrainian parliament to the Austrian government. Meanwhile, the other side is insisting that our parliament is legitimate. Are these differences between the branches of power interfering with your professional performance?

Yelchenko: I will reply to this question diplomatically, or discreetly. The situation is not exactly favorable. The thing is that all our partners, be they from Austria or the United States, realize that we have to resolve this issue in Ukraine. In other words, this is not the kind of laundry that should be aired in public. This is a purely internal matter. We hope that the situation is clarified after the elections, then we won’t have to discuss whether the Verkhovna Rada is legitimate or not. The elections have been designated, and they are supposed to establish everything.

COMMENTARIES

Roman SHPEK, Ukraine’s representative to European communities:

I believe that the meeting of the heads of Ukrainian diplomatic missions, held on Aug. 27-30 in Kyiv, was useful, effective, constructive, and informative. Both the president and the prime minister of Ukraine spoke respectfully about the work of the foreign ministry and the diplomatic service, and set tasks that are supposed to become priority ones for Ukraine’s foreign ministry in general and on the road to integration into the European and North Atlantic communities in particular.

I would not talk about the common and divergent features of the tasks outlined by Viktor Yushchenko and Viktor Yanukovych. They are mutually supplementary and, as a result, they create a single complex of tasks aimed at furthering Ukraine’s economic and social progress, improving its investment opportunities, presenting the appropriate image of Ukraine in the international political arena, and championing our country’s foreign policy positions.

The leaders of our diplomatic institutions are called upon to help optimize foreign trade, open new markets for Ukrainian products, and develop cooperation in the energy sphere, particularly in the field of merging energy systems, diversification of power supplies, energy- saving technologies, and efficiency. The key issue of Ukraine’s foreign economic policy must be its WTO membership this year, and we still have to exert some efforts to this end. In addition, there is a great deal of attention being focused on the Ukraine-EU talks concerning the new agreement and its important component — the creation of a free trade area.

Another important task is to activate work linked to the protection of civil rights in Ukraine and the interests of Ukrainian businesses abroad, develop and implement cultural information centers, image-building programs, fairs and exhibitions, and step up other public measures.

The discussion of issues relating to the strengthening of the Ukrainian diplomatic service and reforms within the foreign ministry framework was also important.

To sum up, I would like to note that the main order issued by our political leadership to our ambassadors is to focus on end results, not on the “sound effects” of our work.

Oleh DIOMIN, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Ukraine to the Russian Federation:

I think that such meetings are very useful. They are an opportunity to synchronize our watches, so to speak, with regard to a whole range of foreign policy issues; discuss the strategic aspects of relations between Ukraine and the international community of nations; and receive guidelines from the president, the prime minister, and foreign minister for the next few years. Such meetings offer a unique opportunity to communicate with fellow ambassadors and share interesting experiences and solutions to various problems in various countries.

The foreign policy priorities outlined by the president and the prime minister address the most important national interests of Ukraine. I believe that one should not look for similarities or differences between the tasks assigned to our diplomatic service. It all actually boils down to the fact that the activity of the foreign ministry and other ministries and departments of Ukraine must focus on strategic problems, the solutions to which will provide the prerequisites for accelerating the economic growth of our country, strengthening its international positions, and improving the living standard of our citizens, no matter where they live — in Ukraine or outside its borders.

All told, the meeting of the heads of Ukrainian diplomatic missions attested to the mutual desires of the country’s leadership and government to ensure unity and the coordinated nature of Ukraine’s foreign policy course, nullify its politicization, and help the Ukrainian diplomatic service adjust to modern geopolitical and domestic realities.

Oleh SHAMSHUR, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Ukraine to the United States:

In my opinion, this conference of the heads of Ukrainian diplomatic missions followed a constructive course and turned out to be productive. We had a very tight schedule. There were three plenary meetings within four days, involving the president, the prime minister, and the foreign minister of Ukraine; there were also five sectoral meetings pertaining to various issues, and finally an away session in Odesa. The items on the agenda were important to all of my colleagues because, on the one hand, they related to foreign policy guidelines, and on the other, they addressed practical matters relating to the activity of the foreign ministry and foreign missions and the upgrading of their performance. To my mind, the thorough discussion of the current status and prospects of Ukraine-US relations was an especially important one.

What the president and the prime minister of Ukraine had to say in their presentations corresponded to their respective places within the system of formulating and implementing Ukraine’s foreign policy, particularly the leading role being played in this process by President Yushchenko. Also important was the joint orientation toward achieving concrete results in the implementation of foreign policy and external economic tasks and projects, which have a strategic character for Ukraine. Special attention was paid to Ukraine’s entry into the WTO and European and Euro- Atlantic integration.

Ihor DOLHOV, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Ukraine to Germany:

Holding conferences of the heads of diplomatic missions is standard practice in many countries. Such meetings are an important link in the chain of direct communication between the political leadership, foreign ministry, and diplomatic corps. I believe that an opportunity for such direct communication is always effective because it allows for broader prospects and an overview of the existing situation outside the framework of bilateral relations and regional processes with which ambassadors and other diplomatic personnel have to cope on a daily basis. Therefore, for me, as an organizer of such conferences in the past, this year’s was especially important and useful because, among other things, I had an opportunity to voice my ideas and proposals, and hear my colleagues’ views.

I would like to point out that in numerous commentaries and media reports about this meeting of ambassadors there is one vital aspect missing: the very preparatory work for this important conference was a powerful organizing factor, since it was carried out not only by the foreign ministry and diplomatic missions but also by many other ministries and agencies whose officials attended the conference. Therefore, the analytical proceedings are, on the one hand, a generalization of this year’s situation, and on the other, a fundamental basis for further progress.

I believe that one of the conference’s major results is its transparent nature and the fact that it attracted public attention to Ukrainian foreign policy issues. The president and prime minister’s speeches were attended by journalists, and many of my colleagues spoke with media people, which is a hallmark of an open democratic society. This is also proof that our citizens are taking an increasing interest in problems relating to international development and the activities of Ukraine’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Before broaching the subject of our tasks, I would like to stress that it was very important for the conference participants to hear the president and the prime minister’s favorable assessments of the work of Arsenii Arseniuk and his foreign ministry. This was important not only from the professional and moral standpoints, but also because our government regards the foreign ministry as a key, reliable link in the system of the executive branch, which not only coordinates foreign relations but in many respects generates new ideas and implements new principles and approaches.

Volodymyr KHANDOHII, First Deputy Foreign Minister of Ukraine:

It has become a tradition to hold conferences of the heads of Ukraine’s diplomatic missions every two years. Such conferences are held primarily in order to exchange opinions on the international situation and Ukraine’s foreign policy in order to “synchronize our watches,” so this practice will always be topical. In my opinion, the 8th meeting was full and effective, and to a significant degree this was due to the structurization of the sessions. Topical foreign policy questions were chosen: general ones, like the foreign policy priorities of our state, its external economic activity, and the strengthening of its politico-diplomatic accompaniment in various regions of the world; concrete ones, like the negotiating process with the EU concerning the new base agreement and the creation of a free trade area, accession to the WTO, protection of the rights and interests of juridical and physical persons abroad; simplification of visa procedures; launch of the foreign ministry’s call center; transborder, energy, and transportation cooperation, and so on.

A number of executive documents were prepared, based on the results of the conference and in keeping with the instructions and tasks issued by the president and the prime minister. Therefore, from the point of view of the effectiveness of the diplomatic service and the tasks assigned to it, this conference was an extremely important event.

As for the tasks, the main thread in the speeches delivered by the president and the prime minister was that the diplomatic missions must step up work along economic lines. Even though serious headway has been made, there are still aspects of cooperation with Latin American and Asian countries, Australia, and Africa that need to be developed. The president and the prime minister also stressed the importance of European integration.

As far as differences are concerned, the president and the prime minister emphasized different sets of problems. The president focused on meeting the basic needs of state building and the completion of top priority foreign policy projects; work geared to top-priority foreign policy directions; Ukraine’s participation in international organizations; guaranteeing Ukrainian citizens’ rights and businesses abroad; and boosting Ukraine’s cultural presence in the world. President Yushchenko also spoke about the need to substantially improve the system of diplomatic training and introduce reforms in the diplomatic service.

The prime minister, meanwhile, focused attention on stepping up economic and investment cooperation with other countries. Viktor Yanukovych stressed the importance of strengthening Ukraine’s energy security, securing stable economic growth, solving social problems, and raising the competitiveness of the Ukrainian economy and its international prestige. Ukraine-NATO cooperation was a separate topic.