Yury SERHIEYEV: Strategic Partnership Implies Mutual Responsibility
It is far from a natural phenomenon when several heads rest on one neck. This was approximately the way many observers assessed our new government whose ministries have been led lately by both ministers and state secretaries. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has been no exception to the rule, that is, the presidential decree. Quite to the contrary, the week before last the president signed a decree instituting the office of one more state secretary, this time for European integration (the post was taken by former first deputy minister Oleksandr Chaly). Thus, as many as three leaders now coexist under the same roof on Mykhailivska Square. Yury Serhieyev, State Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, told The Day about his own vision of Ukraine’s foreign political development.
“What do you think Kyiv should do to prevent partnership with some countries from turning into unilateral dependence?”
“Every state always proceeds from its own interests. Thus it is more correct to speak about Ukrainian foreign policy as pro- Ukrainian rather than pro-Western or pro-Russian. We must create problem-solving mechanisms based on the law, not on the emotions of our friendship, history, etc. Hence, strategic partnership with, say, the European Union, based on a respective program, means that we are making an all out effort to fully integrate in this association. By adopting the appropriate strategy toward us, the European Union has also showed interest in Ukraine. We also declared strategic partnership with the United States. What for? The US is one of the guarantors of our nuclear security. To build relations of strategic partnership with the United States still requires much work. Kyiv and Washington have come into a conflict of interests associated with intellectual property or antidumping investigations. But this is not a state conflict. From the very outset, it dealt with specific companies. We can also cite some US legal actions related to the cassette scandal and the granting of political asylum to Major Melnychenko: these actions by no means testify to our strategic partnership. We said it frankly. We are pleased that after the White House had finally formed its staff the two countries have resumed the critically-important dialogue. Ukraine is aware of US support in many international institutions. I would like to remind you of the European Union’s GЪteborg summit at which the United States expressed interest in Ukraine joining the EU. What I mean is that the disparity of some interests should not lead to any confrontation. When they carry out an antidumping investigation, this does not mean we should immediately strike them off the list of our partners. We should not do so, for this will result in an international psychosis, which would make it impossible to solve any problems. One must get to the root of the matter and remind the United States that we are speaking about a partnership that implies responsibility of both parties. Russia is also our nuclear guarantor and our closest neighbor, so we are naturally interested in good relations with it. There was a long span of time when the Russians constantly thrust the political factor into our economic relations by shutting off and on the pipeline. No matter how difficult it was, we still managed to solve this problem. The political factor is being less and less resorted to, for example, in oil and gas negotiations.”
“The popular perception is that the main reason why the European Union is now taking a dim view of Ukraine is its scattered vectors and vacillation from East to West. Do you agree?”
“Perhaps there is not a single country with only one vector of foreign policy. Globalization requires multilateral cooperation if national interests are to be fully served. Ukraine’s chief strategic reference point is integration into the European Union. Yet, the world is now being integrated in several parts: Europe, North and South America, and the East. We should not flout the market requirements that we are able to meet with our products. So a multidirectional approach should not be regarded as a waffling one. Rather, one should say that there is the main reference point and other interests as part of a multidirectional policy. Let me give you a concrete example: of great importance for us was chairmanship in the UN Security Council. To obtain a place in this UN structure, we had to work with all 189 countries of the world. A multidirectional approach is important in order to defend our interests in the OSCE and the Council of Europe. We must work with more than one partner. Dividing Ukraine between the West and the East, we must compare the comparable. We have our interests in both parts. Kyiv’s interests in the Russian Federation are called forth by the fact that Russia accounts for a considerable portion of our surplus- value foreign export. We are interested in friendly, good-neighborly relations with one of the largest of our neighbors.”
“And what can you say about Ukraine’s interests in the suspension of heavy weapons supplies to the Macedonian government, which occurred either by mutual agreement or due to pressure on the part of the European Union and the US? Incidentally, the Western press is increasingly alleging that Kyiv continues to secretly supply weapons to Macedonia.”
“Some time ago, we held negotiations with the independent sovereign Republic of Macedonia on military and technical cooperation, which resulted in the signing of contracts on the supply of certain categories of armaments. These contracts were fulfilled. I will note that the deliveries of weapons began long before the Kosovo conflict crossed the borders of Kosovo and entered the territory of Macedonia. All international attempts to check the new conflict have proven futile. NATO and EU representatives saw an opportunity to offer some compromise schemes. The European Union and then the US requested us — without pressure — to suspend deliveries for the period of negotiations in order to try to conclude this agreement and thus reconcile the two sides. We accepted precisely this interpretation. Anatoly Zlenko, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, and Javier Solana, Secretary General of the Council of the European Union, visited Macedonia. Our standpoint in this issue is very important, for we enjoy a clearly friendly attitude on the part of Macedonia. We have fulfilled all that we were supposed to. Thus all stories about Ukrainian violations during the negotiating process in Macedonia are nothing but concoctions. I would like to note this: the British Times and Independent carried articles saying that Ukraine trades with Macedonia transparently and fairly, while some Western and Eastern European states are secretly delivering arms to that country. So the truth is nobody exerted pressure on us, but we showed ourselves as partners, strategic partners.”
“When are we going to resume supplies to Macedonia?”
“This is a question of time.”
“Why has the Ukrainian leadership finally rejected the idea of establishing a ministry of European integration?”
“Decisions made by the leadership are not dogma. We are searching for and studying the experience of the countries that entered the EU earlier or later, and those that are only going to enter. The experience of Poland, Hungary and Slovakia, in which such ministries existed, shows that these countries were in the long run forced to disband them. It is very difficult for a ministry like this alone to make an impact on other ministries, because they are at the same level. This is why they would establish supra-ministerial mechanisms. The vice premier of Ukraine in charge of economic matters has also been appointed chief coordinator of European integration. A presidential decree has appointed former first deputy minister of foreign affairs Oleksandr Chaly as state secretary, in charge of European integration within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. We shall see how things go. It is more important to look for all mechanisms to speed up the process.”
