Ambassador of Canada to Ukraine Andrew Robinson is convinced

The new Canadian Ambassador to Ukraine is convinced that in the current situation Ukraine has obtained significant chances to broaden its cooperation with NATO and the world community in general. Unlike his colleagues, he refuses to comment on Ukraine’s situation, stating only that the special partnership between Ukraine and Canada is developing steadily. In his interview with The Day Ambassador Robinson spoke about how much appreciated is Ukraine’s contribution to the antiterrorist operation. He tried to avoid mentioning problems, which nevertheless do exist: particularly, in his view, with Canadian businessmen who originally brought to Ukraine their capital with high hopes, but as a result got burned. And changes in Ukraine are not enough to improve its image immediately.

Previously Mr. Robinson worked as an ambassador to Jordan, as well as in foreign diplomatic posts in Prague, London, Beirut, and Cairo. All the questions asked in the interview with Ambassador might be the subjects for the Kyiv conversations of the Canadian Foreign Minister Manly who will visit Ukraine in the immediate future. Incidentally, this will be the first visit from a ranking North American official since the summer.

How do Canadians now perceive Ukraine with all its domestic problems, taking into consideration also that Canada has always sympathized Ukraine and that Ukraine’s image has suffered serious damage?

I would say that we’ve always had a very positive image, very positive relationship with Ukraine. We have signed a special document, which reflects the special partnership between Canada and Ukraine. One of the features of this special partnership is a meeting once every eighteen months of an intergovernmental economic commission. That meeting just took place a month ago, and it reaffirmed this special relationship and resulted in a very positive agreement on prospects for our future cooperation.

I would also say that Canadians have had lots of things on the burner lately, and they don’t wake up every morning, thinking about Ukraine or any other countries of the world. We don’t intend to comment in detail the way the government handles every problem here. Certainly, the incident with the airplane was a mistake, a tragedy; the president has taken actions, and, as a result, we hope that there will not be any such accidents in the future.

Many countries, including Ukraine, welcomed Ukraine’s economic growth. You mentioned that the last session of the intergovernmental commission brought forth major prospects for cooperation. However, Canadian business activity does not increase. What is the reason for this? What is necessary to improve the business climate if it is not yet satisfactory? What is Canadian capital’s general attitude toward Ukraine? Are Canadians coming to Ukraine or leaving?

This is not a Canadian specific que stion; it’s a question of how foreign businessmen see the investment climate here. The intergovernmental economic commission that we have is a floor on which we can discuss with the Ukrainian side some of the prospects for future economic cooperation, and we can have a free conversation about the obstacles that are preventing major progress in that economic relation. We are very happy to have this forum because it does enable Canadian businessmen to hear more about the opportunities in Ukraine, and it enables Ukrainians to hear directly from Canadian businessmen and investors about some of the problems they face. We do this, clearly understanding that we are friends with Ukraine, from the standpoint that the best way we can be best friends of Ukrainians is to point out to them the challenges that they still face and the opportunities that have been missed as a result of the regulatory situation in Ukraine.

Ukraine has made substantial economic growth; there has been a substantial improvement in the economic climate. Ukraine represents a very large market with very promising fields of partnership. But unfortunately this isn’t quite enough to attract foreign businessmen here and to take advantage of the investment opportunities, which should exist here and should be developed for the benefit of Ukraine’s people.

We are hopeful that working with Ukraine in this way we can help the Ukrainian government to pursue its own interests, the interests of Ukraine people, by opening up the market further, by deregulating what is now regulated, by simplifying and rationalizing the tax law, license law, the customs law, and generally to help support those in the Ukrainian government to recognize that these things must be done in order to make a significant difference in the economy and further prospects of Ukraine.

Originally many Canadians invested in Ukraine because of their positive feeling about this country. But they had bad experiences as a result. Now I would say that the attitude of Canadian investors is similar to that of other foreign investors. The figures speak for themselves: you know that foreign direct investment in Ukraine is about 4 billion dollars. Compared with the level of foreign direct investment in Hungary or in Poland, this is just a fraction of what it is in those countries. So, foreign investors, whether Canadian or from other nationalities, make a careful analysis of where they are going to invest, and they have got choices.

Is it possible that the way in which the parliamentary elections of 2002 are conducted and their results will affect our bilateral relations, or will they be just an episode without any such influence? Canada is greatly attached to the principle of the free and fair elections. We have already been invited to come to Ukraine to monitor the elections. We deal with that monitoring role seriously and responsibly as we always do, but from a position of friendship. I’m confident that the elections that are going to take place here will show the responsibility of the electoral commission and Ukrainian authorities, their respect for the principles of freedom and fairness, that the elected parliament will be able to deal with the many challenges that Ukraine will face.

Were the accents put correctly in the antiterrorist operation from the very start? Is Canadian society prepared for the fact that this operation will perhaps be a long and hard one and will not be limited to arresting Osama bin Laden? I would say that the elements that have been most on the minds of Canadians have been the events of September 11, and the way they have affected life, the economy, and international relations. In that area we have nothing but good to say about how Ukraine has also reacted positively in terms of recognizing the need for cooperation. This applies also to the question of humanitarian agreement, of humanitarian flights, and also to the way in which Ukraine has shown its openness to cooperating in other areas, such as complying with the United Nations Security Council Resolution concerning money laundering. These are questions which have really taken up the attention of the Canadian government, as well as the need to be actively engaged in the fight against terrorism internationally and also a need for a fresh look at whatever domestic implications of the threat that were not visible before.

We recognize this will cost money, and it will require either some new resources or redistribution the resources of the existing budget. Canada has already committed a number of military assets to support the combined military efforts of the coalition, which includes five naval vessels, some transport and rescue aircraft, as well as a number of military personnel, both in connection with this equipment and for the tasks.

We have certainly admired the role that Ukraine is playing in the Security Council debates on this issue.

We very much welcomed announcement by President Kuchma last week about the willingness of Ukraine to make its aircraft available to the international effort for humanitarian purposes. I am sure that there will be further discussion as the needs of the humanitarian aircraft become more evident.

Is Canada planning to send its ground troops to the coalition?

There has been no request to Canada on this issue. But we are cooperating closely with the United States; we have contributed elements of our army and air force.

I should mention also that we are contributing in a major rate to the humanitarian efforts referred to the needs of the affected people within Afghanistan. Over the last six or seven years we have contributed $50 million dollars (Canadian, about $32.5 million US — Ed.) in food aid to Afghanistan. We have just announced a further $11-12 million this week.

There are certainly no expectations that this is going to be an instantaneous operation, which is to bring immediate results. There is recognition that the struggle against terrorism has to be carried on many fronts, not just a military front in Afghanistan, although that is important given that the Taliban rejected demands to hand over Osama bin Laden; they recognized that they have this possibility if they wanted to. It has to be carried out in many other fronts as well including improving the possibilities of cooperating with regard to international police and law enforcement matters, especially so that security can be made effective again for the population of the world.

As to the attitude of the Canadian public, we have had several debates in our parliament first of all on the issue of the Canadian contribution itself, which has led in course of a very strong statement by Prime Minister ChrОtien. Some other bills have been introduced and now been adopted with fresh light as the result of the September 11 event. What are the great advantages of Canada is that we have a parliament in which different views can be expressed in Parliament before the laws are actually passed.

After September 11 the US, Germany, and Great Britain have passed laws, giving their special services more authority and tightening safety measures and immigration policy. Will Canada follow their example? Will this somehow affect the visa process?

The immigration law in fact is revised about once every eleven or twelve years, and the revisions have just passed Parliament, which has just been debating it also in the light of the September 11 events. However, despite those events, the government didn’t make any change in the version of the immigration act which had already been presented to the House, and it has been passed in the form in which it was introduced to the House. It makes a number of changes to the Immigration Act. They have more connections with how refugee can claim asylum in Canada and not with the part related to legal immigration or visitors from Ukraine. So the short answer is no, there have been no changes to our immigration policies as a result of the September 11 events.

Could the newly created international antiterrorist coalition become a model for international relations in the new century? Can NATO’s role and functions be revised in this context, or could a new context appear, a new field for NATO- Ukraine cooperation?

The answer is yes to both questions. In other words, international events are always evolving; the international situation in which governments must act is always evolving throughout all of history. But it has evolved very significantly as a result of events of September 11, and it is continuing to evolve at a higher rate.

For Ukraine, I believe, this offers opportunities, especially with regard to its closer cooperation with NATO. There’s already, of course, considerable Ukrainian cooperation with the Partnership for Peace Program. Canada is a major contributor to that, and to the operating of Ukraine’s program to reform its Armed Forces. We strongly support closer collaboration between Ukraine and NATO. So I would say that there are real opportunities for Ukraine both with regard to its broader cooperation with NATO and the international community in order to make itself better known.