Believes Ambassador of Great Britain to Ukraine Robert BRINKLEY
“For how long will the problems connected with the Kolchugas affect relations between Ukraine and Great Britain?”
“You know what has happened in the last three months. Of course this affair has had an influence on our relations; it has cast a cloud over relations between Britain and the leadership of Ukraine. As you know, the members of NATO decided that the NATO-Ukraine council during the Prague summit meeting should be held on the level of foreign ministers. At that meeting my Foreign Minister Jack Straw said that fundamental change was needed in Ukraine. He acknowledged that would not be easy but said that Great Britain was willing to help in that process of change.
“And I think that should be the theme as we look ahead to the next year: how Britain can help Ukraine in the process of democratic and free market reform, because it’s that process of democratic and economic reforms which will bring Ukraine closer to its ambition of becoming a full member of the European family of nations”.
“Don’t yow think that both sides have approached the line they shouldn’t cross? To what extent this falling off in relations answers London’s intentions? In what way the situation resulting from the Kolchugas affair can be overcome?”
“The experts from the United States and United Kingdom visited Ukraine in October. They were promised full co-operation and transparency. Unfortunately, their experience was mixed in that respect. They left Ukraine with some important questions still unanswered. And those questions are still not answered. The matter is now before the Iraq committee, the so-called 661 Committee of the United Nations’ Security Council. Ukraine has invited the UN to send experts here to look into the Kolchuga affair. But such a visit will not be productive unless the Ukrainian authorities are willing to make available to the UN experts documents and answers to the questions, which they did not give to the American and British experts. This is a serious issue for two reasons. First, the Ukrainian president has been recorded authorising the covered transfer of military radars to the country, which is under embargo by the United Nations’ Security Council. Secondly, British and American pilots are patrolling the so-called no-fly zones established over the South and North of Iraq after the Gulf War to protect the people living there. The Iraqis are trying to shoot down our pilots. If they receive Kolchuga radars, the threat to our pilots will be increased. So, for this reasons this is not something that we could ignore”.
“However, a question arises of a different approach towards the allegations based on a record of an eavesdropped conversation and towards the proved supplies of arms to Iraq by other countries. Another dubious moment is the fact that the United States and Great Britain do not turn with an inquiry on Kolchugas’ allocation to China or Russia. One can hardly call convincing the persistent statements that both countries are represented in the 661 Committee” .
“We treat all allegations of breaches of UN sanctions seriously. In the case of the sanctions against Iraq, the Security Council has established a special committee. I’m not familiar with the details of allegations of supply of arms from countries other than Ukraine. But I think a key factor is the extent to which those countries accused of breaching the sanctions have then behaved; whether they have been open, transparent and co-operative or not. The report by the US and UK experts is now before the 661 Committee, and it is relevant that both Russia and China are members of that Committee”.
“Meanwhile, the allegations against Ukraine haven’t been confirmed by a court of law.”
“We are not talking about the court of law. We are talking about sanctions imposed by the international community and evidence in the form of a recording of President of Ukraine discussing the transfer of arms to Iraq, which was authenticated after painstaking analysis by the US on the basis of the original recording and original recording machine. The attempt by the Ukrainian authorities to reach a different conclusion on the basis of a copy of the recording taken from the Internet is ridiculous.
“In fact, a number of senior Ukrainian officials have not attempted to deny that the conversation took place, but instead have concentrated on the question whether or not the radars were actually transferred to Iraq. What the experts concluded, as you know, is that there remains a credible possibility that the radars were transferred or are in the process of being transferred indirectly, through a third country”.
“How could one prove that they weren’t transferred through a third country?”
“The best way would be to answer the questions of the experts which hadn’t been answered”.
“Were there any changes in this situation after the experts’ report was made public?”
“There have been two discussions in the 661 Committee in New York, but they have been more about procedures than about substance”.
“Thus, the Kolchuga issue remains the “theme of the year” in our relations, doesn’t it?”
“No, I don’t think so. Although it’s a serious matter, the relations between the two countries really go far wider than that. We have a very broad agenda for the coming year, which falls into three main themes. The first is support for democracy, good governance, human rights, and the rule of law. These are fundamental issues for the future of Ukraine. What is holding Ukraine back at the moment is the perception of widespread corruption and arbitrary use of power — perceptions recorded, for example, by Transparency International. It’s well known from studies by the World Bank that the more the country is perceived to be corrupt the less investment it attracts. So there’s a direct relationship between greater openness and transparency and attracting the investment, which is needed for Ukraine’s future prosperity.
“Second thing is security in the broad sense. Our two countries like others face increased threats from terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and organised crime. These threats do not respect national borders. So it’s very important that we work together in the context of the international community to counter this threat. There’s already a dialogue and co- operation between our two governments on this issue that needs to continue and be strengthened.
“Third thing are trade and investment. The Ukrainian economy continues to grow. Inflation is low and the currency is stable. There are potentially big opportunities here for British and other firms. In March the Lord Mayor of London who represents the financial and business interests of the City of London will visit Ukraine. I hope that his visit will enable us to give a boost to our commercial relationship, and will make more widely known between British firms and banks the opportunities that exist in Ukraine. All those firms and banks will make their own decisions based on their own assessment of the benefits and the risks; that is how it should be”.
“So, they can’t assume that now there are more risks than opportunities, can they?”
“Some of them have, but not all. Last year British exports to Ukraine increased by 13%. Great Britain occupies the third place as a foreign investor in Ukraine. We have about 75 British companies represented and working in Ukraine. Most of them are doing good profitable business; if they weren’t, they wouldn’t stay here”.
“What prevents one from increasing their number by at least three or four times?”
“The obstacle for this can be found in the balance of risk and reward. As long as companies and banks — and I’m talking not only about British but about all companies and banks — judge that the environment is not sufficiently transparent, that contracts will not be reliably enforced through the courts, and the legislative background is not clear enough, they will be cautious. One high priority must be a reform of the tax system to simplify it and reduce the large number of exemptions and privileges.
“Around the world British firms and banks are the second biggest overseas investor after the United States. They have huge experience of investing in other countries; they are not scared of it. But they can choose where to put their money, and they will put it where the balance between the reward and risk is more favourable”.
“Do you give any recommendations to British firms? What do you recommend them on this issue? Do you tell them it is worth doing business in Ukraine? In what way does the political background affect business and commercial contacts?”
“One of the jobs of the embassy is giving support and advice to British companies. My staff and I try to give them a truthful and balanced view of the situation. One factor which any company or bank consider in doing business will look at is political risk and political uncertainty. I think it’s impossible to answer such a general question [as to whether it’s worth it to do business in Ukraine]. I have already told you that British companies and banks, which are private organisations, will make their decisions. We would give them our view and try to help them”.
“Would you please name the topics that have had the greatest impact on our countries’ relationship in the last year and scenarios (most negative and most positive ones) for the development of the situation?”
“For this year which is coming to an end I would pick out the themes of democracy and independence of the media. It was a year of election of a new Verkhovna Rada observed by a thousand of international observers, and their conclusion, if I can summarise it in a few words, was that the elections were much better than four years before; they were closer to international standards. But they were still marked by problems of the abuse of the so-called administrative resources and pressures on the media. And that brings me to my second theme: over the last few months there have been, unfortunately, increasing signs of political pressure on the Ukrainian mass media. There were recently parliamentary hearings in which representatives of the journalists as well as of the authorities could debate the issue, and that was on national television. I salute the courage of journalists who have stood up in public and told the truth as they see it. I think Ukraine now needs to move beyond this polarised debate between, on the one side, journalists who say they are suffering political censorship from the authorities and, on the other, the authorities saying there is no problem. Perhaps one way out of this polarised debate would be to have an institution respected on all sides similar to the Press Complaints Commission in Great Britain. If there were such an institution, which were trusted as independent by both sides, it could help to assure the independence of the media. It also would give to those who feel they have grounds for complaint about what is in the press or on television an opportunity to complain.
“As for next year, the worst scenario is that there will be no progress on reform. The best scenario is that the Ukrainian authorities will take forward the commitment they have made to the Council of Europe, in the Partnership and Co-operation Agreement with the EU, and most recently in the action plan agreed between NATO and Ukraine. And I hope, under that optimistic scenario, that there will be real progress towards accession to the WTO by Ukraine. That would mark a real progress towards achievement of a market economy and would improve Ukraine’s position in respect of integration into the European Union”.
“Great Britain initiated the idea of developing by the EU the so-called new neighbour initiative for Ukraine. Why is it necessary to find new initiatives instead of using the existing instruments and mechanisms, which have been successfully used by the countries invited to enter the EU in Copenhagen?”
“British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw in spring this year encouraged other members of the European Union to take a hard look at relations with the countries which will be the east members of the EU after enlargement. That policy has now been agreed within the EU and is a very positive step as a signal of the importance of Ukraine for the EU. It’s recognition that there are many shared interests between the EU and Ukraine. What’s important now is to take that forward on the basis of fully implementing the existing Partnership and Co-operation Agreement. There are large parts of it, which had not been implemented. It’s much more important to concentrate on that substance than to worry about labels”.
“But such a label can also define the substance of relations.”
“What matters is the substance. So it’s the state of the political dialogue, the conditions of trade and investment, the level of co-operation and combating common threats to our security, if we get back to my three main themes for next year. Britain welcomes Ukraine’s ambition to become a full member of European and Euro- Atlantic institutions. There is a parallel here between EU and NATO: both of them in their founding treaties make clear that they are open to European states which share the same values of democracies, rule of law, and free economies. There is no doubt that Ukraine is a European state. There is still a lot of work to do to convince the other members of the EU and NATO that Ukraine shares — not just in words but in deeds — that European standards”.
