Clenched fist and open hand policy

This year’s major foreign political challenge for Ukraine, apart from Russia’s aggression, is the Dutch Ukraine-EU Association Agreement referendum, scheduled for April 6. The Netherlands is the only EU country to have decided on a referendum after the agreement was ratified by both parliaments. Some 448,000 valid requests for a referendum were submitted [within six weeks, more than the required number of 300,000 requests] and today most of the population oppose the agreement. On February 19, the Dutch government published the referendum’s strategy. This prompted my first question in an interview using Skype with the Ukrainian Ambassador to The Netherlands, Oleksandr HORIN. The ambassador further commented on Ukraine’s strategy aimed at getting a positive referendum vote.

SANCTIONS ARE A WAY TO CHANGE RUSSIA’S BEHAVIOR, NOT A STRATEGY

“I’m familiar with this document. Having a communications strategy is standard practice here. By the way, both Houses and the Cabinet have an agreement on working out such documents with regard to any issue. I can tell you that this isn’t a campaign because the government isn’t funding it. The whole thing remains on the communications level, but no one can forbid the Cabinet to tell its members to campaign for what they consider to be best for The Netherlands.”

In this document the Cabinet members call for convincing the electorate that the Association Agreement will be good for trade and for the Ukrainian in the street, yet the referendum has nothing to do with the conflict between Ukraine and Russia, or with Putin. Isn’t this referendum a signal of disillusionment with the EU? What do you think?

“This is the Dutch government’s way to avoid stressing the conflict, otherwise it would play into the hands of the agreement opponents. They argue that its ratification and implementation would lead to confrontation. During the ratification debates in the Senate a representative of a political party [the Ukrainian ambassador thought it best not to name names. – Ed.] that opposed the agreement referred to it as a ‘confrontation agreement.’ Regrettably, there is this attitude in The Netherlands. The Dutch don’t want any confrontations with Russia. Their idea is that any issue concerning Russia should be negotiated in order to find a solution to the problem. And this considering that the Dutch government takes an expressly firm stand with regard to Russia. It has reiterated The Netherlands’ respect for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, even being prepared to support harsher sanctions against Russia unless it complies with the Minsk Agreements and changes its conduct. To the Dutch, sanctions aren’t strategy but a way to change Russia’s conduct. In other words, they are waging a clenched-fist-and-open-hand policy – when one offers a hand over the negotiating table, but this hand can become a clenched fist in response [to aggression]. This stand has been reiterated by Foreign Minister Bert Koenders.”

REFERENDUM SHOWS DUTCH ATTITUDE TO EU

What about the three political parties opposing the referendum? The Economist tags it “dodgy” and European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker says it could unleash a “continental conflict.”

“To begin with, The Netherlands hosts the largest number of EU skeptics. The Dutch are historically self-sufficient and have been fortunate enough to find allies when facing challenges from the North, East or West. They practice a special principled approach that may not coincide with that of separate EU leaders. On the one hand, they are well aware of the importance of the European Union as Project United Europe. On the other hand, they are sharply opposed to certain trends within the EU. In their opinion, it is over-bureaucratized, so most in The Netherlands are against its red tape. In particular, they regard the EU’s expansion as a bureaucratic move aimed at incorporating more countries, so the EU can look like a strong player in the field. The Dutch believe this leads to a situation where each new member can cut a piece of the pie, thus increasing the burden on the rest of the EU countries. This is something the Dutch will never accept. Interestingly, the Dutch diplomat, Frans Timmermans, is the First Vice-President of the European Commission, European Commissioner for Better Regulation, Inter-Institutional Relations, the Rule of Law and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. That’s the Dutch way to influence the EU.

“As for the referendum, it will most likely reflect the Dutch attitude to the EU. I’ve been told on several occasions that the referendum isn’t aimed against Ukraine but against the EU, that Ukraine shouldn’t feel offended, that the Ukraine-EU Association Agreement is just the first issue that found itself on the first referendum agenda. Well, if truth be told, the first issue was the agreement with Georgia, the second one with Moldova, so Ukraine came third. They chose Ukraine, so other factors must have been involved. These factors explain the choice of Ukraine as the referendum issue. Many people here openly refer to our neighbor’s [Russia’s. – Ed.] influence.”

How is this influence manifesting itself?

“Ninety-nine percent of the arguments against the Ukraine-EU Association Agreement on the part of www.geenstijl.nl and other parties opposing the agreement are borrowed from Russia, including confrontation, Ukraine’s east-west division, the inability to overcome corruption – the works, and all this from what was recently considered to be a brotherly country that has turned into our worst enemy.”

RUSSIA’S LIES ABOUT NOT VIOLATING INTERNATIONAL LAW REGARDED IRONICALLY IF NOT SARCASTICALLY

How are the Dutch media covering the referendum and the war in the east of Ukraine?

“Russia’s aggression against Ukraine isn’t being covered the way we’d prefer. On the one hand, the Dutch media are paying much attention to domestic problems (there are many). On the other hand, the Dutch simply don’t want to get involved. Their [formal] stand is best summed up as follows: ‘We’re doing business, this mess will be over, sooner or later, and we’ll have to keep doing business.’ On the man-in-the-street level, everything is perfectly clear; everyone supports Ukraine, everyone knows that it’s a war of aggression, that Russia unlawfully occupied Crimea. The Hague is considered to be the capital of international law and it takes a dim view of the Russian State Duma’s resolutions aimed at ignoring international treaties. All of Russia’s lies about having never violated international law are regarded ironically, if not sarcastically.”

You mean the Dutch media are avoiding the subject of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine. Are there any supporters of Ukraine among the Dutch philosophers or journalists – like Robert van Voren who wrote that he was ashamed of the Dutch attitude to Ukraine?

“Few in The Netherlands make such public straightforward statements as Robert van Voren does, but there are many people who support us, judging by the letters we have been receiving at the embassy. On separate occasions people have requested information about how to enlist in the Ukrainian Army or Air Force. We’ve been receiving postcards with words of sympathy with the current complicated domestic situation and assurances that the sender will vote for the agreement during the referendum. Despite Russia’s attempts to discredit Ukraine – I mean the MH17 explosion over Donbas – there has been no outburst of negative public mood toward Ukraine. It is true that certain Dutch politicians have tried to capitalize on the MH17 tragedy, but then there was the final technical report (we’re waiting for the criminal investigation findings) and their attempts proved futile. The Dutch are meticulously processing all evidence in the case and will submit it when they’re ready, but even now it is safe to assume that the findings will be very disheartening for the Russian Federation. I believe the preparatory phase will take another six months. Here the main thing is not when but how, so that the case, when heard in court, will not cause any doubts.”

The MH17 tribunal attempt failed because Russia vetoed the UN Security Council’s resolution. What is the Dutch vision of the process?

“Foreign Minister Bert Koenders said the UN option is out because of Russia’s stand in the matter. Two options left: (a) tribunal based in one country – The Netherlands or Malaysia whose nationals died in the explosion, and (b) tribunal made by several countries.

MANY OPPOSED ASSOCIATION AGREEMENT, BUT WHEN EXPLAINED IN SIMPLE TERMS, CHANGED THEIR MIND

You said the government isn’t funding the referendum, but a recent BBC report points to some €50,000 worth of Dutch taxpayers’ money allocated to a private company that will manufacture and sell rolls of toilet paper with mottos against the ratification of the Ukraine-EU Association Agreement.

“There is information to that effect, but this doesn’t mean that the government is involved in or with some or other company by allocating money. Under the Dutch law, this referendum will be suspensory and non-binding and the law provides for campaign subsidies. In other words, these subsidies are valid for those who will say yea, nay or who will abstain. This is done to encourage people to familiarize themselves with the issue on the agenda, so they can make the right decision. Expediency is another matter, I mean placing on a referendum agenda a law on the ratification of an international agreement. It is like polling the electorate to determine who is the guilty party in a criminal case. Today the main campaign being waged by organizations in The Netherlands (with some NGOs in Ukraine) is aimed at convincing people to at least make a conscious decision. People must know what they are dealing with. Experience shows that there were people who originally opposed the agreement, but after it was explained to them in simple terms, they changed their mind. This sounds optimistic, considering who will actually benefit from the agreement. A Belgian lawyer specializing in the European Union published a good article on the possible consequences of a negative referendum. He is convinced that The Netherlands will be the only country on the losing side. The others will benefit from the positive aspects of the agreement. The Dutch are pragmatic, they have to be convinced that they will be on the losing side alone. The embassy has no right to campaign while preparations are being made for the referendum. All we can do is provide unbiased information, we can’t call for support for the agreement, not under the 1961 Vienna Convention.”

Our Foreign Minister Pavlo Klimkin said in his progress report before the Verkhovna Rada’s Foreign Relations Committee that the Dutch referendum is one of the challenges facing Ukraine this year. He added that, in order to have a positive result, we must show the true Ukraine. What do you think Ukraine’s strategy should be in this case?

“First, we must demonstrate our achievements, our people. Also, what happened on the Maidan. There is the Ukrainian documentary Winter on Fire nominated for Oscar. Our idea is to screen it on the largest possible scale in Holland. This documentary answers many questions the Dutch have for us. I think this is a very important project that should be carried out in the first place. Second, we should show for The Netherlands to see that Ukraine is a benefit, not a burden for Europe. For example, Ukraine could guarantee safe food supplies to Europe. Ukraine has rich uranium ore deposits as the most effective energy source. Not to mention our famous chernozem. After visiting Ukraine in 2010, the Dutch agriculture minister told journalists that our black topsoil is so fertile it grows practically anything you plant. That was what Foreign Minister Klimkin had in mind – demonstrate what Ukraine can accomplish and thus convince the Dutch that the agreement will open up new business horizons for them. Of course, there are difficulties, world capital and investment market competition. Despite this, The Netherlands remains the second biggest investor in the Ukrainian economy after Cyprus, although the trade turnover has decreased somewhat and constitutes $1.5 billion.”

DUTCH GOVERNMENT COULD USE SUSPENSORY NON-BINDING CLAUSE NOT TO ACCEPT REFERENDUM RESULT AS DE FACTO BINDING

Mr. Horin, have you been in touch with the leaders of the parties that are in opposition to the Association Agreement?

“A good question. After speaking with a member of one such party I found myself wondering about a reasonable, rational person being a member of a party with such a platform. You could argue with him and he would listen, but then he would be back on the party line with the anti-agreement rhetoric. In a word, he would listen to your reasoning but end up being unconvinced. In fact, the Dutch supporters of the agreement say they won’t argue their case in an audience which is a priori against it. They don’t need such audiences because there is no way to change their attitude. Instead, they promise to actively argue their case in an audience made up of people who are still undecided, who aren’t sure they will benefit from the agreement. These people can be convinced and they will do their best to convince them.”

The EU-critical Amsterdam Professor of Financial Geography, Ewald Engelen, said that citizens can easily afford to vote no: “the genius of [the referendum] is that it has no consequence; the treaty will be ratified anyway. It is a crystal clear popularity poll: for or against the [political] caste – that is the question.” Do you think this quote could be used in support of the Association Agreement?

“I’d say yes if The Netherlands weren’t such a developed democracy. In fact, I think the Dutch government could use the suspensory non-binding clause, so the outcome of the referendum would not have a de facto binding status – as some political parties are struggling to make it have it, calling for listening to the vox populi. The Dutch government could argue that they had done precisely as laid down in the law, that they had heard the voice of the people.”

“However, considering that the Association Agreement had been signed before the suspensory non-binding bill was passed, and that it was practically impossible to make any corrections together with the partners, we thank everyone for the views on the matter; we consider this coming suspensory non-binding referendum to be an important instrument of democracy, but in our case we must fulfill the obligations we have imposed upon ourselves and which we cannot refuse. By the way, I agree with certain Dutch lawyers who say that the Dutch government could have finished the ratification process by taking the instruments of ratification and forwarding them to Brussels. The fact remains that the agreement was put to the vote in both Houses, the King signed the law and it was carried by an official periodical. But this would take a great deal of political will, what with the next elections in March 2017. If the government acted that way, some political parties would tell the electorate that the ruling parties never listen to them, so they have no right to claim seats in parliament. These parties would lose votes during the campaign.”

This could unleash a “continental crisis.”

“As a matter of fact, all of the Dutch were chagrined by Juncker’s statement. The Dutch consider themselves to be self-sufficient, they don’t need anyone to make a decision for themselves, let alone make a statement that they believe sounds like a threat.”

RUSSIA’S LAST CHANCE…

You said in an interview with Ukrainian media that the Dutch referendum is Russia’s last chance. They made it a headline. Do you really think so?

“It could be Russia’s last chance to slow Ukraine’s progress toward a normal way of life. A chance to bar our entry. We’d spent months convincing our Dutch colleagues that this is a geopolitical problem, that there could be ratification problems, we proposed to speed up the process, that May 21, 2015, would be an ideal date, considering the start of the Eastern Partnership Summit. As it was, the date was postponed once, twice, and the ratification took place on July 7 in the Senate, although the Lower House ratified the agreement on April 7.”

You should have Plan B in case the referendum proves negative. If not, you must believe there will be no problems. Do you?

“No Plan B in a case like this one. The Association Agreement will take effect. It is within the EU jurisdiction by 80 percent. In other words, The Netherlands will stand to lose if the referendum says ‘no.’ Ukraine will also suffer, of course, being unable to carry out any projects with The Netherlands in terms of implementation, but no drastic consequences here. The political aspect is a different story as our enemy will try to capitalize on the anti-agreement referendum. They will say: ‘Look, Europe doesn’t need Ukraine!’”

What about the Dutch paintings?

“The paintings must be found and returned to the Dutch. I keep telling everyone that the stand Ukraine has taken in the matter reaffirms its good reputation. Back in 2005, Ukraine unilaterally handed over to The Netherlands works of art from the Koenigs Collection that had been seized by the Nazis and ended up on Ukrainian territory after WW II. This is remembered here and I think this is the strongest argument that the pictures, when found, will be returned to The Netherlands.”