EU and Ukraine: Agenda Without Concept
The Brussels meeting of the EU-Ukraine Cooperation Committee, timed to coincide with the policy roundtable, Agenda 2004: A Wider Europe with Deeper EU-Ukraine Relations, sponsored by of the East-West Institute happened against the backdrop of the much-advertised statement by European Commission President Romano Prodi to the effect that there is no place for Ukraine in the enlarged European Union. Representatives of the European Commission and other EU organizations declined to comment on Prodi’s words, which could in fact be interpreted as an explicit and very negative signal for Kyiv, insisting that Prodi overstepped his authority by making this statement and that it should be taken with a grain of salt. According to an aide to EU Council Secretary General Javier Solana, a softer line will be taken toward Ukraine prior to Prodi’s speech slated for December. Moreover, the current composition of the European Commission is to change before long and new people might well hold different views. All told, the Agenda-2004 of Ukraine-EU relations remains unclear. Both EU officials and Western experts are unanimous that there is still no clear concept of the future relationship, while in 2004 the EU could welcome ten new member states, including Ukraine’s neighbors — Poland, Hungary, and Slovakia.
“We are satisfied with our cooperation at the level of experts,” said a member of Ukraine’s delegation participating in the committee meeting. “The progress made is comparatively moderate, but it remains evidence of continuing everyday work.”
In part, soon to be resolved is the issue of importing foreign-made cars into Ukraine. Early next year a protocol regulating Ukraine’s accession to the WTO is to be signed with the EU. There is ongoing debate in the EU on the signing of the admission agreement with Ukraine (and between Ukraine and Russia) and its connection with the issue of liberalization of the visa regime. However, officials in Brussels maintain that Ukraine should solve this particular issue at a bilateral level with each EU member state. Moreover, the EU is finally joining the search for ways to solve the problems connected with Transnistria.
On the other hand, as The Day has learned from a ranking Ukrainian diplomat, the issue of EU’s recognition of Ukraine as a market economy is hanging in midair. According to him, it appears that by granting such a status to Russia the EU wants for whatever reasons to defer such a decision on Ukraine. Although to quote Oleksandr Shlapak, the then Minister for the Economy, speaking at a recent parliamentary hearing, there is every precondition for the EU to grant Ukraine market economy status well before next March. Ukrainian diplomats maintain that in the ranks of “the Brussels bureaucracy” there is uncertainty as to why this issue has been frozen, despite the fact that an arrangement was made as early as July on the term of half a year to solve this problem.
As for the future prospects, it turns out that Ukraine and the EU have contradictory — to say the least — ideas on their cooperation. On the one hand, representatives of countless EU organizations keep stressing that “the doors remain open,” that in future “nothing can be ruled out,” that Ukraine is undoubtedly a European state, and that “it serves no one’s interests to increase the quantity of negative messages.” Simultaneously, they call on Ukraine to be mindful of the fact that at the present stage it would be “counterproductive” to draw up any specific schedule or start with promises of Ukraine’s possible future membership in the EU.
EU representatives openly state that Ukraine’s possible membership in the Eurasian Economic Community headed by Russia can only slow down any movement by Ukraine in the direction of European integration. Ukrainian diplomatic circles maintain that this issue has been tabled in Kyiv, which is a success in itself. In return, the EU cannot only offer Ukraine a clear-cut format of a possible relationship but openly admits that there is no concept of any such relations on the eve of its major enlargement. As The Day has learned from Roman Shpek, head of Ukraine’s EU Mission, the results of the ongoing cooperation cannot be called fully satisfactory.
Ukraine is offered to work on the basis of the standing Agreement on Partnership and Cooperation signed in 1994 and ratified only in 1998, which was considered in Kyiv to be ideologically outdated even at the time of its ratification. On their part, EU experts insist that the agreement has laid the groundwork for prolific and extensive cooperation and influenced a number of resolutions adopted by the Ukrainians, that it plays a major role not only in the relationship between Ukraine and the EU and remains a quite satisfactory instrument which should be fully utilized. “A quite satisfactory instrument for cooperation with such countries as Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and others that have not stated their intentions to join the EU,” respond Ukrainian diplomats, adding that this is not generally appreciated in the EU. The Brussels experts admit the agreement’s shortcomings in the sphere of industrial and cultural cooperation and agree that scores of priorities have been simply overlooked. To illustrate, issues of justice and internal affairs are addressed in the agreement, but their priority (the same issue of admission) in bilateral relations was recognized only after the agreement took effect. The same holds true for the issues of European security and combating international terrorism. However, both sides agree that almost all of the agreement’s provisions remain unfulfilled.
As Oleksandr Chaly, state secretary of the Foreign Ministry, put it, Ukraine insists that before drafting a new document to regulate bilateral relations for the long term both sides must take into account the problems of EU expansion and the sad experience with the ratification of the previous agreement. The standing agreement expires in 2008. According to Secretary Chaly, Ukraine would like the new document to show regard for its “European aspirations” and not rule them out altogether. We would like to see our cooperation develop into integration, and our partnership ties into associate membership.
Instead of possible associate membership (of which there are several kinds in the EU, but Ukraine sees the “European agreement” the EU has signed with countries of Central and Eastern Europe as the preferred option) the EU is ready to offer a new neighbor initiative. There is still no initiative as such, although this was first proposed last spring by Great Britain and Sweden. Under the latest resolution of the European Council, the initiative is to be developed under supervision of Javier Solana. It will affect Ukraine, Belarus, and Moldova. However, according to EU representatives, they will take into account the fact that these countries are fundamentally different. EU experts maintain that such a selection is only a matter of geographic location. Ukrainian Foreign Ministry representatives can only hope that such a discriminatory approach will be taken when a new concept is in the works. This naturally suggests the question as to why one needs to think up new formulas and concepts rather than simply employ mechanisms and instruments which have been quite successfully used in the prospective EU member states of Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Romania. This, in fact, is another signal and a quite explicit one.
Perhaps the change in the tone of Ukrainian diplomats’ addresses is a positive sign. Now they do not speak of Ukraine’s European integration necessarily as a process of its accession to the EU. Now the issue is securing European standards and a level of cooperation with the EU and involvement in the European processes on a par with Switzerland and Norway.
On their part, EU representatives now speak of a possibility of a joint policy with Ukraine in some spheres, which was impossible in principle a few years ago.
As The Day has learned from a representative of Ukraine’s Foreign Ministry, the EU is currently in a very delicate situation, and we would only sour our relations by demanding a definitive answer right now. Thus Ukraine has some time at its disposal for independent development, whose success could completely change the tone on many issues. The first step seems to have been made, as the parliament has abandoned all debate on alternatives to movement in the direction of Europe.
