• Українська
  • Русский
  • English
Where there is no law, but every man does what is right in his own eyes, there is the least of real liberty
Henry M. Robert

"The European Union is not a club of Christian states"

3 November, 1998 - 00:00

Almost 50% of products on Ukraine's markets are Turkish-made. And these
products are imported into Ukraine by shuttle traders. What is the share
of these products in the overall Ukrainian-Turkish trade turnover? What
is the Turkish government doing to develop more civilized forms of commodity
circulation between our countries? And how did the financial crisis in
Ukraine and Russia influence such trade?

It is difficult to have an exact idea of the shuttle trade turnover
between Turkey and Ukraine. Previous reports indicate $4000-5000 dollars
per trader. The number of Ukrainians who visited Turkey in 1996 and 1997
was 400,000 and 300,000 respectively. In the first half of 1998 this figure
further dropped to 77,000. Account should also be taken of the increasing
number of Ukrainians who visit Turkey for purposes of tourism only. So,
whatever the figures are, this type of trade is shrinking while Turkey's
trade deficit with Ukraine is growing.

If bilateral trade between the two countries is allowed to follow a
normal course, i.e., if high Ukrainian tariffs are lowered and non-tariff
barriers eliminated, then this unrecorded trade will further decline and
even disappear in favor of normal trade relations.

Since last June the Ukrainian government has been adopting a new set
of measures aimed at eliminating the shuttle trade. The Russian Federation,
for instance, has a different attitude. The shrinking purchasing power
of individuals brought about by the financial and economic crisis seems
to have prompted the Russian authorities to ease the shuttle trade regime.
It is thus important not to lose sight of the social functions of such
kind of trade relations.

On the other hand one could also question whether it would have been
possible to achieve the same result in terms of employment opportunities
created if the money invested in shuttle trade were to be invested as fixed
capital in the Ukrainian economy. In any case, I think the shuttle trade
should be viewed as a characteristic feature of transition economies.

There is an opinion, according to which Turkey is trying to take
over the role of regional hegemony. Ankara is considered one of the leading
members of Black Sea economic cooperation. What strategic purposes has
Turkey set for itself in the region?

After Vietnam, with the exception of the Falklands and southern Africa,
Turkey, by her geographical location, has been in the vicinity of almost
all important armed conflicts and political crises which have caused great
concern in the world. Just remember the Iran-Iraq War, Gulf War, Nagorno-Karabakh,
Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Chechnya. Bosnia and Hercegovina, Albania, Afghanistan,
and Kosovo. Moreover, Turkey has historical, ethnic, and cultural ties
to the peoples of this region. Being simultaneously a Balkan, Middle Eastern,
Caucasian, Mediterranean, and Black Sea country all at the same time Turkey
is in direct or indirect contract with this crisis-ridden geography. Hence,
it attaches great importance to its being a factor of stability and balance
in this complex region.

And concerning Turkey's accession to the European Union?

This remains one of our foreign policy priorities. As early as 1963
our country together with Greece first applied for associate membership
in the EU. In 1974 Greece applied for full membership, but we considered
ourselves not ready at that time. This was a mistake. In 1987 we again
applied for full membership and still await a positive answer. There are
a number of obstacles on our road to the EU. One is the special position
of Greece and another the view by some in Europe of the EU as a Christian
club. And 65 million Moslem Turks could change the EU's ethnic map. The
EU would like to see our country democratic. But our geopolitical situation
is not at all like that of Switzerland. Meanwhile, we believe the issue
will be decided, for Europe needs us no less than we need Europe.

Ukraine and Turkey are the parts of the Great Silk Road, which is
now reviving. Both countries pay much attention to the projects of Caspian
and Middle East oil transport to Western Europe. But, unfortunately, the
project has gone only as far as preliminary negotiations. How do you evaluate
the prospects of erecting a pipeline between Ceyhan and Samsun with its
being sent on to Odesa by tanker. What new projects have recently been
developed in this sphere?

 It was Ukraine's proposal to build a pipeline between Ceyhan and
Samsun to transport oil from the Middle East to Ukraine. The agreement
on this was signed in June 1997. The Turkish side completed its ratification
process in August 1997 and Verkhovna Rada ratified the agreement in December
1997 but deleted a most important provision related to Ukraine's obligation
to transport through this pipeline oil in no lesser volume than 25 million
tons annually. In our view this guarantee clause is indispensable for undertaking
such an important and costly project. As a result of your Parliament's
opposition to the guarantee clause, we now have two different ratified
texts. In spite of this situation, talk has recently been resumed between
competent firms in both countries.

Regarding Caspian oil, Turkey, like Ukraine, takes the view that it
is appropriate and even inevitable that not one but multiple pipelines
should be used to transport this oil to world markets. However, it is a
fact that, at the initial phase where it is not possible to fully exploit
the Caspian oil reserves and also because of declining oil prices, it might
not be easy to ensure more than one export pipeline system. But with time,
as the Caspian oil output rises, a multiple pipeline system will be necessary
to transport it to world markets. Shipping oil to Odesa by tanker and then
on to Europe might well be one of those routes. As regards the main export
route on which a decision will soon have to be made, Turkey has its own
project: the Caspian-Mediterranean Baku-Ceyhan oil pipeline.

Recently a number of anti-dumping cases have been opened against
Ukrainian exporters of steel and cast iron. What are the precise accusations
against Ukrainian metallurgy? Were there any attempts made to find the
solution to the problem at the interstate level?

After an anti-dumping investigation carried out in accordance with the
stipulations of the Turkish Law for the Prevention of Unfair Competition
in Imports, which was adopted in conformity with international trade rules,
it was ascertained that semifinished iron and non-alloy steel products
from Ukraine were being exported to the Turkish market at prices in violation
of anti-dumping regulations. Consequently, a decision was taking in 1995
to impose, for a period of 5 years, an anti-dumping tax to the effect of
adding $17 US onto per ton on the Ukrainian products in question. Turkey
supports free and fair trade and has the right to take necessary steps,
within the bounds of international trade rules, in order to protect its
own domestic industries.

Nevertheless, in spite of all difficulties affecting the world as well
as Turkish market for iron and steel, Turkey continues to be a major importer
of Ukrainian metal products.

 

 

Rubric: