James SHERR: This struggle is not about Yushchenko. It is about Ukraine’s future

One knows well Senior Associate worker of the Conflict Research Center of the Institute of Defense of Great Britain James Sherr in Ukrainian political and expert circles. It is worth taking into consideration the opinion of the British analyst, who specializes in the questions of Ukraine’s foreign and security policy at least because, unlike western diplomats and NATO state officials, he is capable of expressing the western thoughts concerning the processes that are taking place in Ukraine. Previously, in the interview to Den/The Day, he expressed his doubts that the Act of National Unity, signed by the leading political parties of Ukraine, the Speaker of the Verkhovna Rada and the president of Ukraine would guarantee the goals, put in it. He also admitted that the Coalition of People’s Unity is the latest manifestation of the county’s disunity. What results will have the latest rearrangements within the RNBO for Ukrainian security? Why is the Ukrainian president incapable of selecting effective managers for the leading posts in the Secretariat and the RNBO? Can the West act as an intermediary for solving the conflict between the president and the prime-minister? What consequences will have the signing of Declaration on Building the Trans-Caspian gas pipeline by Russia, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan for Europe, and Ukraine, in particular. On this in the exclusive interview to The Day by the British analyst James SHERR.

What consequences can the latest appointments in the National Security and Defense Council (RNBO), especially the replacement of Haiduk by Pliushch, have for Ukraine?

Until this decision was made, it is important to say that from the time of the second presidential decree on the dismissal of parliament the president and his people behaved with good judgment and skill. The legality of what they did is very much in question, but the legitimacy is not in question because in any properly democratic system a defection of parliamentarians on such a scale would immediately force an election. So it is of absolutely vital interest that the electors of Ukraine decide whether the traitors are to be rewarded or punished. But now we have this sudden decision that I fear may again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. It is a serious, strategic misjudgement.

First, about the political misjudgement. It is vital for Ukraine that all influential forces and all regions be properly represented. Vitalii Haiduk and the Industrial Union of Donbas added a vital eastern Ukrainian element to the president’s camp and in support of Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic course. They are exceptionally pragmatic people. Of course, they have brought their own interests that have made the president’s side a broad coalition, which is what it should be, and not narrow interests and a narrow clique of “dear friends.”

He has now lost this strength and fallen back on a narrow clique of people — the “dear friends” or some who are worse — and they are a source of weakness. The president seems to have forgotten a basic truth about his own position in this country. He is strong when he is a representative of all dissatisfied and democratically minded forces in the country. He is weak when he represents only himself, his own immediately circle of people, and Our Ukraine.

This struggle is not about Yushchenko. It is about Ukraine’s future.

Second, he has made a great error institutionally because the RNBO must function as a state institution and not as a political institution. Its professional staffers constantly work on issues of considerable state importance: the coordination of defense and security sector reforms, negotiations of borders with Russia and Romania, the problem of Transdnistria, the issue of energy security. This corps of people cannot be distracted, and this important work cannot be compromised by political battles, particularly at a time when the country distrusts all institutions, even the Constitutional Court.

No one in power in Ukraine today seems to understand the importance of institutions as institutions. In a mature and stable democracy the character of institutions is deemed more important than the character of politicians.

And the third, by losing Haiduk the president and the country have lost one of the few people with the will and competence to advance the energy security of Ukraine. And this issue affects the whole future of Ukraine’s economy, its political course, and its independence.

In this context, how should Skypalsky’s appointment as the deputy head of the SBU be regarded? What does it mean?

This looks like a sound decision. The SBU is still a divided, even a vulnerable, institution. Whenever it is weak, outside forces play with it and are able to work inside it, including the special services of neighbors who still have the common language and share the post-Soviet security culture. And this risk is most acute where the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the country are most at risk, namely in the Crimea. It is vital for the SBU in the Crimea to function as the SBU of Ukraine and not as a law unto itself or a servant of outside interests.

I believe that Skypalsky understands this, and I hope he will be able to restore vertical authority and coherence to this organization, which is again a casualty of political struggle in Ukraine.

You know Stalin’s famous slogan: “Cadres decide everything.” Why does the Ukrainian president not understand this? Why doesn’t he choose proper people and effective managers for his camp?

Excuse me, this is a Stalinist maxim and it is turned upside down. The country needs legitimate, effective laws and institutions — people cannot decide everything.

Do you think that the election will change anything in Ukraine?

The country needs elections! But the question now is how much legitimacy they will have and whether the result will be accepted by the losing side. Today the country expects attempts at falsification on all sides. This is a very unhealthy situation.

Yanukovych recently said that he prefers to have a mediator in the negotiations with Yushchenko. Do you think mediators will help resolve the crisis in Ukraine?

I do not think the West will mediate. Europe does not know what to do with Ukraine. Many have given up. This is very upsetting in Europe because everyone understands Ukraine’s importance. But who in Ukraine has the combination of principle and competence to move this country in a productive direction? Who is able to act as an effective partner? Do you see anyone?

What consequences can the recent signing by Russia, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan of the Declaration on building the Trans-Caspian gas pipeline through Russian territory have for Europe’s energy policy?

It shows again that energy is about politics and geopolitics, not just economics. Is it in the economic interests of Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan to sell oil and gas to Russia for well below the price that they will get on the oil market? Do they doubt that the Trans-Caspian pipeline would be built if they became partners in this project?

It is political issues that have pushed these economic issues to the background. First, to this day the Kazakh elite is apprehensive about those in Russia who believe that the natural border of Kazakhstan runs to the south of northern Kazakhstan and not to the north of northern Kazakhstan. They never want Russia to have an opportunity to undermine their sovereignty. This is the first factor. Second, the overwhelming priority for both Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan is internal, governmental, and regional security. The democracy agenda of the US and the EU have made them very apprehensive. The Western reaction to the events in Andijan in 2005 was a shock to all the countries in Central Asia, who were becoming closer to the West. Only Russia can guarantee the regime security of the Central Asian states.

The third issue concerns President Nazarbaev: the EU’s energy policy. He sees that the EU has a tough energy strategy on paper but does nothing to implement it. So why should the Russians when even the EU is too preoccupied to do so?

What can this new pipeline mean for Ukraine?

If President Nazarbaev asks these questions and answers them in this way, then it is very clear how difficult it will be for Ukraine to behave differently.