“Kharkiv agreements”: in search of logic

The speed at which the new Ukrainian leadership is making a U-turn in its foreign policy course, dropping the goal of joining NATO, has caused alarm among many in Ukraine and in the West. Meanwhile, the 2003 law “On the Foundations of National Security,” still in force, sets out in no uncertain terms that Ukraine’s ultimate goal is NATO and EU membership. What caused the greatest surprise was the agreement to extend the lease allowing Russia’s Black Sea Fleet to be stationed in the Crimea by 25 years. While some experts claim that Ukraine is in fact placing a part of its territory under Russian control, others say that Kyiv asked too low a price from Russia. The Day asked Kostiantyn HRYSHCHENKO, Ukraine’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, why Euro-Atlantic integration is no longer a priority, how the non-aligned status will ensure the country’s security, and where Ukraine’s main interests lie at the moment.

Mr. Hryshchenko, there is a well-known maxim in diplomacy: England has no permanent friends, it only has permanent interests. But this cannot be applied to Ukraine. The impression is that its interests vary with the change of presidents. The proof of this is the current leadership’s renunciation of the course towards joining the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Incidentally, this course was chosen in 2003 with the participation of the current President Viktor Yanukovych, prime minister at the time. How can this be explained?

“I am surprised with this wording, for it comprises contradictory terms. For interests can only be perpetual if they are true, not concocted. What is more, these interests are not shaped by a certain ideology once and for all. What did we benefit from the well-known course that we had followed for five years? Did we really get closer to EU membership? Did we obtain at least a Membership Action Plan in Bucharest? The question is not in what you are proclaiming but in what you can really achieve. Today, we can only achieve progress in the EU direction by means of raising living standards, carrying out reforms and modernizing our country. In other words, to move towards European integration, which still remains an unchanging priority and has been the strategic course of our foreign policy since 2002, we should maintain, among other things, good and trustworthy relations with Russia. This allows us to keep our presence on the Russian market, develop our economy, make deals on strategically important projects, and, by means of this, promote the sustainable development of our state.”

What about the Euro-Atlantic direction? Why has this country ceased to be interested in it?

“As for NATO, the practice and experience of the past years shows that what really matters here is not declarations but the desire of the alliance member states themselves to see a country in their midst and the awareness of whether this movement towards NATO increases our security or, on the contrary, brings about additional dangers for us due to the resulting tensions. During all this time, public support for the NATO membership course has never been more than 30 percent. This figure has further dropped in the past few years. This means that the idea itself may have the support of a certain part of society but not necessarily of the majority of the population, which is pivotal in a democracy. So we must face reality: we are at present a non-aligned state. Are we a bloc member? Do they want to see us there today? No, they don’t. Do we want to go to some other bloc? We don’t.”

Do we really not want some other one? For Medvedev…

“Asked by a Kyiv University student, Medvedev did what any well-mannered person would have done: he just said: ‘If you wish it, we will, naturally, be ready, but the main thing is that we respect the status you have and proceed from this.’ So our line is absolutely clear: we are a state that stays away from blocs. Our security rests on the assumption that we can obtain the best guarantees of security via friendly and mutually-advantageous relations with neighboring countries and major powers. For, as a rule, one will not fight a friend. One will fight enemies or those who are considered to be enemies.”

What about further cooperation between Ukraine and NATO? Is the annual national program going to be carried out?

“Naturally. President Viktor Yanu­kovych has clearly said that we are satisfied with the current level of relations with the alliance. We will continue active cooperation in all the fields within the framework of this format, as part of the Ukraine-NATO Commission political dialog, and in the dozens of other sectoral programs which are more active and broader than in many countries that are trying to join the alliance.”

Mr. Hryshchenko, what is your attitude to the international reaction to the so-called Kharkiv agreements? Here is an article from the Polish newspaper Rzeczpospolita headlined “Russia’s Bear Hug,” which comments on this subject. Many Western newspapers are rife with articles headlined “Russia Taking Ukraine Back to its Sphere of Influence,” “Russia Regaining Clout on Ukraine,” etc.

“Any decisions that overstep the limits of a long-established view always trigger a mixed reaction. Actually, there is nothing unexpected in this. Yet there have been many restrained as well as many positive comments. All I can say is that, on the official level (I have met the top US political leaders, including Hillary Clinton, and EU member states), everybody expressed satisfaction over the fact that Ukraine-Russia relations were stabilizing and becoming mutually beneficial for both partners. Nobody, including Ukraine, wants tension in relations with Russia because this may prevent our partners from conducting a normal dialog with Moscow. Experience shows that nobody will strain their relations with Russia because of the ambitions of certain political figures in neighboring countries. It is a proven fact. Therefore, defusing the five-year-long mounting crisis only evoked understanding and respect. And we are proving the logic of the achieved agreements while stressing that Euro-integration remains a priority for Ukraine.”

Some experts believe that the very fact of the return of Russia’s FSB secret services to the Crimea, as well as the looming implementation of the Black Sea Fleet infrastructure development program in Sevastopol, testifies that the Crimea is in fact slipping back under Russian control. What will you say to this?

“This exposes the level of the experts who think so. Sevastopol’s infrastructure lacks investments, and those who oppose the possibility of obtaining additional sources of funding for the development of this infrastructure must have never lived in that city. Otherwise, they would see things differently. If you don’t have a sewer in your courtyard, you will, in all probability, be glad if somebody builds one. Russia is unlikely to draw any additional political dividends from this. This fits into an overall approach to normal cooperation and trouble-free functioning of the Black Sea Fleet and is part of the program that will create comfortable conditions for both Sevastopol residents and Black Sea Fleet servicemen. I have already said: one can always see a black cat in every room if one switches off the light. But if it is broad daylight, there might be no cat and all the ‘little nightmares’ will vanish, because it is very difficult to spot them in the light. But there are people who are making a name for themselves and trying to make others believe, whenever possible, that any step may have catastrophic consequences. This is a wrong approach. And we knew a lot of other experts who interpreted any contacts with the US as a complete sellout of Ukraine’s interests to ‘overseas imperialists.’ It is from the same line: the vestiges of Soviet mentality repainted in another color. It is those who were once in charge of ideological work in the CPSU – they have reversed this process and continue to market the idea that someone is now about to come, grab, steal, and interfere. This kind of danger will emerge only if the relations are antagonistic and hostile and when there is no mutual understanding. It is then that secret and other services of foreign states begin to work against a country’s interests.”

But experts are rightly saying that the new agreement is not solving any problems related to the Black Sea Fleet base. Will these problems be solved?

“Naturally. This agreement is a continuation of the basic treaty that provides for certain instruments, including the Black Sea Fleet Sub-Commission. Why did these mechanisms not work? The negotiators on both sides, who respond to signals from the highest political level, were duly oriented to aggravating the relations and creating new problems instead of solving existing ones.”

Can we hope that Medvedev’s laying of flowers on the Holodomor Monument is a sign that Russia will be more willing to grant Ukrainian researchers access to Russian archives in order to study this subject more in detail?

“The very fact that Medvedev followed the example of Patriarch Kirill and commemorated Holodomor victims in such nasty weather, when it would have been more comfortable to get into the car and change clothes, for both presidents had soaked to the bone, shows that the Russian side is really aware of the Great Famine tragedy. There is now a different atmosphere and situation. So this is very symbolic and important. The question of studying the tragedy itself and its circumstances, and paying tribute to all those who lost their lives is becoming a common approach, thus turning an antagonistic issue into an object of our common suffering.”

Mr. Hryshchenko, you told Gazeta Wyborcza that Ukraine’s admission to the EU is a matter of time. Could you name an approximate benchmark date for the beginning of integration talks, for example, EU-2025?

“I never make forecasts in a temporal dimension – in months or years – because too many factors influence this process. It is the Communist Party that used to draw up five-year plans. Or take Khrushchev’s idea of building communism in 20 years. We are living in a different era. This will depend on the extent to which we will be able to carry out the necessary reforms, on the economic situation in the world, on how successfully the EU itself will overcome the crisis that has emerged today in connection with Greece, on how mobilized and united our society will be, and on whether our politicians will be denigrating or saying, at least sometimes, positive things about Ukraine, irrespective of whether or not they are in power.”

Will a center to coordinate this work be set up? There was a center under the former vice-premier for European integration, Hryhorii Nemyria, which he said effectively dealt with the horizontal integration of departments.

“As far as I know, Hryhorii Nemyria set up 52, if not more, positions in that government and was totally unable to fill a third of them. He just created a skeleton which failed to become a motor for real active work in this field. Another, smaller in size, center has now been set up. And people are being carefully selected for it. The Cabinet of Ministers has now worked out a system of close interaction with this entity, which is under the jurisdiction of Vice-Premier Serhii Tihipko and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Coordination and close conflict-free cooperation between the center and the foreign ministry is a new element in the efforts to improve our relations with Brussels. What is more, civil society has also been invited to help all ministers and agencies coordinate their efforts for the implementation of European programs. When, in the previous government, the foreign ministry was in fact out of touch with Nemyria’s institution, it was possible to set up 120 organizations. And nothing will go without the foreign ministry, for the whole enterprise is within the sphere of foreign relations. This approach is changing now. Our country is living in an era of formidable challenges caused by a deep global financial and economic crisis, and a very difficult situation inside the country as the result of a five-year long conflict inside ruling quarters. For example, last year’s gas deals created extremely negative prerequisites for giving the state an impulse for development. These are all real challenges. The situation requires a pragmatic response, with due account of what the strategic prospect is. It is inadmissible not to respond now, not to make difficult decisions. So we had to make such decisions. This country was on the brink of a huge abyss, and this had to be avoided. We have now achieved stability and taken a reasonable approach to, for instance, receiving new IMF loans. We are aware of the necessity to reform the economy, and foreign policy must support the processes that ensure public wellbeing and make Ukrainians confident in their future. Maybe, life will not improve immediately. It is very important that people should be convinced that tomorrow will be at least somewhat better. Then they will embrace a different attitude to themselves, their families, and those who surround them. Then there will be an entirely different atmosphere within the society.”

Incidentally, you said we must make quick decisions now. But I saw the media quoting Yanukovych as saying that the reform program will be launched next year…

“Reforms are already being carried out today irrespective of the program, while the reform program reduces everything to the common denominator. There is a string of draft laws being passed today. For example, a law on the protection of personal data should be adopted as part of the visa-regime relaxation. So we are drawing it up and we will get it passed. Does Ukrainian society need this? It does. Does this meet the European standards? Yes. It is part of the reforms. Naturally, the program needs to be modified a little. It will soon be submitted [to parliament].”

Mr. Hryshchenko, I often hear from European bureaucrats that the Ukrainian government ineffectively utilizes the instruments, funds, and programs that the EU gives or offers. As you are going to take part in an informal meeting of the foreign ministers of Eastern Partnership and EU member states, I would like tell us what benefit you are expecting to reap from this program.

“I am planning to take all that will be on offer. Everything without exception. And we will try to take even a bit more than we will be given.”