The likely “international fruits” of the Orange Revolution
In a few days Ukraine will be celebrating the first anniversary of the Orange Revolution, a significant event in the history of this country. There were revolutions in Georgia, Ukraine, and Kyrgyzstan. Observers have assessed them as interrelated events. But the Orange Revolution has not yet triumphed. We will only be able to speak of its final victory when the Maidan pledges are honored to the highest possible degree. What are the real and likely “international fruits” of the Orange Revolution? A group of foreign experts comment below.
Kataryna WOLCZUK, University of Birmingham, Roman Wolczuk, University of Wolverhampton, UK:
“The Orange Revolution ushered in a new stage in Ukraine’s development that must result in achieving what it regards as its European destiny, which in turn calls for the formation of full-fledged democracy and membership in the European community. It is, however, rather difficult to reach this goal, owing to a combination of domestic and international factors.
“In 2005 some important domestic events — both political and economic — drew the West’s attention because they were erroneous. International observers looked on with horror at some steps taken by Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko in the sphere of economic policies, while Viktor Yushchenko’s decision to cooperate with the forces of Viktor Yanukovych in his power game left a bitter aftertaste. Clearly, this country still has to go through a period of politicking before the feeling of adherence to standards prevails.
“But what is by far the greatest disappointment was the international response to Ukraine’s ‘post-Orange’ status. This applies, above all, to the reaction of the European Union. Having proved its European strivings, Ukraine had high expectations of being rewarded by the EU with certain membership prospects. Instead, the EU continued to treat Ukraine as just one of the objects of the New Neighborhood policy — along with Belarus, Russia, and some North African countries. Obviously fed up with Leonid Kuchma’s declarations, the EU chose a wait-and-see approach in dealing with Ukraine in order to see whether the new leadership would fulfill the declared obligations. Ukraine’s prospects in this Western vector look rather bleak today.
“However, this would be too negative an assessment of Ukraine’s international prospects because it is obvious that NATO is exploring the possibility of Ukraine’s membership very positively indeed. NATO has changed so much since the Cold War days that any views of this organization as an aggressive bloc are nothing but outdated stereotypes. It is critically important for Ukraine that the alliance largely remain an institution that determines ‘who does and does not belong to the Western club of states.’ The very positive statements coming from NATO headquarters in Brussels seem to suggest that the decision concerning Ukraine’s membership has already been made and Ukraine should grasp it with both hands.
“At first, Ukraine considered NATO membership the second most important goal, the first being joining the EU. But the countries of Central Europe showed that the two events are closely linked in strategic terms and by all accounts can be regarded as a sort of ‘waiting list,’ whereby membership in one organization leads to membership in the other, irrespective of any formal mechanisms that bind them. NATO membership should therefore be regarded as a medium-term goal and EU membership as a long-term one.
“In addition to the rather fundamental problem of administrative and military reform, there are three more obstacles that Ukraine must overcome before joining NATO: first, objections and even relentlessness on the part of Russia; second, mixing up cooperation with NATO and the domestic policy (which was proved recently by a Verkhovna Rada vote); and, third, the alliance’s huge unpopularity in eastern and southern Ukraine. These are the short-term obstacles that the Ukrainian leadership should remove almost immediately. These problems can be solved, but a lot of attention must be focused on them in the nearest future by launching an informational campaign that should be conducted on a high professional level, not the way we have seen until now.
“In the long run, Ukraine will slowly but steadily win the struggle for membership in these Western institutions. Yushchenko and Ukraine have won a place in Western hearts. When Yushchenko arrived in London and gave a press conference, he aroused so much public interest that it can only be compared with the interest piqued by Bill Clinton’s visit.
“But what will be decisive to a large extent is the successful response to all challenges, including reforms, domestic divisions, and the Russian factor. Once these challenges are overcome, we will be able to say that the Orange Revolution has borne the promised ‘international fruits’.”
Alexander RAHR, Program Director, Koerber-Center Russia/CIS, Foreign Policy Association of Germany, Berlin:
“The Orange Revolution really brought Ukraine closer to NATO and the European Union. This country has positioned itself as a likely candidate for accession to these organizations. This is the first time in 15 years that Ukraine has attracted so much attention. There are now a lot of political forces ready to help Ukraine, which is a notable moral and political success. But, in my view, the revolution only succeeded halfway. The major problem is that the cardinal reforms to which the people who thronged the Maidan were looking forward have not been carried out. Ukraine still does not have an independent judiciary system or at least nobody is fighting the existing one. As a result, ordinary people show much less trust in their revolutionary leaders. Ukraine seems to be returning to its ‘good, old, gray’ times, when it was in an absolute quandary, when the economy was in the doldrums, and Ukraine was gradually becoming an object, rather than a subject, of international relations because it did not strengthen its statehood. That is why I think that some Western politicians are secretly happy because they don’t have to offer Ukraine membership in the EU, which the West is unable to pay for.”
Maria LIPMAN, editor-in-chief, the journal Pro et Contra, Moscow:
“Obviously, global interest and desire to support Ukraine has given way to a more cautious attitude. I think this was caused by the economic situation and the rift in the revolutionary team. On the other hand, judging by some experts’ publications, one can conclude that the world community is pinning some hopes on newly-appointed Prime Minister Yuriy Yekhanurov. Clearly, the Orange Revolution affected Ukraine-Russia relations.”
“The fact that the Ukrainian government is facing major problems, including those caused by the dismissal of the Tymoshenko cabinet, puts Russia in a more favorable position. Now Russia has a certain advantage in its relations with Ukraine compared to the time when Yushchenko and Tymoshenko were a team. How can Moscow benefit from this? It is difficult to foresee. But even now it can be predicted that the Russian factor will play an important role in the upcoming parliamentary elections.”
Anna GORSKA, Center of Eastern Studies, Warsaw:
“First of all, what happened on the Maidan a year ago was a huge achievement of the Ukrainian nation and all those who had something to do with this event. Undoubtedly, Ukrainian society made a major breakthrough. Accordingly, the international community took an interest in Ukraine, which continues. Although some might say that this interest has diminished, it still exists and may be at a higher level than before the revolution. Second, there is no doubt that Europe was impressed by the way the Ukrainian nation was able to defend its rights. This proved that Ukrainians should be spoken of as a mature civil society. These are the long-term gains of the Orange Revolution. Third, the Orange Revolution enabled Ukraine to present on an official level its European ambitions and its strategic goal — integration into global structures. The period immediately after the presidential elections might have been used to show that Ukraine can not only declare things but also strive to achieve its goal with concrete deeds. In my view, Ukraine stood a good chance of obtaining market economy status and WTO membership. But this required concrete actions on the part of official Kyiv. I think the government missed those opportunities to some extent because it chose to emphasize crowd-pleasing speeches on the eve of the parliamentary elections, rather than on achieving strategic goals. That was a mistake. On the other hand, the European Union, beset with its own problems, may have underestimated Ukraine’s potential. It would be too simplistic to say that Ukraine missed its chances. The opportunities are still there, so you must continue to work.”
