Long Way to NATO
The end of the multivector policy. This seems best to sum up the meeting of the National Security and Defense Council on May 23. As for the resolution passed, it can be assessed in a number of ways. Some will say that Ukraine has lost too much on the road to self-determination with regard to NATO; others will counter that Kyiv has jumped onto a moving train. It is not difficult to predict that the NSDC decision will bring forth much ado and heavy skepticism. Skepticism primarily because no one is certain about the NATO stand toward Ukraine under the circumstances. It takes two to tango. However, the main thing for the Ukrainians is not to curry favors with the North Atlantic alliance, but to look it straight in the eye in terms of quality performance by the relevant structures, public control over the army, democratic standards, and economic growth. Thus, the rapprochement strategy with NATO ought to be regarded as a great deal of homework. As before, the main point remains the inner unification of the political class, with the citizens and state meeting halfway.
Ukraine has decided to initiate a process with the ultimate objective of accession to NATO, NSDC Secretary Yevhen Marchuk told journalists on May 23, and a draft strategy was adopted by an NSDC meeting that same day. The document is expected to be ready before November, timing it to coincide with the summit of heads of NATO member states in Prague. The NSDC meeting was addressed by Foreign Minister Anatoly Zlenko and Defense Minister Volodymyr Shkidchenko. According to Mr. Marchuk, Kyiv will seek new, “deeper-reaching and more effective forms of cooperation with NATO.” The NSDC secretary feels certain that the time has come and it is “necessary to work out a strategy with the end result of Ukraine’s accession to the NATO- based system of collective security.” The meeting was presided over by Leonid Kuchma, attended by all NSDC members, and decided to work out an action plan that would result in Ukraine’s full NATO membership. Mr. Marchuk, however, did not state that Ukraine had chosen the strategic objective of joining the alliance. With reason.
The cautious wording of his announcement can be attributed to several factors that Mr. Marchuk actually mentioned. There is no secret that NATO membership is based on two qualifications: (a) full consensus of the political forces within the applicant country and (b) consent of all the NATO member states. Kyiv is not certain on either count. First, a membership application must be announced at the highest level – in this case by the president. Judging by the fourth NSDC meeting, attended by President Kuchma, such an announcement will be no problem. Second, there has to be consent from all the political parties in parliament. Although any forecasts here would seem premature, there are indications that the idea will be eventually supported. Vox populi seems the biggest problem, as NATO practice requires a referendum on a given country’s membership.
So far, the level of popular enchantment with NATO is not terribly high, albeit considerably higher than three years ago. Third, Ukraine must meet all the criteria and requirements developed in Washington several years ago (a certain degree of democracy, effective economic indices, and bringing the nation’s armed forces into conformity with NATO standards). This would give Kyiv problems. The expenses involved could reach tens of billions of dollars. However, the Ukrainian leadership seems prepared and willing to try. When asked by journalists whether such expenses will be included in the future budgets, Yevhen Marchuk replied, “Unless we stipulate adequate spending, no one will take us seriously in Brussels.” The more so that all these requirements are important to meet in order to look good in both NATO and one’s own eyes.
Naturally, given the current geopolitical situation, with Russia quickly getting closer to NATO, Ukraine’s nonbloc stand looks utterly worthless. As Mr. Marchuk correctly noted, “Maintaining the nonbloc status any further is an unpromising option for Ukraine, even harmful in certain respects.” The NSDC secretary added that “in a way, it would be dangerous for Ukraine to remain alone, for there is a giant system of collective security around us.” The NATO summit is to take place in Rome this week, to decide on the new format of Moscow-Brussels cooperation (the so-called Twenty). All the key NATO issues will from then on be decided together with Russian delegates. Except that Russia will have no veto. But even this level of Russian-NATO cooperation is enough for anyone to understand that Ukrainian neutrality is completely unjustified. The cautious attitude toward NATO membership, displayed by Ukrainian politicians until recently, does not in any way correspond to the spirit of the transformations currently taking place the world over. Ukraine was invited to attend the NATO summit this November, where a decision will be made on the alliance’s further expansion, including new members. After this summit NATO is expected to consist of at least 23 or 25 members at most. So far it is clear that Kyiv cannot expect to be in that number (nine applicants are officially registered to date). However, Ukraine may well prepare a strategy for the summit, providing for a livelier dialogue with Brussels. This is precisely what the NSDC has in mind. Yevhen Marchuk says, “It is necessary to start an active dialogue on the development of relations with NATO.” The alliance’s new role in combating international terrorism and expanding the traditional areas of responsibility practically transforms it into a “basic structure of the overall system of European security.” NATO membership advantages are beyond reasonable doubt. Apart from Ukraine’s need to break out of its isolation from the general European process, one ought to remember that in NATO’s fifty-year history there has not been a single military conflict among its member states. In addition, having NATO membership, a country’s national security is guaranteed not only by that nation’s armed forces (their role will actually diminish), but also by those of all member states. In addition, aspiring to membership will help Ukraine get closer to the European Union (this membership is proclaimed as a strategic objective). And there is no reason to fear the powerful eastern neighbor, Russia, because Kyiv’s latest decision was prompted by the Moscow-NATO rapprochement.
When asked when NATO membership could be expected, Yevhen Marchuk said, “It depends on Ukraine, on how quickly we can move along the road of European integration.” He added that in the case of other countries it has taken five or more years. Even if Ukraine joins the special membership action program, Mr. Marchuk believes it will not mean guaranteed admission.
Only doing one’s homework can be such a guarantee.
The NSDC decision has already received first comments. They are different because they reflect different viewpoints and ideas for the future. It is an open secret that neither Ukraine, nor Russia, nor the West share the same point of view on the imperatives of world development and that there is no full trust even among the Western allies. Yet, there is a joint attempt to find a way to destroy a system based on mutual mistrust, as well as to make the international security system really effective. It is worth noting here that most Russian experts agree that today it is far more important for Russia to build a relationship with the United States than with NATO. Many in Moscow are skeptical about the Twenty format, still calling it a good intention. “How do you feel now that Russia has outstripped you on the way to NATO?” a journalist of a major German publication asked.
In fact, the point is not who will be the first. Russia, for example, has never officially said anywhere that it might join NATO. Some experts, such as Sergei Karaganov, member of the Russian Council for Foreign and Defense Policies, pointed out that if Russia finds it impossible to thwart the expansion of NATO, it must try to lead this process.
As to Ukraine, it has quite long accepted such an idea provided NATO transforms from a military-political bloc into a political security organization. This was said, in particular, by President Kuchma and Foreign Ministers Udovenko, Tarasiuk, and Zlenko.
“At this stage, NATO cannot yet officially comment on Ukraine’s intention to integrate into the alliance, for National Security and Defense Council Secretary Yevhen Marchuk and the government of Ukraine have not yet told the alliance that their state wishes to officially apply for membership during the Prague summit,” Radio Liberty quotes NATO spokesman Robert Pszczel as saying. Yet, the latter noted that the NSDC’s decision on integration into NATO indicates Ukraine’s intention to pursue a long-term security and defense policy.
US Ambassador to Ukraine Carlos Pascual also noted that the NSDC decision on NATO is a powerful and significant statement on the intentions of Ukraine and the paramount importance it attaches to integration into the Euro-Atlantic space.
Also noteworthy is the reaction of the Communists. Heorhy Kriuchkov, an influential member of the KPU faction, was quoted by Interfax-Ukraine as saying that he thinks rapprochement between Ukraine and NATO is inevitable. The Communists changed their attitude after the thaw in the NATO-Russia relations and are now saying they will not oppose Ukraine joining the alliance under certain conditions (if, in particular, NATO includes Russia and is a political security organization). Many experts have noted that a consensus might be reached on this matter even by the current Verkhovna Rada.
On the other hand, the NATO Ukraine will strive to enter will differ greatly from the current NATO. Leading Western experts say today that NATO, as well as the European Union, also needs reform and a decision on this may be made “on a routine basis” (most probably, a special body will be formed along EU lines). Moreover, Ukraine itself must change. While the NSDC decision demonstrated the political will to achieve this goal, there must be such a thing as consolidation of the political forces in society. This process is unfolding in Russia around the figure of Vladimir Putin. Mr. Putin must be aware, perhaps intuitively, of the necessity for Russia to make a fast breakthrough to the West, including cooperation with NATO, leaving Ukraine in a different sphere of its interests. In its turn, Ukraine must first find an idea to promote rapprochement with the alliance. This sort of idea could be expressed in daily attempts to come closer to NATO’s political, economic, and military standards.
COMMENTS
Oleksandr SUSHKO, director, Center for Peace, Conversion, and Foreign Policies of Ukraine:
“To join or not to join NATO is not a question for me. Our center has long been advising to set the strategic objective of full NATO membership, to file a formal application, and join the Membership Action Plan designed for prospective members. We justified this by security considerations (NATO membership being the most effective way to guarantee the security and territorial integrity of a state), as well as by the development requirements (NATO membership preconditions specify progress in democratic reforms, openness, and civilian control over the armed forces).
“The NSDC decision can only be considered the first step toward NATO membership if it is followed by other steps, such as decisions of parliament, the government and the president. Verkhovna Rada must pass a proper resolution on the formal request of the president: given the current correlation of parliamentary forces, this decision can be made by a considerable margin. It is also desirable that the government immediately make a decision of its own and submit to the NATO headquarters. This would be regarded as an adequate official step.
“Today, the idea of NATO membership is actively supported by the Ukrainian political elite, experts, and officials perhaps except the following three groups: a part of the ruling class closely tied with the Kremlin and dependent on Russian business, a part of the army elite that oppose transparency of the army in general and of the military budget in particular, and the traditional group of the Communists and ultra-Left. While the third group has essentially relaxed its grip lately, the first one has, unfortunately, strengthened its influence. Thus on its way to genuine integration into NATO, Ukraine will stumble as earlier over political obstacles. Of great importance is the problem of the quality of political institutions.
“Other important problems, such as increased budget expenses and public opinion, are still secondary. As to the latter factor, we must take into account the experience of such countries as Slovakia, where surveys displayed low popularity of NATO in 1999 but in the past few years the public has taken quite a positive attitude toward the alliance thanks among other things to an active information campaign by public figures and the media. Ukrainian citizens should know that NATO membership means not only the unquestionable prestige of the nation but also a reliable protection of their present and future.”
Yevhen KAMINSKY, department chair, Institute of World Economy and International Relations, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine:
“I am one of the analysts who think that the way to the European Union goes through NATO. This was proved by the experience of more than one state, and our country’s top leadership must have accepted this truth. One cannot hope to exercise the European choice (i.e., European Union membership as the ultimate goal) without having an approved strategy of relations with NATO. This raises the question of cohesion in Ukrainian society. For there are many people who would like to see Ukraine as a member of the European Union but not of NATO. People are still unaware of where we are going and what we are doing all this for. They don’t understand what globalization is and that it is indispensable. Yet, the common man will only understand this when the top official leadership makes a choice. This is why I consider Yevhen Marchuk’s statement a unifying factor. We have at last done what we were supposed to long ago. We have made a choice. We no longer say we are here today and somewhere else tomorrow. And I am not worried in this case that we did so after Russia had been granted a special status in NATO, an improvement on the 19 plus one arrangement.”
