Marek SIWIEC: “So far I see no multiparty support in the EU for Ukraine’s course”

Recently the European Commission adopted a new EU expansion strategy, including a special report on this organization’s integration capacities. The current strategy, based on consolidation, conditionality, and communication, will be combined with the best methods and means of securing the EU’s integration with new members.

Three countries have candidate status: Turkey, Croatia, and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Among the potential candidates are Albania, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Montenegro, Serbia, and Kosovo. EU Enlargement Commissioner Olli Rehn believes that institutional changes must be made within the union before the next expansion wave.

It is also necessary to improve the accession process. Problems, such as legal reform and the struggle against corruption, must be solved by the countries applying for membership at the initial stage of negotiations. The EU’s Enlargement Commissioner notes that the process of joining the EU is not a Eurostar or TGV train but rather an Eastern Express that requires quality maintenance and comfort first; later it can gain speed. Some observers say that the European Commission’s report puts an end to Ukraine and Georgia’s membership prospects.

Does this mean revising the admission conditions for countries trying to become EU members? Can the new report affect Ukraine’s European integration aspirations? What does Ukraine need to succeed in integrating with European structures? Marek SIWIEC, the head of the delegation to the EU-Ukraine Parliamentary Cooperation Committee, shares his views on these matters.

There is no direct connection between this report and Ukraine’s desire to join the EU. I think that Ukraine’s EU membership philosophy should be entirely different. Let’s imagine a situation in which 450 million residents of the EU member countries have to choose a single country to become a member-above all, they have to choose from among Turkey, Croatia, Serbia, Albania, Moldova, or Ukraine. The Europeans hold a referendum. Do you think Ukraine would stand a chance of being invited?

Siwiec: Well, perhaps not now. I think that Ukraine, compared to the other candidates, has the best chance, considering that the EU has very many questions about Turkey. Ukraine, owing to its size, has real potential and business opportunities for integration. What can one say about the integration of Albania or the Balkan countries, which are an important part of Europe? This question still has to be considered,

Ukraine must be prepared until the old expansion philosophy is completed. You have time to do your homework.

What does the future EU enlargement strategy, changing from absorption to an ability to integrate, mean for Ukraine?

Siwiec: Europe is very close to “getting its fill” of new countries. Today the enlargement situation is like the steam boiler of a locomotive on a railway line. You keep adding cars to it until this train is no longer of any use. Even if it is moving in the right direction, it cannot resist globalization or formulate a general policy. As for the ability to integrate, for Europe the main challenge is the changes within the EU. This means installing a new-generation engine. Then we can think about how to add new value.

Using Olli Rehn’s colorful expression, when do you think Ukraine will be able to board this Eastern Express?

Siwiec: Everything pertaining to integration must be practically oriented as much as possible. All Ukrainian politicians must tell the Ukrainian people, “We are not going to change our country to suit the EU but for our own benefit.

The Europeans will give us know-how and show us how to change our laws and institutions. The EU even wants to give us money to make such changes. This year, the EU is offering 100 million euros; next year, 120 million. There will be considerable progress.” The question is how to use this money. In Ukraine’s conditions 100 million euros is a sum that must be used in a proper manner, using proper means. I know how it was in Poland. If you invest this money the right way, you get excellent results. You must concentrate on reforms that have to be implemented within the country. Then you can look to Brussels and ask for its opinion.

Did you see such understanding and desire in the Ukrainian parliament? Do you think that the Ukrainian government is really interested in implementing reforms in this direction?

Siwiec: This is a good question because the Ukrainian elite must take the risk of promoting reforms that are not exactly popular. This is an extremely difficult task, but you have to pay the price, sooner or later. What makes support of the European integration policy on the part of one or many parties, including the opposition, so important? It’s rather easy to be in the opposition and say that this bad government is promoting unpopular reforms, so it must be replaced. I think that the responsibility must be shared by the government coalition and the opposition. The government must be supported by the opposition in implementing these reforms.

Of course, there can be a change of government. One day Ms. Tymoshenko will become prime minister, and she will have to be supported by Yanukovych in these matters. If this is what you understand as desire, I do not see it, not at the moment — and I would like to emphasize “at the moment.” I believe that we are at the very beginning of the process of forming multiparty support. I regard the vote on a number of WTO bills in the Verkhovna Rada as very positive, because the number of votes was considerably larger than the number of government coalition members. This means that there is European thinking in parliament. Even during the parliamentary consultations with my delegations I met with representatives of various parties. I believe, perhaps too optimistically, that this approach is growing stronger.

Let me stress that desire is one thing and technology is another. I told the prime minister’s advisers that Ukraine’s trademark is President Yushchenko, who is recognized as a reformer and a European-minded leader. If your trademark is competence and a practical approach, join forces with the president. Reforms are a commodity of sorts. With its trademark, Ukraine can sell its goods at three times the price. Therefore, I believe that a truly national approach is as follows: Yanukovych must make reforms and Yushchenko must support them — and the government must be supported by the opposition.

I should remind you of what happened in Poland. We signed a cooperation agreement with the EU in 1994. At the time the EU made no declaration about Poland becoming a member of that organization — nothing of the kind. Our prime minister was then a left-winger. In 1997, a right-winger came to power. Four years later, in 2001, he was replaced by a left-winger and it was during his tenure that Poland became a member of the EU. Now the right wing is in power again. Governments change so often that integration into the EU must be a long-term affair.

So you are stressing the need for the prime minister and president to coordinate their actions and cooperate so that integration with European structures will succeed?

Siwiec: Yes, absolutely. If you ask me whether it is possible to act without such cooperation, the answer is yes, in principle. However, the important thing is effectiveness. Naturally, it will be easier for Ukraine to succeed by joining efforts, but the main obstacle on the road to integration is peoples’ mentality. The people are accustomed to living under a certain artificial security system. They are receiving wages and pensions, maybe less than they want, but there is a degree of stability. The implementation of reforms begins to change the parameters of this stability. Take, for instance, the discussion about the reform of the old pension system. A number of people are afraid that the new system will bring danger. So there must be someone to tell the people, “Let’s take this risk together. We want to change this. As a politician, I promise and assume the responsibility that after introducing the new system we will gain more.” That’s how this approach should be carried out, step by step.

Do you see a sincere desire to develop and deepen relations with the EU on the part of Yanukovych’s people and that they will not be tempted to join the Single Economic Space (SES)?

Siwiec: Believe me, there is no alternative to the European Union. How can you define the advantages of the SES? What is the sphere in which this structure can be attractive to the Ukrainian people? What decisions can be made there? Is this alliance closer to the Ukrainian people’s mentality along cultural and related lines? Where do Ukrainians feel better, in Beijing or Paris? That’s the point in question. With its size and potential, Russia can play such games. We like to watch them play because it is good for us and for them. There are no grounds for discussing Russia’s EU membership now. Ukraine, in the meantime, simply has no alternative.

You must be familiar with the statement made by a Ukrainian politician, who said that if Yanukovych wants to join NATO, Ukraine may indeed join this organization.

Siwiec: This is true. Yanukovych has the resources to take this step. He is associated with an anti-West trend and at the same time he is an effective manager. If he promises something in the area of integration and keeps his promise, this will be the new government’s great success on the road to integration. I believe that Yanukovych and his associates realize that the EU is the best insurance or guarantee for their business, as well as an opportunity to evolve. Frankly speaking, European legislation is a far better guarantee for their business than any other guarantees. That is why they are giving preference to European integration.

European, not Euro-Atlantic...

Siwiec: So far Euro-Atlantic integration is on the agenda. I think that Yanukovych’s biggest mistake at the start of the new government was to declare that Ukraine would not join NATO. I don’t know what was behind that statement. I don’t know what he got in return and from whom. How could he say that we don’t want to join NATO because the people don’t want to? Has he asked them or told them about the advantages Ukraine would receive in terms of security after becoming a member of the alliance? Has he tried to discuss the subject with them? No, no one has. Saying that the people don’t like the idea and that a referendum will be held to find out whether they really don’t is not the way a country solves problems.

Let me remind you that people tend to be conservative and that this is true not only of Ukraine but other countries. Important changes are always carried out against the will of most people. At first one must take the risk and come up with a proposal that has a base of support, because no one wants to commit suicide. But this must be done effectively. People will see if it is good for them. If so, they will love you, they will compose songs and poems about you. If you asked Europeans whether they like the Schengen Agreement, they would say first that they want their borders protected. Now the Schengen Agreement is a great success. The same is true of the euro.

You must discuss NATO and where the threats are coming from. They are not coming from Russia or the United States but from international terrorism. NATO is an organization that upholds cooperation among countries, so you must tell your fellow citizens that you regard NATO membership as a way to protect their business, their future, and their posterity. None of the Ukrainian politicians have broached the subject this way.

What do you think is the reason? Is it because Ukrainian politicians are afraid to lose votes?

Siwiec: It is lack of leadership, and not just in Ukraine. Lack of leadership is a disease affecting the whole world, including Europe and Poland. Do we have personalities like Charles de Gaulle, Margaret Thatcher, or Alexander Kwasniewski? I must admit that Yushchenko is a leader. I also want to say that there are many people in the Ukrainian elite who have a fair chance of becoming leaders. But they need to convince people more instead of following their own preferences. If you follow people’s preferences, you do not become a leader — you are a populist. Populism has never brought prosperity and progress. This has never happened anywhere.

Ilkhham Aliyev visited Brussels recently and promised to sell oil in Europe that will be transported through the Odesa-Brody pipeline. Is the EU very interested in this project and therefore progress in its realization should be expected?

Siwiec: I hope so. This project is a real possibility, and the people in Brussels believe that it can be effective. Still, there is no oil, no demand for this oil, and the project is very expensive. I think that we should instead discuss international cooperation in terms of energy supplies and also consider ways to avoid threats coming from Russia as an oil supplier. Here the crux of the matter is security, but for this you have to pay more.

As for the Odesa-Brody pipeline, I am in favor of this project. If it were realized, the EU would start negotiating the exploitation of this oil pipeline with Russia, in terms of international cooperation. Russia doesn’t like to negotiate such projects. It has closed the pipeline to Ukraine several times and once to Poland. This cannot be called blackmail, but everyone understands that it is an effective weapon, even if you hold it close to your vest. You know that you have it, and you know how to use it.

I am talking about the spirit of cooperation in the 21st century, not morality. Russia does not understand that this cooperation would be more effective for it, because it would have to pay less for gas transportation and thus be able to sell more and earn more. Europe has money and pays market prices.

Why doesn’t the European Parliament have its say in these matters? Why doesn’t it recommend to the European Commission that it conduct a more coordinated policy in the energy sphere?

Siwiec: We have passed a number of resolutions on this matter in the European Parliament, particularly with regard to Russia, Georgia, and energy supplies. This story is not over. We discuss the problem every month, but so far our declarations are still not binding on the Russian Federation. As for the European Commission, it gets its mandate from the EU Council and the European Parliament. But it is no simple thing to combine the efforts of all EU countries, considering that some members of the European community are showing a lot of egoism. There is no uniform EU energy policy. The energy charter tabled by Austria proposes correct guidelines for the development of this sector, but Russia doesn’t want to ratify and sign it. So we are still in the old world, when energy was an important international policy. One day Russia will pay an exorbitant price for this.

The Russians are consuming goods, receiving money, but not improving their country. We are seriously considering alternative energy sources. Considering today’s technological achievements, what happened 30 years ago will happen again, sooner or later. At one time Arab countries wanted to blackmail their consumers and the result was the first oil crisis. Today every typical engine consumes one-fourth in relation to its capacity. Then, we have to consider raising the effectiveness of energy consumption. I wish Mr. Putin the very best. He is a clever man, so he must remember that the oil and gas prices that will exist 20 years from now will “condemn” Putin for his policy.