New realism for the president

Since completing his six-year diplomatic mission in Ukraine, Ambassador of the Federal Republic of Germany to Ukraine, Dietmar Stuedemann has worked as President Viktor Yushchenko’s adviser for the past 18 months. This German diplomat has spent a total of 20 years in the former Soviet Union and the post-Soviet space. What is his inside view of the Presidential Secretariat, the domestic political situation, discussions organized by the Party of Regions on the creation of a broad coalition, and Ukraine’s efforts concerning its integration in Euro-Atlantic structures? These and other questions are raised in The Day ’s exclusive interview with Dietmar STUEDEMANN.

Dr. Stuedemann, at one time you said that a broad coalition based on the German example is impossible in Ukraine. Recently, however, the representatives of the Party of Regions have been struggling to create a broad coalition. On the other hand, renowned Day that a broad coalition in Ukraine will mean, in a sense, the absence of an opposition. What is your opinion apropos all the talks on forming a coalition in Ukraine?

“You see, essentially the difference between Germany and Ukraine is that in our country a broad coalition was inevitable. There were disagreements and, finally, the positive result of creating this coalition is that the coalition partners had to painfully seek common ground in their political programs: what they had promised their voters in their election campaigns. This is a very complex issue, since our coalitions — either large or small — are always based on realizing the fact that we have parties with obligations to their voters. Each party has its own program, and this program creates some expectations on the electorate’s side. Thus, relations between parties and voters are very close and deep. And a party’s roots lie in the people or, in other words, in the party’s electorate. This is the foundation wall of our political system.

“Let’s be honest: Ukraine’s situation is quite different. If the majority of people’s deputies of the previous convocation consisted of millionaire businessmen, as it was reported in your newspaper too, and apparently there will be many of them in the new parliament, this means that something is wrong in Ukraine because these people care first and foremost about their private interests. They do not work for the welfare of the people or the country. This is the essential difference between German and Ukrainian coalitions. And unfounded expectations emerge because of this. Even in Germany we have constant misunderstandings because we use the same notions that conceal or mean something else. As for a broad coalition in Ukraine, I think potential partners are divided because of their particular interests. So far, mechanisms to control power are completely absent in this political system. Sometimes it seems to me that, according to its political, or arguably mental, level, your country is stuck at some early stage of its path towards democracy. In my opinion, it is too early to speak about mature or developed democracy in Ukraine.”

Why?

“All political activity is now focused on gaining power, not on responsibility to the people. In 2004 a limited effort was made to establish a balance of power with the help of the so-called constitutional reform. I think that at such an early stage the balance of power is not the most important question. The main thing is control of power. But nobody discusses this issue and there is a very simple reason for this, since everyone knows where the real deficit is, but it is a complicated business and generally a lengthy and painful process to overcome it. But one should discuss this, and not just on the political level: a discussion should take place on the public level too. And the mass media can play an important role once they start to discuss this problem in an active fashion.

“Therefore, it is not important now whether a coalition will be created, but it is important that all moderate-minded forces existing in all parties realize the necessity to create a political system of counterbalance and containment. And this should become the most important task. In addition, the opposition is not functioning in your parliamentary system. It is not important whether a broad coalition will be created or an Orange one. If amendments to the Constitution of Ukraine have to be adopted, there will be a need for the opposition’s support too.”

Can amendments to the Constitution be adopted by means of a referendum?

“I think that parliament still should have the right to have its say, for a very simple reason: otherwise there will be no need for parliamentary elections, even if parliament for the most part does not reflect the people’s opinion. Still, parliament should be ‘pulled’ in this direction. The president, the government, and the opposition are responsible for this.”

Dr. Stuedemann, you have probably noticed that the Russian language and NATO issues are constantly raised during every election in Ukraine, and many people are talking about the split in the country. You have lived in our country since 2000. Can we really speak about a split, and is there really a split on the level of elites?

“I think these issues are not that important. Actually, this is a game for votes. As for the split, I clearly remember everyone asking after the collapse of the Soviet Union: can one imagine a viable Ukraine consisting of its eastern and western parts? When I was working in Moscow in 1991, I said that this process would be a lengthy one because the country was totally unprepared. The possibility of becoming independent emerged unexpectedly for Ukraine. And an independent country is viable when everyone reaches the necessary conclusion that only in consolidated work will the framework of independence and sovereignty save everyone and create prospects, if we focus our attention on things that unite, not separate, us — the past, history, culture, and identity, around which arguments are being waged. This question is constantly featured in your newspaper.

“I will tell you the following thing, and this gives hope: the eastern part of Ukraine is not eager to become the 90th subject of the Russian Federation because there everyone is aware of the way people live in the peripheries of the RF and what problems they have. The western part of the country is also aware that independent small Galicia does not have the slightest chance to live freely and independently, otherwise they would enter the orbit of large countries, the heirs of the Habsburg Empire. This is not the time to think about small countries. In Europe people understand that regions are important, not borders that separate us. I am not afraid of a split. I think that it is irresponsible of politicians to inflame passions with these kinds of arguments.”

Another topic that is constantly raised during the elections is NATO or its antithesis — Ukraine’s neutral status. Your successor in the Embassy of Germany in Ukraine, Mr. Schaeffers, said that neutrality does not suit the 21st century. However, in the course of the last election campaign the Party of Regions organized a collection of signatures to hold a referendum on Ukraine’s non-allied status. Is it worth holding a referendum if the population is not informed about NATO?

“About neutrality, I will answer simply: a country cannot independently provide itself with neutral status. Who will let Ukraine become a neutral country?”

Russia wants Ukraine to be neutral.

“No country decides this on its own. You are surrounded by neighbors on all sides. Your country is located in the global space of growing interdependence: political, economic, cultural, and social. In my opinion, it is simply unrealistic to live with the prospect of becoming a neutral state or being one. One should be a realist in politics. One must behave in a rational way, otherwise you will lose.”

How should Ukraine treat or fight the Russian factor? Russia is categorically against NATO enlargement.

“The Russian factor exists; you can do nothing about this. It exists for Germany too. The issue is whether Ukraine and Russia will arrange a bilateral policy or dialogue between themselves. And here, in my opinion, Ukraine has to work a bit more and reach such a level of predictability, transparency, and stability that it will be able to build relations with Russia on the basis of mutual understanding and mutual respect. This is important. If the country shows lack of self-confidence, it will end up on a slippery slope. And Ukraine must understand this.”

Dr. Stuedemann, how do you assess the efforts of all the branches of Ukrainian power on the path towards Eurointegration?

“Ukraine needs stability, which is guaranteed by predictability. And this in turn is reached by good organization, coordination, systematic work, and the existence of democratic institutions and control mechanisms. And, of course, Ukraine is capable of playing its role, which is in line with its potential and geostrategic location. If this is done in a serious manner, not just in speeches and election campaigns, i.e., in daily policies, then within 10 years Ukraine may be standing at the threshold of the European Union. You don’t need special prerequisites; you need a certain level of Europeanness. If this is achieved, I cannot even imagine the European Union not discussing in a serious manner the question of membership with such a stable and predictable democratic country. Here you have to be optimistic, on the one hand, and on the other — independent. What should be important for you is not a date or some sort of promise but stability and democratic development. It is this kind of development that brings you closer to the EU. And you have to do this first and foremost for yourself, not for the European Union.”

Have there been enough signals coming to Ukraine from the EU, and what other signals are necessary?

“Political signals on the part of the EU do not always come in time, and they are not always strong enough to be heard here. However, many things are being done by the EU. And Ukraine is capable of giving an adequate response to all those offers and possibilities. Of course, structures play a great role here. Money is often spent, although this is not always the best assistance. But the cooperation between the EU and Ukraine is quite close.”

How do you generally assess the institution of the Ukrainian president’s advisers? Is it effective?

“Of course, the president needs advisers. But the issue is how well organized and structured the president’s decisions are and how well he is informed. The way all this is discussed and achieves the level on which the president can work and make decisions is very important. So far, everything here is happening very chaotically. And I even think that the president himself is not satisfied with the level of organization of the advisers’ work and the level of efficiency of the Presidential Secretariat in general. How to organize it differently is a complex question.

“The most positive thing in my example is that a foreigner has worked in this structure for a lengthy period of time. I have worked there every day. My presence is basically proof that such structures are being opened. I also think that my view from the outside was interesting for the president and all those people with whom I closely cooperated in the Secretariat.”

Did you manage to influence the president’s approval of some resolution or foreign policy position?

“I think so. The issue here is the new realism, which relates to the image of Europe. This is the result of the constant discussions of this topic among the Secretariat’s advisers. As for the domestic political crisis of recent months, I kept saying from the very beginning that the problem lies in a sense not on the legal but the political plane. And it can be resolved only in a political manner; I mean the so-called spirit of the Constitution, because this main Law is actually a democratic constitution. History has witnessed many wonderful democratic constitutions, but it was a nightmare to live in those countries. Even in Stalin’s times people were tried by troikas, tribunals of three individuals, which were actually a judiciary institution. So one can play virtual games with the Constitution, but this is very dangerous because all that is necessary for the future development of a society is destroyed at the very beginning. We have to be careful here. And this is namely what has happened in this country.”