One European official cannot imagine Ukraine as EU member
Gunther Verheugen is a conspicuous figure at EU quarters, owing to his post as commissioner for EU expansion. His name will be long remembered in Ukraine after stating that this country’s European prospects do not mean EU membership prospects, not in the next 10-20 years. He added that European leaders promising Kyiv this membership are acting in a perfectly wrong manner.
Mr. Verheugen made this “watershed” statement at the World Economic Forum in Salzburg and was immediately quoted by the world’s leading newspapers. The Financial Times carried a feature titled “Kyiv EU Membership Expectations Crossed Out.” The Wall Street Journal, explaining the improbability of Ukraine’s membership, went so far as to compare Ukraine to Serbia, although Verheugen was actually the first to make the comparison, stressing that EU citizens are not prepared to admit the current candidate countries. Naturally, they are likewise unprepared to admit Turkey, and even less so Ukraine or Serbia. Remarkably, no one seemed to have considered whether a statement made by an official of such standing should be taken seriously, just as no one seemed to have noticed that he had no authority to voice the official EU position. President of the European Commission Romano Prodi would have never made such a statement, nor would he have allowed anyone else to do so, even those actually making membership decisions, the heads of 15 EU member states. The fact remains that these people treat Ukraine differently than Gunther Verheugen would like. Last year, the leaders or foreign ministers of Germany, Italy, Greece, and Great Britain promised to support Ukraine’s associate membership. During President Kuchma’s bilateral meetings in Salzburg, Austrian President Thomas Klestil declared that EU expansion should not end with the next round (2004). It was a clear signal that Ukraine should become an EU member. Finnish President Tarja Halonen stated that Helsinki would support any Ukrainian initiatives with regard to European integration. Then did Gunther Verheugen have a right to announce that the European leaders making such statement act in a “perfectly wrong” manner? Or did he act in a “perfectly right” manner when criticizing European leaders, or maybe he had some “perfectly” personal reasons to do so?
Mr. Verheugen’s “openness” was caused by President Kuchma’s rather emotional address with the following key points: the EU will not be complete without all European states, Kyiv does not support Brussels’ idea of signing the so- called neighborhood agreement, and Ukraine is not goings to enter the EU looking for a handout. Pres. Kuchma can be regarded from different angles, but his speech did not have a single irrelevant word. It was criticism but to the point. There were arguments, not bare assertions. Some Western sources noted that the Ukrainian president delivered his speech in a manner not being adequate to the situation in his country, that he smiled while thousands of people went out in the streets to protest at home... Let the reader decide how correct this is. This author as an eyewitness can corroborate that the president was dead serious at the summit on EU expansion when he declared, “Europe silently agrees to the existence of a vast gray zone near its future borders, de facto legalizing the new distribution lines created by the European Union on the continent.”
It was then that Gunther Verheugen set about criticizing Ukraine’s European prospects. The Day asked members of the Ukrainian delegation to comment on the EU commissioner’s angry remarks. Presidential aide Anatoly Halchynsky stressed that Verheugen was “not authorized to make any such statements; he is not a political figure but an appointed official. It is inadmissible for a staff official to make such statements.”
Oleksandr Chaly, foreign ministry state secretary, was more diplomatic: “He said nothing new for me personally. We are aware of his stand... I think that there is a discussion underway within the EU. There are different views on its expansion. Verheugen represents one of them. But there are also European figures believing that Ukraine must be given a European chance even now.”
Will Ukraine have this chance? Anyway, it will act at its own discretion, in terms of concrete deeds, and basic changes aimed at fundamentally improving the domestic situation. Verheugen is not the first, nor will he be the last. Meanwhile, it remains to be seen whether Ukraine, after meeting the necessary European standards, will still want to join the haughty EU with its intemperate commissioners.
