An optimistic, long-term prospect

Germany’s former ambassador to Ukraine, Dietmar Stuedemann, often visits Kyiv in connection with his banking business, and he is very familiar with what is going on in our country. In his view, the early election will have a negative effect on the country’s economic situation and give the lie to the popular notion that early elections do not affect the Ukrainian economy at all.

The diplomat is also correct when he notes that Ukraine still has not built a party system or reformed the judicial branch. The ex-ambassador believes in the future of NATO as an organization whose goal is to champion values, not to launch attacks on countries.

In the following exclusive interview with The Day Mr. Stuedemann discusses how Ukraine can get the MAP, under what conditions Russia will begin to heed the EU, and why Berlin’s diplomats are circumspect in their comments on Moscow’s actions in the Caucasus.

Why is Germany taking such a cautious approach to granting Ukraine the MAP? Doesn’t this smack of appeasing Russia?

“I do not think so. But in fact, we should define our relations with Russia on firm European ground because if you are strong and united, Russia will have to listen. The same applies to Ukraine. It should also determine a single approach to the MAP, NATO, or the future in any kind of combination with the West or neighborhood. If you do this, you will get the MAP. But it is extremely difficult to get the MAP at this stage because this issue is too politicized in your country. You should not turn it into a pivotal question of your internal struggle and use it as a weapon on this battlefield.

“What can be done today? You should have a clear view of Ukraine’s future relationship with NATO. So in December I think you will receive the same signal you received in Bucharest. You should not show anything like disappointment if you do not get the MAP. But if you insist on getting the MAP, you will create problems again.

“I think you should be doing more explaining in the country about your attitude to security policy and your future relationship with NATO. Put the MAP aside and focus on what Ukraine must do to get the MAP. And this concerted stand inside the country should lead to the more active and successful promotion of building institutions. This means, above all, rule of law, which is of paramount importance. You should stop the never-ending struggle for power.

“All of Ukraine’s difficulties are caused by institutional weakness because you still have not created parties and acquired party leaders who obey the will of the voters. Since you have not done this, it will be difficult for you to rally around the idea of NATO and your future in this alliance. But this is what you should focus on, and it is not aimed against Russia. This does not even need any explanations because it is self-understood. It would be good for NATO if its member states made it clear to Russia that it has no right to veto Ukraine’s decision to establish its own security network. In this sense, a long-term prospect is quite optimistic. All you have to do is stop the never-ending internal struggle.”

It seems as though the closer Ukraine is to NATO, the more prerequisites there are. The Social Democrat, Marcus Meckel, who chairs the German-Polish Group in the Bundestag, has named a fourth condition for Ukraine getting the MAP — parliamentary support for this step.

“That’s right. The problem is that this proposal is based on the assumption that the Ukrainian parliament represents the people, i.e., voters. And, in our view, this is true to some extent. In other words, Ukraine has not taken a major step toward developing its program-oriented parties that will in fact think, first of all, about how to obey the will of their voters. In your country parties follow their leaders, and party leaders are struggling for power, not for the country’s future. This is the problem you should solve.”

What is your vision of NATO’s future? When I was in Germany and France, I heard it said that there is no point to the alliance because the conditions that led to its emergence no longer exist.

“NATO is not just a bunch of countries that have joined forces against somebody. The alliance only champions values. Some look upon NATO as a military organization or a group of countries. But this is not the case today. The fact is that NATO has changed its ideology and no longer acts like this. Even the Western public is not always aware of this. This does not mean that the Western public regards NATO as an alliance of counties that are fighting against somebody. The alliance is trying to champion democratic values. This is the truth. Democratic values can only remain intact if the surrounding world is stable and sufficiently secure. Let’s say your neighbor is constantly threatening you. You should form defensive structures. This is what I mean when I talk about NATO.

“NATO and Russia have a very close relationship, to some extent even closer than the one between NATO and Ukraine. I think that in view of this, Russia should look at this from a different standpoint. For Russia, it is mainly a question of its specific interests in the regional context. But the European and Euro-Atlantic structures cannot and will not accept this. I am absolutely convinced of this.

“We still have to find a way to talk to Russia about its aggressiveness and policy of exclusive regional interests. We are now showing weakness, to some extent, which other countries take as appeasement. But it is not appeasement. We must unite and be tough — something like a confident partner of Russia. And this is happening right now. It is not appeasement at the expense of Ukraine. I think we should oppose this kind of assessment because it will not help either you or us.”

Some German experts and politicians believe that Ukraine should focus more on Europe, i.e., integrate with the EU and work less with the US. Do you share this point of view?

“In my opinion, the message was that Ukraine should focus on improving its relations with the EU rather than marching toward NATO membership and the MAP, which, naturally, includes America. The US can promise you everything at this stage. But in the current political situation President Bush is a ‘lame duck.’ He will promise you everything, but it would be futile and even unwise for the Ukrainian side to take this at face value, thinking that this will produce the results you are hoping for.

“I believe it would be more useful to intensify the dialogue with the EU in all fields and take advantage of, say, the Swedish-Polish idea of Eastern partnership. This has an added value. Any agreement with the EU will focus on specific fields. This partnership offers you a wide range of activities, such as youth exchanges and investments.

“The financial crisis has reached Ukraine, too. So you should be seeking a dialogue and making banking contacts, not to mention carrying out constitutional reform and establishing democratic institutions. Frankly speaking, you have a lot of labels, but they are often deceptive. I think the partnership agreement will lay the groundwork for the formation of real parties based on broad democratic principles — parties in the Western sense. After all, it is pointless to offer membership in the European socialist or conservative movement to the so-called Ukrainian parties, which are still unprepared for this.

“The BYuT is the Mrs. Tymoshenko party rather than a liberal democratic party or some other kind. It is nonsense. It is obvious that all the parties are weak. You have had three elections in the past three years. And you should not be drawing parallels with Italy, where elections are held frequently. Your political system is much weaker than Italy’s. The mafia holds sway in your courts.”

And if Russia does not change its position and withdraw its troops from Abkhazia and South Ossetia, can we expect stronger words or actions from the German chancellor?

“Frankly speaking, we hope to launch a process in which borders will not disrupt communications, transport, and infrastructure. One should also take the human factor into account. It is not that important whether you have recognized a country. It is much more important that all the Georgians who had to leave Abkhazia and South Ossetia will be able to come back because they come from there historically. And this can lead to a political future, where you can imagine the prospects for a small European Union.

“One must create structures that will offer a common prospect rather than exclusive measures that will hinder people, infrastructure, transport, and finances. This is very important for people’s well-being and common future, no matter whether they are Abkhazians, Ossetians, or Georgians. This requires the creation of a common structure. Russia is capable of understanding this, and she will also benefit from this. I think Russia must learn a lesson. You cannot possibly have only enemies and conflicts along your borders.”