Pavel Telicka: “You must first help yourselves in order to receive the EU’s help”

In his message to parliament President Yushchenko set an ambitious objective: to create a free trade area with the EU in 2007, obtain associate membership in 2008, and then advance confidently toward full membership in the European Union. A team of experts, created by the nongovernmental organization EastWest Institute (EWI) to draw up recommendations for the Ukrainian government, recently met in Kyiv. The experts, among them Ihor Burakovsky, director of the Institute for Economic Studies; Ihor Dir, deputy director-general of the foreign ministry’s European Union department; Aleksandr Duleba, director of the Research Center of the Slovak Foreign Policy Association; Prof. Alan Mayhew, Jean Monnet Chair, Sussex European Institute; Alexander Kwasniewski’s presidential advisor Andrzej Maikowski, and Hryhoriy Nemyria, head of the Eurointegration Chair, National State Administration Academy under the President of Ukraine, are to outline tasks Ukraine will face on the road to European integration. They will also formulate proposals for a new agreement between Ukraine and the EU after the current partnership and cooperation agreement and the Ukraine-EU Action Plan expire in 2008. Their findings will be presented at conferences to be held this May and June, in Kyiv and Brussels, respectively. The team is led by Pavel Teli я cka, an experienced Czech lawyer, diplomat, and former head of the Czech delegation during the EU membership talks. Beginning in 2004, he represented his country for a time on the European Commission. Before the experts’ meeting Mr. Telicka kindly agreed to an interview with The Day.

What do you expect from the parliamentary elections in Ukraine and from the government that will be formed afterwards? Are you sure that your recommendations will conform to the foreign political course adopted by the future ruling coalition?

Telicka: I can discuss what is desirable, not what is expected. I’d like these elections to bring about continuity, to continue and step up the pro-European, pro-reformist orientation of your country and its desire to get closer to the European Union, with the possible prospects (this depends on Ukraine) of integration into the EU. If there is no such pro-reformist course, no such acceleration, I will personally consider this a misfortune. All efforts will be limited accordingly.

Yulia Tymoshenko and even Viktor Yanukovych have stated that there is no alternative to Ukraine’s pro-European course (although the leader of the Party of Regions has not mentioned the prospects of EU or NATO membership). Do these statements convince you of the consistency and continuity of Ukrainian policy after the elections?

Telicka: I think that a practical policy is what will count. It is good to hear that the leaders of these political forces intend to continue in the direction of reforms and possibly even to step them up, but that isn’t enough for Brussels. It is extremely important for the political forces to demonstrate shortly after the elections: “These are actually our intentions, this is our policy, we will do this, this is what we want to do in our relations with the EU, and this is where we need help.” Our job is to assist the new government with the program it will have to present shortly after the elections. What will count will be deeds, not words. And these deeds must be convincing. The European Commission will expect decisive promises and their implementation.

What particular steps is the European Union expecting from the Ukrainian side?

Telicka: Over a year ago Ukraine took a very important step: this was the Orange Revolution that unquestionably brought renown to your country. Of course, the real work began later and certain important steps have been taken. Ukraine, however, must continue to be convincing in its economic, political, and legal transformations. At this stage I won’t say that the government should do this or that. We are trying to outline a path that you can follow and it is up to the government to determine priorities. It is important to continue the economic reforms, the reforms in the legal system, and to uproot corruption. It is also very important to modernize the state administration and make it more professional, to create an administrative capacity for tasks that must be implemented while moving closer to the European Union.

Do you see a lack of decisive steps that are crucial to the implementation of the government’s Euro-integration ambitions, or do you think that after one year, which can be called a short term, everything was done well?

Telicka: Yes, it was a brief period; during this time changes also occurred in the Ukrainian government. I guess it would wrong of me to interfere in some way by offering my opinion on what should be done and what could have been done in a better way.

I think it would be fair to say, in view of the ideas circulating in European institutions, that there is a need to expedite the reforms. However, I would not want to give preference to one political force or another by declaring that things were done wonderfully, and other things could have been done better. During an election campaign it is important for debates outside Ukraine to subside to a certain extent. It is extremely important, of course, for Ukraine to remain on the path of reforms, to be oriented toward Europe, and to determine its priorities very soon after the elections and to convincingly implement these priorities.

What steps can Ukraine expect from the European Union?

Telicka: I went through this process when my country, the Czech Republic, was on its way to EU membership. At first I worked as an advisor with the delegation during the associate membership talks. Later, I was the chief negotiator during the membership talks. One of the basic principles is that you must help yourselves first in order to receive help. The European Union will be prepared to send important political signals once it is satisfied that Ukraine is consistently adhering to a clear-cut goal, that it is actually implementing its aspirations, and is showing true progress. The European Commission can appreciate progress. I think that it will have an objective picture of what will be happening in Ukraine.

Political signals will be received in due time, when Ukraine makes it clear that it is following the road of European integration. Of course, Ukraine wishes to improve its contractual relations with the EU. I think that this improvement is on its way and that it will be proposed. But again, the most important issue is the elections, the way they will be held. I personally think that the EU will act according to various scenarios, depending on the elections’ outcome. I believe there is an opportunity to conclude an upgraded and improved agreement with the European Union, provided the Ukrainian side adopts appropriate actions.

Within the framework of the current agreement it is possible to introduce a number of innovations, like gradually opening up the market for Ukrainian producers. Of course, Ukraine will also have to open up its market gradually. You will receive assistance with the harmonization of your legislation in line with the entire body of EU legislation, the acquis communautaire, and with the reforming of the legal system. We can count on a number of steps that will benefit Ukraine and foreign investors. However, all this must first be proclaimed by Ukraine as its needs; second, this must be discussed by Kyiv and Brussels.

What three problems would you identify as the main ones in the integration of the Czech Republic with the EU?

Telicka: First and foremost, I think, is the problem of understanding what the European Union is actually all about. This is a very complex, sophisticated, and advanced organization with complicated decision- making procedures and a very developed legal basis; hundreds of thousands of legislative norms that must be incorporated into domestic legislation. Therefore, knowledge is a problem for both the administration and politicians. Politicians often thought that their knowledge was substantial, but in reality it proved to be quite superficial. Second, I think it’s important to have an administrative capacity. Third, it’s important for the public to become mobilized and monitor the European course. Of course, these three basic requirements can be divided into a number of requirements. It is also understandable that some of the reforms necessary for integration are painful and their results are not immediately noticed by the public.

In an interview with the Ukrainian press you said that there were debates among various Czech political forces concerning European integration. How did the Czech parties manage to achieve consensus?

Telicka: There was a degree of consensus with regard to the key goal, EU membership. Only a few very radical parties did not support it. However, whereas everyone agreed on the key goal, there were differences as to how to reach it. In addition, the talks with the European Union became sort of a tool in the domestic political struggle. But the important thing was that the majority of the population supported the main objective. I believe that this is explained by good coordination between various institutions; a lot of young, educated people were involved in the campaign. It is important for integration to be a matter not only of prices and losses, but also values that we all share, our common history, and our future, which is hard to imagine without being part of the EU.

What has EU membership brought the Czech Republic?

Telicka: In the first place the Czech Republic became a member of a family of nations from which we were separated for centuries. Second, and this is very important, we received an opportunity to take part in making decisions that in the past affected us but which we could not influence outside the EU. Third, we integrated into a very big internal market; it was certainly very instrumental in rejuvenating the economic forces of our country and served as an “external injection” in the final phase of all domestic reforms. We received a vision; we received support, know-how, financial and technological assistance. Now, as an EU member, we are of course benefiting from the Union’s policy. Our farmers are benefiting from a very generous — I’d say even too generous — joint agrarian policy. Structural funds are helping to abolish inequality between various regions. In general, we received an opportunity to form the environment to which we belong.

Are there labor restrictions that still exist for people from the new EU member countries compared to the old ones? Do you see Europe being divided into categories, which the opponents of European integration sometimes eagerly discuss?

Telicka: Politics is very specific in the 21st century. Politicians want to show courage, they want to be leaders and come up with serious and at the same time progressive ideas. As it is, they sometimes offer people very limited and shortsighted arguments on issues that are pseudoissues after all is said and done. Freedom of people and labor is very important. At the same time the new member countries are experiencing a transition period during which the old members may or may not liberalize their labor markets. Three of the 15 old member countries have liberalized them. We expect several others to follow suit as of May 1. By 2011 at the latest the European Union will have absolutely free movement of manpower. Yes, we may end up being disappointed. Politics, however, is a strange thing not only in Eastern and Central Europe but in Western Europe. There are emotions and these emotions spur politicians to make certain decisions.

I flew from Paris to Kyiv on Ukrainian airlines. Believe me, I didn’t think that most of the Ukrainians onboard were tourists. Most of them were suntanned men with strong arms. I thought they were workers employed somewhere in France. Therefore, even Ukraine, without being a candidate member, has a certain degree of this freedom. I can say on behalf of my country, where there are countless Ukrainian workers, that no transitional or administrative measures can stop the movement of manpower.

What do you think of the Polish proposal about an agreement on a joint energy safety policy between the EU and NATO member countries and Ukraine’s participation in this cooperation?

Telicka: Energy is a major sensitive issue. Ukraine has lived through a very painful dispute with Russia that also affected the EU and Turkmenistan. I think that the increase in oil prices along with the drop in the temperature shows that the energy issue is a key one in the near future. Europe will be faced with the issues of energy safety, diversification, alternative energy sources, and energy-saving technologies. I believe that the European Union needs a joint energy policy. We can cooperate with countries outside the EU, including Ukraine, especially if it chooses a European destiny after the elections. We must cooperate with Russia, and this must not be a foreign political instrument but a matter to be approached in a much more serious and profounder way.

To what extent is such an agreement possible, considering the different approaches to relations with Russia — for example, in Poland and France?

Telicka: I think these approaches are not the problem, but whether the EU member countries will be able to determine mutual interests and agree on a joint policy, at least with regard to certain energy aspects. Are we sure that when we have such a joint policy, even countries like France and Great Britain will take better care of their interests than when they could count only on their own efforts? We see two systems competing in the energy sector; the first one is more liberal and market-oriented, and the second one is more on the political side and depends on the state. In my opinion, we must strengthen the first approach. Some individual attempts, bilateral agreements made with an eye to a privileged position, are strengthening the second approach to the energy issue, not the first one, and are not necessarily contributing to a joint energy policy. The prospects of a joint approach depend on the member countries’ political will and on the realization that in the near future and in the long run in the global economic arena even the strongest EU members, each on its own, are unable to have a strong position in their relations with countries that are rich in energy resources.