By Victor ZAMYATIN, The Day
The middle of last year gave birth to a slogan of the "economization" of
Ukrainian foreign policy. Minister of Foreign Affairs Borys Tarasiuk said
and still says, whenever he meets the press, that he tries to fulfill this
task by all available means. Meanwhile, the former and current ministers
of foreign economic relations and trade have kept silent. For this slogan
is perhaps nothing but an admission of this ministry's poor performance.
Statistical data also testify implacably that Ukrainian exports are steadily
declining with each passing year, with Russia still accounting for too
big a share of it, which only provokes complete dependence on one market.
Minister Tarasiuk has really decided to fulfill the instruction to economize
our foreign policy, which does not seem a bad idea.
After all, the United States and the leading European countries, when
assessing their relations with a certain state, first of all apply the
criterion of what kind of market there is for its products. The categories
of market, trade, investments, and trade wars are gradually replacing the
customary military and political confrontations, whether for good or ill.
Well-developed trade becomes one of the most important guarantees of national
security. Realities are changing and require adequate responses. To this
end, Mr. Tarasiuk first visits Kharkiv and then Zaporizhzhia, and probably
plans to go to the few other places in Ukraine that still have something
to trade with the outside world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs characterizes
this as normal practice, while the Ministry of Foreign Economic Relations
and Trade again makes no public comment, even after Mr. Tarasiuk suggests
disbanding trade representations in our embassies. All efforts seem to
be directed at one thing: Ukraine should have at least a semblance of foreign
trade concentrated in the hands of one entity supervised by the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs. Trade diplomacy is what would be welcomed in Russia,
the US, Germany and, say, South Africa. Accordingly, this might - should
there be trade liberalization, a healthy initiative, and competition -
bring Ukraine a little closer to Europe. It is not a question of a full
lifting of state control, for, even in very developed Sweden, a foreign-ministry
official is in charge of foreign trade.
Over-regulation, warped tax and customs legislation, and the arbitrary
rule of civil servants are what Ukrainian foreign trade faces each time
the politicians reach a basic agreement. Ukrainian diplomacy is still characterized
by an inability or unwillingness to defend our national interests, seek
new opportunities for sales, cooperation or winning tenders. This equally
refers to relations with Russia, the US, and the European Union. Experts
unequivocally characterize the current situation as disastrous, which perhaps
made Mr. Tarasiuk travel around his own country, that is, to do a job those
recently in charge of foreign trade were supposed to. But he is not omnipotent.
And many would not really want either equal opportunities for all, or the
same rules of the game, or, finally, a steady inflow of foreign capital,
for people usually begin to think too much under better living standards.
And there are many people in Ukraine about whom it is simply impossible
to think well.






