Ukraine-EU: Five Minutes to Become Neighbors
Another burst of activity concerning the relations between Ukraine and the European Union — the start of negotiations on signing the EU-Ukraine Action Plan, meeting of the Committee on Parliamentary Cooperation, as well as statements and comments of the EU representatives regarding Ukraine’s situation — has marked the preparations to change the very context of these relations. On the eve of enlargement, the EU is trying to determine its position regarding both its own future and its closest environment. In this context the statement by Commissioner for Enlargement of the European Commission Gunter Verheugen, cited by Deutsche Welle, sounds only natural: it is necessary to involve in the dialog between Ukraine and the EU not only Poland but also such countries as France, Germany, and the Netherlands. The fact that the level of attention to Ukraine is growing is positive in itself. However, the results of this attention could be different.
The EU has started to closely follow Ukrainian developments. Evidence of this is the recent statement by Ireland, which currently heads the Union, and also those by the EU structures representatives: the said Commissioner Verheugen, Commissioner on Foreign Relations of the European Commission Chris Patten, EU High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy Xavier Solana, etc. All of them said virtually the same things: the elections should be democratic and transparent; it is necessary to observe our own Constitution; and there is no need to change the rules of the game on the eve of the elections. At present, nobody speaks about further prospects: what the Ukraine-EU relations will look like in the next three or four years, what the real possibilities are, how far the EU member countries’ political will toward Ukraine stretches in the real dimension, etc.
The Broader Europe concept the EU proposes to its “future neighbors” — Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, and also Russia — envisions in the prospect expanding the EU “four freedoms” (the free movement of people, goods, services, and capital) to these countries, as well as giving them access to the Union’s internal markets and expanding to them the programs financed by the EU and European Investment Bank. The whole of last year was dedicated to the discussion of the mechanisms and instruments for this, as well as explaining that this would not happen immediately. The ideology of the Action Plan, negotiations on which have begun in late January, envisages working out concrete measures to give Ukraine a chance to obtain the aforementioned advantages of neighbor status. However, it has become clear already at this stage that the sides have different understandings of the word prospect . While primarily the European Commission was speaking about five or seven years, Kyiv would like to see a plan for two years, whose final goal would be signing an agreement of the “European type” (like the European Agreements the EU had signed with the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, the Baltic States, Bulgaria, and Romania). After the start of the negotiations, the sides have somewhat get closer in their view of the plan’s term of action. However, differences in terms of political status still remain. The European Commission is not authorized to negotiate on this issue. Other EU structures (the European Council, Council of Ministers, and European Parliament) have not yet made any statements regarding this, being extremely busy with the enlargement issue. Moreover, the new mechanism of technical support will not come into existence before 2006. On the other hand, there are Austria, which became EU member without an association period, or Norway and Switzerland, whose relations with the EU are built on the principle of everything except official membership. Perhaps precisely this formula will be used for Ukraine; this has been repeatedly discussed in Ukrainian diplomatic circles.
EU representatives have repeatedly stressed that softening the visa regime would require adequate steps from Ukraine. One can hardly deny that, in addition to signing the readmission agreement, it is necessary to demonstrate many other things. The current asymmetrical visa regime with Poland and Hungary is similar to the one those same countries had with West European ones in the late eighties and early nineties. These countries’ internal development has reduced the number of those willing to work abroad illegally. In addition, there were possibilities to work abroad legally. In Ukraine’s case this process (legalizing labor migration) is only starting. Ukraine’s border regime really needs to be strengthened.
Many problems remain to be solved in the sphere of trade. In addition to extending the Agreement on Partnership and Cooperation between Ukraine and the EU to the ten new EU members, which alone will take a while, Ukraine needs to solve the trade regime issues with each of them (in part, the Czech Republic and the Baltic States). The issue of the EU giving Ukraine market economy status is also moving slowly, with custom rates for scrap metal or automobiles exports unable to contribute to its solution.
The attention demonstrated by the EU to Ukraine’s political processes is evidence that this will be among the factors defining its further chances. This is what happened with Slovakia, which, incidentally, has demonstrated a more successful level of internal than Ukraine. Thus far, everything related to the Ukrainian elections gives rise to at least concern in the West.
Commissioner Verheugen was absolutely right in saying that the most influential EU countries should be involved into the Ukraine-EU dialog. Recall, for instance, the so-called Weimar Triangle (Poland-Germany-France). Today Ukraine has certain support only from Great Britain, whose view on the EU further development differs from the policy France and Germany are trying to conduct. These two countries, without denying Ukraine’s European prospects in general, do not demonstrate much enthusiasm towards them, suggesting that the EU concentrates on pragmatic issues of cooperation. Persuading Paris and Berlin would be perhaps important for Ukraine not as much in strategic terms as in terms of an internal impetus, proving that Kyiv really wants to be a part of this environment and play by its rules.
May and June will be most difficult period in the whole history of the EU. Simultaneously with the enlargement, the elections to the European Parliament and appointing the new European Commission will take place. It is possible that after the first days of the existence of the enlarged EU and new figures in the Union’s leadership it would be safe to talk about a new view of the prospects, including EU Eastern policy.
