Waiting for drama’s finale

The history of relations between the European Union and Ukraine is packed with dramatic events, more often than not with happy endings. This time there are many indicators to the contrary. The European side has for weeks been reading its lines, with Ukraine’s Party of Regions reading their own. Ukrainian diplomats can only act as instructed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, with Foreign Minister Hryshchenko flying to Brussels on an umpteenth official visit without a new clear-cut position of the Ukrainian government. The political good-will visits by President Bronislaw Komorowski of Poland and ex-President Alexander Kwasniewski to Ukraine didn’t work, either. As I write this, I’m not sure that President Yanukovych’s visit to Brussels won’t be canceled. Time keeps running, with both sides reiterating their statements reminding one of a classical Greek tragedy, when the choir sings the refrain, spelling out the tragic finale – in this case what appears to be the inevitable fiasco of the talks on Ukraine’s associate membership, along with what will most likely mark a decline in Ukraine-EU relations. Will this problem be resolved the way such problems were during the previous crises? Time will show.

Ukraine is faced with three tasks: (a) Initialing the treaty after the European Union will have the text translated into 23 languages; (b) signing it and (c) ratifying it. Item (a) may be implemented this December, due to its technical nature, what with Deputy Prime Minister Andrii Kliuiev flying to Brussels this spring and offering Ukraine’s solutions to these problems. The EU has behaved within the powers vested in the envoys by their respective governments. Now it is safe to assume that the agreement has been coordinated by the contracting parties, although there is the initiating obstacle: Ukraine’s last-minute change in its stand, with President Yanukovych making it perfectly clear that he wants Ukraine’s EU membership, even if in the long run. This strategy makes one wonder. Ukraine has reason enough behind this option. Until now all it took was for Ukraine to show a pragmatic stand, with emphasis on specific economic obligations rather than membership promises. After signing this agreement, Ukraine will find itself integrated into Europe’s economic structures by 85 percent. Poland, by comparison, didn’t receive membership guarantees in its December 1991 EU association membership agreement (even though it was then generally referred to as “European” and its economic clauses were by far less promising than those slated for Ukraine today). In fact, it boiled down to a unilateral declaration by Krzysztof Skubiszewski, to the effect that Poland regarded that treaty as a start on the road leading to full-scale integration. There was a period in the past when the EU membership issue could be broached; I had stated on more than one occasion that this issue should be pursued. That’s why today’s attempt to resolve it here and now is regarded as an attempt to procrastinate the talks.

The sharpening of Ukraine’s contracting strategy coincides with ex-Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko’s seven years in prison. I find it hard to comprehend whether this indicates a tactic meant to win concessions in the EU’s open-door policy, in regard to Ukraine, instead of finding a positive solution to the Tymoshenko issue. This could also be a text written by someone, meant to prevent the agreement from being initialed – or that this agreement won’t benefit Ukraine much, as assessed by official Kyiv. No one can even be sure that Ukraine has a center keeping this fragile situation under control.

This agreement has to be initialed this December. Otherwise EU-Ukraine relations will register a bad degree of regress. Practically, this will mean that the ongoing talks, resumed with the skin of one’s teeth, will not be completed at their final stage, and that possibility of resuming the process will be anyone’s guess. Subsequent presidents won’t follow into Poland’s footsteps, insisting on the completion of talks, and this agreement may well be shelved because of the financial crisis in Europe and the overall worsening of relations with Ukraine. Ukraine’s achievements look illusory under the circumstances, for this alternative decision means resuming close relations with Russia – relations rooted not in partners, but in big-brother-paternalism – and this is the only way the Kremlin’s proposal for Yanukovych can be interpreted.

Today, the only wise decision would be to initial this agreement without building other obstacles, so that both sides – the EU and Ukraine – could figure out what should be done next. There is no way the European institutions can ignore what’s happening [on both banks of] the River Dnipro. Ukraine, however, will be offered the best opportunity of solving the human rights issue after initialing this agreement. The final stage will be of the outmost importance. Ukraine will have to win the support of [European] Parliament members in certain member countries. Tymoshenko case isn’t just one involving an ex-prime minister. Ukraine’s diplomats, willy-nilly, must acknowledge the fact Yulia remains a symbol of serious political problems that are becoming increasingly apparent in Ukraine. Strange as it may seem, the initialing of the associate membership agreement has to be performed to prevent Ukraine’s leadership from having anything up their sleeve (often in terms of genuine evidence) to prove that EU politics have been cynical on more than one occasion. By the time the Party of Regions and President Yanukovych will have to decide Ukraine’s destiny, the European proposal will have been long delivered and left on the President’s desk – among other things because the Ukrainian political leadership wouldn’t have reason to say they had no alternative.

Each country faces important tactical and strategic decisions. An ability to distinguish between them is what basically makes a good politician. This ability allows to determine between a party functionary and statesman. While in jail, Tymoshenko supports the idea of initialing the Ukraine-EU membership agreement; this singles her out as a good politician. This lady realizes that Ukraine will otherwise be in for serious perturbations. She also knows that The Day of political reckoning, setting different terms and conditions, will come at a later period. Will there be new actors on the cast of Ukraine’s latest political play (including ex-dissidents now in their twilight years)? Will they occupy important political posts? Will there emerge new figures in Europe’s political elite? Will they give up making a major strategic decision because of short-term tactical tasks and plans made by separate politicians? Will there be politicians in Europe who will want to use this occasion to finally sever relations between Ukraine and Europe, with these relations being in the making, also considering that there have been no such relations in our joint history? These answers will be answered in a couple of weeks.

Pawel KOWAL is Chairman of the EU-Ukraine Parliamentary Cooperation Committee in the European Parliament