Where is the logic?

Ukrainian parliamentarians have put the skids under this country’s NATO plans. At the same time, they have dealt a blow to Ukrainian aviation. Is this the result of some pre-election games? A few days ago the Ukrainian parliament failed to ratify an agreement with NATO on the use of Ukraine’s strategic cargo aircraft in NATO operations and exercises. Incidentally, this memorandum was already signed in Warsaw on June 7, 2004, when the current leader of the Party of Regions, Viktor Yanukovych, was the prime minister. This party’s faction abstained from voting. One could mention other political forces that used to be more favorably disposed to cooperating with NATO. This fact shows convincingly how politicians can turn a matter of strategic importance into a question of a populist nature.

What would Ukraine gain if the memorandum were approved? Leonid HOLOPATIUK, chief of the European Integration Department at the Ukrainian Armed Forces General Headquarters, told The Day that “this document was necessary for purely pragmatic considerations,” because it would help us repair equipment, earn money, and train pilots. “I have the impression that nobody looked into the heart of the matter. The stereotype of the abbreviation was at work here: as soon as the parliamentarians saw the word ‘NATO,’ they began to react in purely crowd-pleasing terms, without looking into the details,” General Holopatiuk noted. “There are not many countries with such a powerful air force. For most NATO member states this is a ‘terra incognita.’ Meanwhile, the alliance is increasingly often confronted with tasks related to airlifting peacekeeping contingents as quickly as possible. NATO is allowing Ukraine to occupy this niche. The memorandum would have removed a lot of unnecessary conditions.”

Why did the MPs turn down a proposal that would have benefited Ukraine? The Day asked Volodymyr ZUBANOV from the Party of Regions faction to comment. First, he explained that many voters “take a dim view of NATO membership.” (Is a different view possible if a considerable number of politicians are fanning anti-NATO sentiments instead of explaining the advantages of cooperating with and being a member of NATO?) As though anticipating the remark that this memorandum calls for cooperation, not membership, the MP admitted, “It is about technical cooperation, and even neutral countries, such as Austria and Finland, maintain this kind of cooperation with NATO.” “At first glance, we could have voted for it. But the ill-considered actions of the government that declares that we want to go to NATO has led to a situation where the very word ‘NATO’ in any context raises objections from our voters and the Party of Regions faction. The government has very much politicized this matter.

So any mention of the alliance in any context is rejected.” The Day didn’t dispute this, because arguments about election slogans are often futile. Nevertheless, we reminded the MP that the current government has just (finally) honestly said what only the boldest politicians dared to say under previous governments. It should be recalled that the decision to join NATO was made three years ago, on May 23, 2002, at a meeting of the National Security and Defense Council.

The Ministry of Defense told The Day that this question will be put to another vote but did not say when. In the meantime, some MPs can now ponder the question: Who — the government or the aviation — stands to lose now that the agreement has been rejected? Maybe these politicians will keep on chanting the mantra that we must be in the SES because nobody in the European Union is waiting for us. And why should anyone be waiting? In this connection General Holopatiuk was quite right when he said, “Those who voted against did not understand the first thing about it. If we display this kind of inconsistent and emotional approach, certainly nobody will be waiting for us. We are being offered a good proposal but we are refusing it. Our partners will ask the logical question: Why should we have any dealings with you in the future?”

A NATO CRASH COURSE FOR BUREAUCRATS

Ukrainian regional officials recently studied the advantages of Ukraine’s membership in NATO at this organization’s headquarters in Brussels. Among those invited to participate in this special program were the deputy heads of all regional administrations. The visit was organized as part of a national public outreach program about the principles and objectives of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Vadym Chernysh, deputy head of the Kirovohrad Oblast Administration, told journalists about his impressions of the visit. “Unfortunately, most Ukrainians oppose joining NATO. The prime cause of this is that our society is not aware that the alliance is not an aggressive military organization.” He pointed out that one of NATO’s main goals is combating international terrorism. Chernysh also said that NATO makes all decisions by consensus only, i.e., with the consent of all 26 member states. “This is truly a democratic method,” he noted. The Kirovohrad oblast official also pointed out that according to the alliance’s charter, an attack on one of its members is automatically considered aggression against all the member states. “NATO membership is a guarantee of collective security,” says Darya SICHKAR from Kirovohrad, quoting Chernysh.