William TAYLOR: "Ukraine needs a period of stability"

Six months from now a new president will be elected in the United States. Despite all the difficulties that emerged during George Bush's presidency, the US is still the most influential and powerful state in the world. Today many people are questioning whether US policy will change after the new president comes to the White House. Many Ukrainians are also interested in knowing whether US policy will change toward our country once there is a new head of state and whether US support for Ukraine on its way to NATO will remain unchanged.

What guides Washington in its relations with Kyiv - interests or values? What should Ukraine do in order to receive an invitation to join the MAP at the NATO summit in December? These and other questions are raised in The Day 's interview with US Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to Ukraine William TAYLOR.

"NO MATTER WHO WILL BE IN THE WHITE HOUSE ON JAN. 20, 2009, THIS PERSON WILL BE DEVOTED TO SUPPORTING UKRAINE"

Mr. Ambassador, what changes should Ukraine expect in US foreign policy in view of the fact that a new president will be elected on Nov. 4?

"This question is extremely interesting both to Americans and Ukrainians. We have two candidates that are very attractive. But they are very different in many respects: age and life experience. They also have different approaches to policy in many spheres. There are clear differences even concerning foreign policy. We can see this from their discussions about Iraq and whether one should negotiate with enemies. But to respond to your question about Ukraine, I think there will hardly be any differences here. I have several grounds for making such an assumption. The first is that support for Ukraine is not a question on which the candidates have differing positions. I have worked in US administrations headed by both Republicans and Democrats. I have supported the need to give Ukraine support before Congressional Committees that were headed by both Republicans and Democrats. And there have never been any differences either in the approach of the administration or of the Congressional Committees that were headed by either Republicans or Democrats. Generally speaking, there was no difference in the approach to the policy toward Ukraine.

"And there is also agreement of both candidates with regard to the policy toward Ukraine. When John McCain and Barack Obama were getting ready for the NATO summit in Bucharest, both of them on their own initiative issued statements in support of giving the MAP to Ukraine in Bucharest. Both McCain and Obama have visited Ukraine. Therefore, I am sure that whoever will be in the White House on Jan. 20, 2009, this will be a person devoted to supporting Ukraine."

ON AMERICAN INTERESTS AND VALUES

What can you say about American Realism or, to be more exact, "Rethinking the National Interest?" the title of Condoleezza Rice's article in

Foreign Affairs, in which she writes that US foreign policy is based on two principles: interests and values. Which of them applies to Ukraine?

"Both of them. We cannot draw a dividing line here. Our interests and values coincide. We have a great interest in seeing Ukraine achieve success as a democratic country and an inseparable part of Europe. And this coincides with our values, which emphasize how much we appreciate a democratic Ukraine. It seems to me that the Ukrainian people - I want to stress the people, not just the country's leadership - are also interested in European values, European markets, and European institutions. So, for the US it is a concurrence of values and interests in having a strong democracy in Ukraine that is part of Europe."

Ukraine is a young democracy, as you say, but it is hardly being strengthened by the constant flow of statements from Russian politicians, resolutions of the State Duma on Sevastopil and the Crimea, and the review of the Great Agreement between Ukraine and Russia. Will there be any change in US policy toward Russia in the next American administration?

"I don't think that one can speak of any serious impact here. First and foremost, I don't think that Russian leaders support the radical statements of some Russian politicians. For example, Russia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs has not expressed any support for Mayor Luzhkov's statements. We don't think that any responsible government in Russia would dare cast doubt on Ukraine's territorial integrity."

“PUTIN IS WRONG ABOUT THE LEVEL OF SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE’S NATO MEMBERSHIP”

Are you, personally, or the US government concerned about reports in the mass media that say that “Russia will buy Europe,” “Russia is trying to separate the US from the EU,” as well as about the German expert’s opinion that President Dmitrii Medvedev wants to split NATO?

“Indeed, Russia’s official position is that it does not want to see Ukraine in NATO. But Russia takes an active part in NATO activities and cooperates with it. Russians benefit from this cooperation and vice versa — NATO benefits from such cooperation with Russia. I don’t think that Russia would like to destroy these relations. Our point of view is that we believe that Ukraine should decide on its own whether it wants to be a member of NATO at some stage. This means that now the decision concerning NATO membership is fully in Ukraine’s hands, not Russia’s. However, Putin is right that in saying that democracy should be upheld. If the Ukrainian people confirm during the referendum that they want their country to be in NATO, then it is yes. NATO has also confirmed its readiness to accept Ukraine as a member. But if Ukrainians, after holding a thorough discussion of all aspects of this question and after obtaining answers to all their questions, decide that no, they don’t want to be in NATO, this will be a response. He is right in this sense: democracy is important.”

But is Putin right in saying that 80 percent of Ukrainians are against NATO? According to surveys, 53 percent are against NATO membership, while over 20 percent support it and over 20 percent are unsure?

“No, he is wrong about the concrete level of support for Ukraine’s membership in NATO. In your question you say that the level of support for Ukraine’s membership is shaky. It is not important what surveys indicate yesterday, today, or tomorrow. What is important is what Ukrainians will say during the referendum or in another way, granting their leaders one kind of power or another on this question. This must happen when it should. This may be in two years or five.”

“UKRAINE HAS DONE WHAT IT HAD TO DO IN ORDER TO BE READY TO START THE MAP”

Do you see any trump cards or levers that would favor a positive decision for Ukraine at the meeting of NATO foreign ministers this December?

“Yes. Most of the factors that may have an influence are in the hands of the Ukrainian government. First of all, it must be shown to NATO foreign ministers that Ukraine is treating the onset of this process with all gravity. And the heads of foreign ministries of the NATO member countries will judge the seriousness of Ukraine’s attitude from the approach its officials take to discussing questions. The foreign ministers of the NATO member countries will look at the way the Ukrainian government is holding discussions with the Ukrainian public, and whether any information campaign is taking place. The ministers will obviously be relying on what their ambassadors to Ukraine will say. And they will hear this during their visit here next week. The heads of the foreign ministries will definitely pay attention to whether the Ukrainian government is applying correct efforts to achieving political stability. If a serious political crisis takes place in Ukraine before this December, it will, of course, be much more difficult for the foreign ministers of the NATO member countries to make a positive decision concerning the MAP for Ukraine. All these criteria will be assessed by the ministers in the next six or seven months.”

What is your assessment of the actions of the Ukrainian government and president to fulfill these criteria and the Ukraine-NATO Target Plan?

“Our view is that Ukraine has done what it should in order to be ready to launch the MAP. We are also satisfied with the fact that Ukraine’s officials — ministers and deputy ministers — are holding regular talks with Brussels on an appropriately high level. We are also glad that the government and the Presidential Secretariat have come to an agreement concerning the body that will deal with this dialog and information campaign. It is good that Vice-Prime Minister Hryhorii Nemyria will be engaged in unifying these efforts.”

US SUPPORT SHOULD NOT BE TOO STRIDENT

What can the United States do in order to help Ukraine receive a positive response in December?

“I will underline one more time that the main responsibility for achieving a positive decision in December rests with Ukrainian officials. The US will by all means support Ukraine in this. If Kyiv wants to launch this process, the United States will support this. Of course, we will have discussions with our allies in Brussels. We also have regular discussions both in Kyiv and Washington. And we will take part in the assessment process that will precede the meeting of the NATO foreign ministers. You have seen how strong US support for Ukraine has been. We are continuing in this spirit.”

But some Europeans have said that this strong support was counter- productive.

“This support, of course, should not be too strident. Frankly speaking, I don’t understand why this decision has to be viewed as being so controversial. This is not a decision about NATO membership. This is almost a bureaucratic or even technical decision. This is a decision concerning the start of the process. I would agree with my European colleagues, who said that this should be a calmer and not very publicized procedure rather than a great political campaign.”

How then should one interpret the article in The International Herald Tribune , whose author asserts that the US initiative to give the MAP to Georgia and Ukraine failed and that this failure is one more example of American ineffectiveness?

“The thing is that we have considered and still consider that Ukraine has done everything possible in order to launch this technical process, which is called the MAP. We were disappointed that no corresponding decision was approved in Bucharest. But we think that the statement that was approved by all the heads of the NATO member states in Bucharest, that Ukraine and Georgia will be members of the alliance, is a great step forward.”

THE ROLE OF THE PARTY OF REGIONS AND COOPERATION WITH NATO

Mr. Ambassador, what is your view of the role in the process of Euro-Atlantic integration of the Party of Regions, whose leaders previously supported Ukraine’s membership in NATO, perhaps in the long run, but suddenly began to oppose this and are now taking part in the creation of NATO-free zones?

“Any large political force or party, and the Party of Regions is this kind of large force, has a whole spectrum of opinions on important political questions. And any party both in the US and in Ukraine will lay stress on certain questions during election campaigns and will not emphasize them between election campaigns. There is a consensus among the main political forces that Ukraine should be part of and a member of European structures. There are different opinions about NATO in Ukraine and also within any political party concerning the way and at which pace Ukraine should be moving towards this.”

You have spoken with the leaders of the Party of Regions. Did they explain their attitude to NATO?

“In the last two years I have had plenty of talks with the leaders of the Party of Regions. And they were, I would say, consistent enough in explaining their desire for closer cooperation between Ukraine and NATO. They view cooperation with this organization and its members from a practical point. They see, for example, possibilities for military-industrial cooperation between Ukraine and corresponding companies in Germany, Italy, and France. And this position has not changed; at least this is what the party’s leaders say. The party’s position may change with time. But the leaders of this political party said that European membership is the goal of Ukrainian policy.”

At one time, the members of this biggest opposition party voted for the law stating that Ukraine’s end goal is NATO membership. What is your assessment of the position of this party and its leadership, which are not implementing the current law?

“If this party had a serious position on the need to change this law, they should have probably made concrete proposals. But there have been no proposals of this kind yet. Now we are returning to my remark about the importance of democracy. The people must have their representatives in parliament. And this parliament is responsible for approving these kinds of laws. The coalition agreement has a clear statement on NATO membership and the MAP.”

“ANY CHANGE OF GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL, AND DEMOCRATIC”

Mr. Ambassador, to continue the topic of democracy, in one of your speeches you said that Ukraine is a young democracy, and surprises will happen. Were you surprised by the situation that recently emerged in the Ukrainian parliament, when two MPs left the democratic coalition, which practically means its collapse?

“The fact that these two MPs left the coalition has not yet led to its collapse. We know that a coalition is created by factions. And the factions are still within the coalition. But yes, Ukraine is a young democracy with a high number of surprises. It was a surprise to me, for example, when the Verkhovna Rada was blocked by a senior partner in the coalition. And we can be forgiven our surprise because I don’t think that anything of this kind ever happened in Ukraine, and I don’t think that anything of this kind has ever happened in any other parliament.”

Will you be surprised, then, if a so-called broad coalition is created in Ukraine?

“I will probably not be surprised by this because the talks about this have been taking place here ever since I arrived here as ambassador.”

On what principles should a coalition be based in order to be recognized by the American government?

“The main principle must be as follows: any change of government should be legal, constitutional, and democratic. The elections that have taken place in Ukraine in the last two years were very good. So we are completely satisfied with how well the voice of the Ukrainian people was heard. And it is not our business how these parliamentarians, as the representatives of the Ukrainian people, are trying to organize themselves. We will recognize any government, if the process of its election is legitimate, constitutional, and democratic.”

In your opinion, will such an approach — the creation of a broad coalition — solve the situation and secure stability for Ukraine?

“I think that Ukraine needs a period of stability, because there are a number of important decisions that should be approved. Serious reforms have to be implemented. These kinds of things are difficult to do in an instable political situation. But Ukrainian politicians and the Ukrainian people should decide on their own how to achieve this stability.”

You recently issued a statement expressing your disappointment with the decision of the Cabinet of Ministers to break the agreement with the Vanco Energy Company of the US. Do you still consider that the Ukrainian government is acting unlawfully and inconsistently? How, then, should one view the fact that some unknown intermediary structure is involved in this agreement, considering that the US government had said that Ukraine was supposed to conclude an agreement in the gas sphere with Russia without intermediaries?

“I don’t think these are similar cases. It is interesting that you are offering the possibility to see how much they differ. In my opinion, the process initiated by the government headed by Yekhanurov, which was aimed at determining, with the help of a competing tender, who would get the contract to distribute the production, as a result of which this right was granted to Vanco, was organized in a very professional and transparent way, and met all standards. I have talked to the representatives of the companies that competed with Vanco in 2006. They had no complaints either about the process or the government. This was a transparent process that resulted in this company being selected. This is not at all the way RosUkrEnergo was at one time chosen to be the intermediary in the gas relations between Ukraine and Gazprom. In Vanco’s case, the clauses in the contract and the agreement on the distribution of production were public and transparent. As I said in the statement that you mentioned, investors are closely watching the way the government treats the fulfillment of the contracts it has concluded. Of course, there is always a possibility for both parties to the contract to make certain changes to it. If one of the parties does not want any changes, the following should be done: one party should sit at the negotiating table and start talking with the other party to the contract. And all this is possible but difficult.”

So the government should come to the negotiating table, but with which company, the American one or the intermediary company, which is registered offshore?

“There is a usual and acceptable process whereby the main company grants a branch enterprise the right to fulfill the contract it has signed. And this daughter enterprise is responsible for all duties and has the resources of the main company at its disposal to fulfill them. This is quite an ordinary practice and rule of work for international oil companies. So the government should have sat down at the negotiating table with the company that signed the contract with Vanco and resolved the questions that had emerged. The government signed the contract with Vanco International and issued a license for Vanco Prykerchenska. If the problem is with the license, then the government should hold negotiations with Vanco Prykerchenska. This is the normal legal process.”

“SUCCESS IN THE FIGHT AGAINST CORRUPTION WILL BE EXTREMELY IMPORTANT FOR THE INVESTMENT CLIMATE”

What is your general impression of the investment climate and the fight against corruption in Ukraine? How effective is the US’s anti-corruption assistance?

“I think that most Ukrainians and foreign observers will agree that Ukraine has much to do in the sphere of fighting corruption. The success in the struggle against corruption will be extremely important for the investment climate. The investors have to be absolutely confident that whenever necessary, any business dispute will be resolved in a Ukrainian court in an unbiased, fair, and transparent way. As for the 45 million dollars’ worth of aid provided by the American government for the anti-corruption struggle, it is producing certain results. Of course, there will be a need for directives and governmental and presidential support once this program reaches the point of approving certain decisions. And these directives and support should come from the council headed jointly by the deputy prime minister and deputy head of the Presidential Secretariat. Other ministries are also represented in this council. We look forward to forming this council, which will issue directives and support the fight against corruption.”

In view of the current investment climate, do you think that American companies will enter the Ukrainian market too late? Other countries are not waiting; they are not afraid that Ukraine does not have ideal conditions for business.

“Yes, they will be too late. But companies are the ones that make these decisions. Ukraine has a colossal investment potential both in agriculture, high technology, and oil and gas. But investors are conservative about this because the whole thing is about investing their own money. The US government would like to see American investments in Ukraine. We would like American companies to invest in Ukraine. But we don’t push companies to make decisions on investments based on anything else besides their own assessment of the risks they will have in Ukraine.”

What else besides the question of fighting corruption should be done by the Ukrainian government so that companies will invest here?

“I think the most important thing that affects the investment climate is the reform of the judiciary system. Business disputes are taking place all the time. But some of the risks in Ukraine lie precisely in the judicial system. Once the reform of the judiciary system is implemented, there will be a smaller number of risks linked to the possibility of making deliberate rather than legal decisions, and this will increase Ukraine’s attractiveness to investors.”