Window of possibility

Ukraine’s chances of getting the NATO Membership Action Plan (MAP) this December are slim. But it still has a chance to get it at NATO’s 60th jubilee summit that will be held in Germany and France in April 2009. This conclusion was reached by a group of Ukrainian experts, who have just completed the third stage of a project called “Public Support for Granting the MAP to Ukraine” in Berlin.

“Ukraine should not expect to get the MAP this December because of the announcement of early elections,” Oleh Rybachuk, the head of the oversight council of the Community Foundation, declared at yesterday’s press conference. According to Rybachuk, the political situation in Ukraine gives its European partners full moral right to declare that there is nobody to give the MAP to.

He emphasized that because of the domestic political situation in Ukraine, where politicians have practically ceased to deal with questions regarding Euro-Atlantic integration, the topicality of the dialogue between Ukrainian and European expert circles has grown. Rybachuk announced that a group of Ukrainian experts is planning to visit the Netherlands by the end of the year. The Netherlands is the second country after Germany that is against Ukraine’s membership in NATO and the EU.

The head of international programs at the Razumkov Center, Valerii Chaly, noted that in the wake of the Georgian conflict there is some confusion among European experts. “At the moment, Europe is not able to answer the following questions: what kind of system of collective security will there be, and what will be Ukraine’s place in this system? Events in Ukraine — the announcement of early parliamentary elections — have provided Germany with arguments against raising the level of cooperation and for putting an end to Ukraine’s bid for the MAP,” Chaly said.

At the same time, this Ukrainian expert believes that after the meeting of NATO’s foreign ministers in Tallin and the early elections in Ukraine, a window of possibility may appear for Ukraine getting the MAP. This window will appear if the new parliament confirms the country’s intention to improve the level of relations with the Alliance. Therefore, this chance should be seized upon, and public activity as well as the activity of expert circles must be raised in order to build a positive image of Ukraine.

The head of the international programs at the Razumkov Center noted that Ukraine is frequently discussed on the pages of European newspapers. This is good, but the problem is, he emphasized, that the information about our country comes primarily from Russian press agencies and it is mainly negative. And the political instability in Ukraine is contributing to this.

“We should not allow a new wall to rise up between NATO and Ukraine or between Ukraine and the EU,” Chaly warned. He also noted that under Russia’s influence, Germany clearly reconsidered the meaning of the MAP, which is simply an instrument for achieving higher standards in the security sector. In his opinion, it is possible that another vision of this instrument will be formulated at the next NATO summit.

The head of the Pro.Mova Agency, Yevhen Hlibovytsky, also talked about Ukraine’s image problem. According to this journalist, Ukraine’s image is being created without its participation. Because of the absence of effective leadership, experience, and vision in Ukraine, meetings of experts are helping to overcome the stereotypes that are rampant within the political elites of European countries and are thus bringing the country closer to achieving its goals.

Oleksandr Sushko, the scholarly director of the Institute for Euro-Atlantic Cooperation, thinks that the task of the expert milieu and civic society is to disperse the doubts of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, as well as her opinion that only President Viktor Yushchenko wants Ukraine to become a member of NATO.

Sushko noted the fact that German expert circles are not in agreement about giving Ukraine the MAP or a prospect of EU membership. Therefore, “we should understand the way decisions are approved in Germany and bring our own vision into the discussions between Angela Merkel and Frank-Walter Steinmeier, which will emerge during the election campaign in Germany in 2009.”

Sushko gave the following answer to a question posed by The Day: Why is Germany unwilling to follow the example of the US, which in its time did not place any obstacles in the way of Germany and Turkey when they wanted to join NATO? “We all remember Germany’s sense of guilt, which appeared after World War II and the complexes connected to this that still exist among the German elite. This guilt paralyzes its readiness to take any dramatic steps in the international arena as well as any ambitious projects that relate to Russian interests.

“The question is not about any possibility of armed conflict, but generally about conducting a policy that is potentially conflictual. If we consider the down-to-earth and obvious things of today, it should be clearly stated that Germany is focused on its inner problems and its attempts to become Europe’s leader in the sense of deepening and consolidating the existing institutions.

“It is against this background that Germany is putting the brakes on further enlargement. It has become tired of it because it has been shouldering the leader’s role, supplying huge sums to the EU budget, and it continues to do so, being its main donor. In the same way, this country has considerably more grounds for skepticism than countries that are more enthusiastic, being EU consumers,” said the scholarly director of the Institute for Euro-Atlantic Cooperation.