Will SES be Economic Space?

Vadym HURZHOS, CEO, Uranko Trading Co. Ltd.:

Of course, we joined SES for political reasons, and what economic motivation there is should be attributed probably to the interests of several Ukrainian industrial-financial groups. Actually, Ukraine stands to lose much in this membership. We and Russia will never join WTO simultaneously, or will, but on conditions dictated by Russia, and it is safe to assume that these conditions will not be good for Ukraine. Really, it’s quite obvious. As for sharing the energy market and a finance and credit policy with Russia, this is only so much talk, an official slogan. Practically all of Russia’s mining, generating, and distribution companies are privatized. How can their government hope to carry out its decision, concerning a joint energy market? How can it expect to influence oil prices and so on? All prices are set proceeding from the oil prices, and the latter depend on the world market situation, meaning prices set by private groups and companies such as Sibneft, Yukos, and Lukoil... It doesn’t take an expert on economics or analysis to know whether this decision is political or economic.

Tetyana SHCHERBAKOVA, economist, International Center for Prospective Studies:

If one looks through the lists of WTO member countries and those that are not, one will see that Ukraine does not have the best of environments. From the economic standpoint, Ukraine needs WTO membership, although its conditions are another disputable matter. Ukraine’s task it to make the most of all the advantages of this membership, so as to keep afloat sectors of its economy that will be exposed to the WTO membership’s negative factors. As for joining WTO simultaneously with Russia, WTO history knows no such precedents, so I don’t think it possible, except as a political game of sorts.

Oleh IVCHENKO, Chairman, Private Employers Congress:

I think the economics and politics rate in SES membership is fifty- fifty. I’d rather discuss the economic aspect, which I know. We all are aware that countries joining EU have to pay for their membership. For example, most consumer goods of basic necessity are bought in Estonia, because they cost more within the European Union. That’s as far as the man in the street is concerned. There are also problems for our producers. First, as soon as a country becomes an EU member, it has to adopt all of EU standards and act so as to meet certain commodity output quotas. Now look at SES. Here you find no production and sales requirements or even for prices. In other words, SES membership appears much better for Ukraine than EU membership. Therefore, I regard Ukraine’s EU membership as a purely political gesture. I mean at present, considering that we are still lagging behind, that our GDP is $700 per capita (compared to some $2,000 in Romania). Also, we can’t join EU even technically — and no one would welcome us there. On the other hand, joining SES is economically more advantageous under the circumstances. On the other hand, it’s also a political decision. Assessing it now would be premature, but I believe that it’s more on the economic side, and I mean positive economy, although there is no telling the outcome. I think it’s not very advantageous and let me try to explain why. Russia has always actually cheated Ukraine in every way it could, proceeding from its own economic and political interests, in order to satisfy its political and economic interests. When I see anyone acting that way, I become suspicious. Therefore, without going into every detail, I can say that SES membership is not advantageous for Ukraine.