Ukraine - NATO: Time to Act Quickly

NATO is dying. NATO is split. NATO may cease to exist. Last week world media competed in writing political obituaries on the subject. NATO Council meetings lasted several days in an attempt to find a middle ground between the stands taken by France, Germany, Belgium, and the United States. They ended in a deadlock. US newspapers wrote about the treacherous French who forgot Washington’s help during World War II. Well, the North Atlantic Alliance is still alive. Ukraine looks at this tense situation with interest, since it announced its Euro-Atlantic course last year. Should Ukraine join an organization where the leading members are in disagreement? I think it should, because the latest battle within the Alliance is a sign of NATO’s democratic maturity. It is obvious that NATO is not a pawn in American policy.

At the time of NATO’s council meetings a round table discussion was held in Kyiv. It was titled “Euro-Atlantic Integration: Status and Prospects.” The discussion was organized by the National Institute for Strategic Problems of International Security under the National Security and Defense Council and the National Institute of Strategic Studies under the President of Ukraine. The latest developments within the Alliance were mentioned, but everyone agreed with Volodymyr Horbulyn, head of the National Center for European Integration, that “the current situation with Iraq is the best evidence since 1949 that NATO is a major democratic institution.” US Ambassador Carlos Pascual stressed that every NATO country has a right to vote and that there is nothing wrong with debating the issues. It is a normal process of coming to an agreement. Analysts believe that the latest NATO developments indicate evolution, not decay. This must make the prospect of NATO membership even more attractive to Kyiv, forcing it to step up the efforts in that direction.

Kyiv may have some problems with being accepted into the Alliance. It often happens that Ukraine’s declarations are not supported with actions, and commitments before the international community are willfully ignored. In the beginning of moving toward NATO Kyiv demonstrated its dedication to Euro- Atlantic integration by setting up numerous organizations and centers, and instituting posts. Results were very confusing, and it was hard to be sure who was truly responsible for the implementation of the strategic NATO course.

First, NSDC approved Euro- Atlantic integration on May 29, 2002. Then the Euro-Atlantic and European Integration Council was established. Later the president signed an edict setting up the National Euro-Atlantic Integration Center. Obviously, Ukrainian leadership is determined to create as many coordinating bodies as possible. This could be a good idea, but “integration” may end up only as a word in the names of various institutions, and never become real. Such institutional activity, including the latest decision of placing the First vice Premier Azarov in charge of Euro-Atlantic integration, is not likely to impress NATO. US Ambassador Carlos Pascual noted that there are a lot of performers of Euro-Atlantic integration in Ukraine and that Kyiv should finally decide on how to organize all these resources. Volodymyr Horbulyn wants to see financing of all NATO related projects in Ukraine from a “single budget.” He says that it is not practiced now and that “it is very difficult to monitor expenses of every ministry working with NATO.”

Currently, time is the decisive factor for Ukrainian integration. Only three months have elapsed since the Prague summit, but there is little time left for Ukraine to honor its commitments, considering the rate of the European process. The Prague summit adopted an action plan and a target plan for Ukraine. Kyiv will have to report how these specific plans have been accomplished, and this will determine whether Ukraine is ready to reach a higher level of relationships with the Alliance. The document has not been published yet. Mr. Horbulyn said it will be published after settling the matter with Brussels, since the document is marked as classified. In fact, he stressed that Ukraine will be the first country to make such a plan public. Are there secrets in the document? Probably not. NATO members agreed several times that Kyiv could make this plan public knowledge. It would allow everyone to see how well Ukrainian officials are honoring their commitments. Keeping this document hidden would make one wonder whether Kyiv keeps its promises. Publishing the document could also dispel the growing distrust of NATO among Ukrainians. Some explain this distrust by the Kolchuga scandal, others by NATO’s possible military campaign in Iraq. The realists say it is because the people are not adequately informed. Some Ukrainians do not know anything about NATO. Mr. Pascual said that NATO pays serious attention to public opinion and the population must have a clear picture of the Alliance. Ihor Kharchenko, Foreign Ministry’s deputy state secretary, replied with an example of a US newspaper poll in 1999. The question was simple: “What is NATO?” Most Americans, living in the country that is a key NATO member, replied that NATO means “North Atlantic Trucks Organization.” It may be a good example, but not relevant. It was not the United States but Ukraine that stated its intention to join the Alliance.

“You have to act, not just debate matters. A situation has developed in Ukraine that requires reforms,” says Italian Ambassador Iolanda Brunetti- Getz. The US ambassador said that the rate of reforms determines Ukraine’s movement toward NATO. Ukraine faces a challenge of acting quickly, not to be left on the side of the road. Ambassador Pascual was among the first Western diplomats to suggest hypothetically that the timeframe of Ukraine’s integration into the Alliance may not be as long. It would not be unrealistic to expect more than nine new members in the Alliance in 2004. Likewise, one may expect the third expansion wave by 2006 NATO summit. In other words, Ukraine might join NATO in 2008. What should be done to get there? Mr. Pascual says that, first of all, Ukraine must adopt the same values as NATO. Second, it must adhere to the economic, political, and national security standards. Third, partnership with NATO does not rule out partnership with other countries. This was the response to a concern voiced by Heorhy Kriuchkov’s, Communist Party representative, about Ukraine’s relations with its neighbors, particularly Russia. Mr. Pascual acknowledged that Ukraine should maintain friendship with Russia, because “it is your neighbor.” However, Ukraine should finally decide on the main direction of its foreign political effort. Many Western diplomats and analysts believe that, given serious progress in Ukraine and political will on both sides, Ukraine may be invited to join NATO in the next couple of years, but no earlier than 2004.

So, Ukrainian diplomats have been effective so far. Quick steps must be taken now to maintain this effectiveness. The action plan of a civil society will be beneficial to Ukraine. The time is gone when Ukraine could profit simply from its geographical and political position and from making declarations of intent without having to support them with actions.