But rapprochement is underway
The turnout of a NATO-Ukrainian relations poll was published on July 3, carried out at practically the same time, in the first half of June, by two research teams from the Ukrainian Institute of Social Research and Social Monitoring Center, on the one hand, and the Institute of Social and Political Psychology of the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences on the other. The researchers agreed that the poll turnout was the first basic study of the NATO-Ukraine problem (even though similar polls have been carried out previously).
The quickness of the poll and the effectiveness of the data-processing methods used are easily explained. About a month earlier, the National Security and Defense Council passed the historic resolution to work out a national strategy to eventually join NATO. A jubilee meeting of the Ukraine-NATO Commission was held in Kyiv on July 4 attended by Secretary General Lord George Robertson and presenting a draft Ukrainian strategy of further developing relations with the alliance, along with a Ukrainian stage-by-stage rapprochement concept. A document is expected to be signed at the Prague summit in late August to finally outline the prospects of bilateral relations for the immediate future.
Ukraine has shown its long-awaited political will. In this context the way Ukrainian society envisions its relations with NATO becomes especially important, because this attitude will determine the guidelines in deepening and expanding cooperation between Kyiv and the alliance. The data published on July 3 make it clear that the Ukrainians are not inclined to trust NATO implicitly (UISR and SMC turnout indicates 34% and that of ISPP, 42% of distrust); that they do not have a clear idea of what the alliance is actually all about these days (most often the respondents mentioned “a defense union,” “peacekeeping organization,” “world gendarme protecting the interests of the most prosperous Western countries,” or “the most powerful and influential military and political structure of the present day”). Over half knew nothing about what is being done to develop Ukrainian-NATO relations; more than half had never heard of the NATO-Russia Twenty or the NSDC May 23 resolution. This is only further evidence of the glaring lack of public knowledge. At the same time, about one-third of the respondents wanted Ukraine to join NATO, the sooner the better; most of those familiar with the NSDC resolution approved of it, yet 38-48% did not know what consequences Ukraine’s accession would have. Regrettably, most respondents did not know about NATO and how it is being transformed, which way international relations are headed in general, and how Ukraine’s membership or estrangement could affect this country. This is a blow to the media, because most information (or lack of it) comes from newspapers and television. The media ought to have held public discussions and help their readers and viewers form an accurate idea about what is going on in the world.
The latest poll could be compared to what is happening in Bulgaria, which is expected to be invited to join the alliance at the Prague summit. In that country, 67% (possibly 12-13% more) are for joining NATO. Even more people (85%) support the membership idea in Romania. The percentage is somewhat lower in the Baltic states that are also likely to be admitted this fall, but nonetheless impressive: 60-70%. Public support is quite strong in Macedonia (about 80%), although this country is not likely to be admitted, and this considering that most Macedonians responded to the US air raids in the former Yugoslavia (1999) very negatively. Incidentally, another serious candidate member, Slovakia, shows a picture no better than Ukraine’s: 40-45% of the population feel sure they need NATO membership. Because of the air raids in Yugoslavia, public support in the Czech Republic has noticeably decreased (as it did under President Vaclav Havel who supported them).
The situation in the veteran NATO members in the West is also interesting. Most citizens simply do not care what alliances their countries are involved in or with, until something serious happens as was the case with the NATO operation in Yugoslavia when anti-alliance sentiments flourished, particularly in Greece. Strange things happen in the United States where people are for NATO but without Germany. Few know about the NATO-Russia Twenty in the United States and Western Europe. Making strategic decisions has long been the prerogative of the political elite in the West, and it tries to influence public opinion using the tools it has.
Thus no full consolidation of society is registered in any of the countries seeking NATO membership. Polls monitoring sentiments about NATO showed very different turnouts ten years ago, which is evidence that their societies have finally realized that the road to the West via NATO is probably the shortest and can only help the integration process; that NATO membership is primarily an opportunity to build a national security system at less cost but much more effectively; that at the end of the day, NATO means fresh opportunities for both politicians and the common folk that could have never otherwise materialized.
Hence, the first serious Ukrainian polls on NATO membership can hardly be interpreted as negative. Rather, the turnouts are guidelines for the politicians, experts, and media in their efforts to create an atmosphere in which it will be possible to discuss Ukraine’s serious intentions in general.
COMMENTARIES
Oleksandr YAREMENKO, director, Ukrainian Institute of Social Research:
The Ukrainian public attitude toward NATO is showing positive signs. First, we are all witness to global changes, with different countries integrating to achieve general accord, peace, and parity. This produces the second reason, changes within NATO dictated by the international situation. The alliance’s very nature is changing, along with its relations, confrontations, and priorities. Third, the situation in Ukraine has also changed. Today, this country is looking for its place in the European family of nations and the rest of the world. It is shaping its foreign policy in keeping with world changes and globalization. This policy has a substantial impact on the public mentality and understanding of problems. Fifteen years ago the Soviet citizenry saw NATO as an aggressive military bloc. Today, people realize that its nature has changed. Moreover, the media carry a great deal of information on the subject these days, so one can make up one’s mind where Ukraine should aim to go. Fourth, our country is constantly Western and Northeast oriented, meaning we want to have a brother whom we can always rely upon and with whom we will always work side by side. In other words, we’ll always build our relationships with other countries, bearing in mind their impact on our relations with Russia, and vice versa. And so when Russia took a step in the direction of NATO it had a positive effect on the Ukraine-NATO pattern.
Too bad between thirty and fifty percent of Ukrainians still know very little about the problem of the NATO-Russia-NATO-Ukraine-Ukraine-Russia triangle. These people have no idea what NATO is actually all about, so we carried out that poll; we wanted to know what the man in the street, rather than an expert, thought of the problem. What we discovered was a low level of political culture. However, the last elections and the dynamism of attitudes toward NATO show that this cultural level is rising. Ukrainians today are not a faceless crowd that can be directed any which way. While in 1994 a mere 40-50% of the population were proud of being Ukrainian, today the percentage is considerably higher, reaching above 75% among youth. A great many Ukrainian citizens have changed their neutral or even negative stand toward the alliance. From now on the situation will depend on explanations and promotional efforts of governmental structures, political parties and blocs, on how they will all perform. Public opinion has always been shaped by someone and never of its own accord. It is difficult to predict at this stage which way the foreign policy vector will turn in Ukrainian heads. Indeed, there is an external force objectively capable of improving the situation in this country, but it takes time; people must first hear and then realize that there is something they need to understand. Then they will understand it if properly assisted by the media, politicians, and the state.
Hryhory NEMYRIA , Center for European and International Studies:
Public confidence in NATO is extremely low. The process shows two polarized trends. First, the traditionally high degree of distrust, mostly among the older generation. This negative attitude is considerably influenced by NATO’s crucial role in what happened to Yugoslavia. It is also explained with many that turning to face NATO is associated with a change in Ukrainian-Russian relations.
The other trend is largely determined by a positive stand taken by the younger generation and middle-aged, and is explained by being better informed. In fact, the younger citizenry is better informed owing to Brussels sources. Also, there is a positive approach on the part of the elite. I think that Russia-NATO relations had a positive effect, as now the alliance is regarded as a dynamic rather than hostile organization. The overall trend is thus marked by gradually discarding old stereotypes portraying NATO as an aggressive bloc. A Razumkov Center poll shows that 32% Ukrainian still regard NATO as an aggressive bloc. Last year, it was 48%. This is a significant improvement, yet I wouldn’t overestimate changes in social consciousness, and I think that we still have a long way to go. Ukraine seems determined to occupy a place of honor in Europe, meaning that proper understanding will be there sooner or later.
NATO is not an isolated bloc but an inherent component of what we traditionally refer to as the West or Euro-Atlantic space. I believe that reforms within Ukraine are necessary for the strengthening of public support of the rapprochement policy. First, we must pay attention to the knowledge and professionalism of our elite, which not only rules but is also accountable. I think that this will enhance public confidence in the West and NATO, of course. Next we must lay the educational foundations by our educational establishments enhancing this country’s future.
However, we must remember that changes in consciousness do not occur overnight. World experience shows that even newly admitted countries have problems with adequate perception and understanding of the North Atlantic alliance.
