The dangers of nonalignment

As Viktor Yanukovych signed the law “On the Foundations of Domestic and Foreign Policy,” Ukraine finally achieved nonaligned status at a legislative level. Naturally, it is a sheer formality because the administration has failed to produce mechanisms that would ensure a true implementation of this status. This mainly applies to funding the army (especially after introducing amendments to the national budget, reducing military expenditures). So the available budget can only allow the Armed Forces to maintain their combat readiness but not to grow. The Ministry of Defense has announced its intention to reduce the army strength by 15 to 20 percent by 2015 and dispose of the excess armaments, equipment and infrastructure items, but it did not say a word about contract-based service. Besides, what kind of nonalignment can we talk about if the lease on Russia’s Black Sea Fleet base in the Crimea was extended until 2042, just seven years before the contract expires? Moreover, nonaligned status in general does not allow a foreign military base on the state’s territory. And, finally, this law waives accession to NATO, one of the main foreign-policy goals in previous years. Our interview with Valerii CHALY, deputy director-general of the Razumkov Center, European Choice officer at the Government of Changes (“Front of Changes”), deals with domestic and foreign policy issues, the visit of Patriarch Kirill, geopolitical changes in the post-Soviet space, UN International Court’s ruling on Kosovo, etc.

Mr. Chaly, would you comment on the law “On the Foundations of Domestic and Foreign Policy”?

“The passage of this law has seriously altered Ukraine’s foreign-policy priorities. It is so far on the le­gislative level, but I am sure these measures will be implemented very soon. The only goal of this law was to take entry into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization off the agenda. But the problem is that the current administration has not offered any alternative model for Ukraine’s security. The clause on nonalignment is meaningless because the government is not going to take any serious steps to make this model work effectively. We know that nonalignment is a very expensive model, for it requires additional resources for developing the armed forces. Instead, the army budget has been cut by 2.135 billion hryvnias. Besides, the nonalignment model presupposes switching to an effective volunteer army, which, incidentally, presidential candidate Viktor Yanukovych promised to get done in 2011. On the whole, the proposed status needs a very different approach to ensuring Ukraine’s security. But we have to admit that nothing is being done to this end today.

“It should be noted that the adopted law has some clauses that complicate the situation – it is still possible for Ukraine to join regional security systems. NATO has been dropped. So this raises a logical question: what regional security systems is it about? The latest statements on the necessity to increase cooperation with the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) with Russia at the head shows that we cannot rule out the possibility of Ukraine’s accession to CSTO in the next five years. There are no guarantees. What is important in this respect is Arsenii Yatseniuk’s draft resolution that the decision on joining CSTO should only be made through national referendum. Unfortunately, coalition MPs voted against this, thus leaving themselves opportunities for the future. In general, the law ‘On the Foundations of Domestic and Foreign Policy’ failed to bridge the security gap for Ukraine, for it did not offer a new model. By adopting this document, the leadership only made a certain show of respect for Russia in order to alleviate tension in our relations. Yes, they succeeded in this, but the law does not guarantee security.”

At the same time, Ukraine and NATO are carrying out an annual cooperation program and have held Sea Breeze, a joint military exercise.

“I am sure that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Defense, and all those who deal with these matters are fully aware that it would be a mistake to stop cooperating with NATO. Why? The alliance is helping Ukraine in many fields. For example, in scrapping Soviet excess ammunition and retraining the Ukrainian officers who retire and apply for other jobs. We are also cooperating in peacekeeping operations which serve to improve the skills of the Ukrainian army. Naturally, all these programs should be kept intact. But shall we manage to do so if we keep on declaring our nonaligned status?

“There may be questions from our northern neighbors who insist on our nonalignment as well as from those Ukrainians who favor curtailing cooperation with NATO. Naturally, this will affect the implementation of joint programs. I have not yet seen this kind of alarming signals, but we should not rule them out because there are people who make ideological decisions, and other who carry them out. I can predict, for example, that, unlike the ministries of foreign affairs and defense, other ministries will not be so eager to cooperate. The way the Ministry for the Emergency works shows to what extent the cooperation with the alliance will be active.”

Many call the visit of Kirill, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, to Ukraine a political one. Do you agree? What consequences can be expected from this?

“Patriarch Kirill is rather cautious in his statements, but it is difficult to say that he paid a pastoral visit. His visits are an element of the foreign policy of Russia which uses church links to form the so-called “Russian world.” This ideological concept is reflected in many religious, energy-related and other decisions. Naturally, the patriarch has the right to come to Ukraine and carry out his pastoral duties, but one should avoid blunders.

“The impression is that top officials, including President Viktor Yanukovych, do not understand the difference between a rank-and-file citizen of Ukraine and the head of state. One must not give preference to one church only—one must pursue a balanced line which would rally the country. Instead, state-run television keeps beaming hour-long live broadcasts of events connected with only one of Ukraine’s churches. These trends must be reversed. In a relations with Russia, Ukraine should follow a very clear-cut line in order to avoid problems at the level of bilateral contacts. Yes, the church is a civil society institution, but this does not mean we should allow situations that border upon interference into Ukraine’s internal affairs.”

After the relations between Russia and Belarus became strained, we witnessed the appearance of President Mikhail Saakashvili of Georgia and his Latvian counterpart Valdis Zatlers on Belarusian television, which would have been unimaginable before. What commonalities are there between the leaders and the outsiders of democratic transformations in the post-Soviet space? Besides, the presidents of Belarus, Georgia and Azerbaijan have been frequently meeting. Can this be a reflection of certain geopolitical changes on the CIS?

“Belarus is a European country that is objectively gravitating to the European Union. There are different opinions on President Aleksandr Lukashenko’s position: it is balancing between Russia and Europe, economic calculation, etc. Indeed, the values that are being practically implemented in the Baltic countries and Belarus essentially differ by the level of the freedom of speech, assembly and political competition. Yet these countries stay in contact. I think Europe wishes to draw Belarus one way or another into its active sphere, but there is also another factor. A real increase of Russian influence and the desire to exercise control of the whole post-Soviet space. Both Baltic and other ex-Soviet countries, now part of the EU, are keenly aware of this threat.

“We are now witnessing a new period of development in the CIS. It should be emphasized that all contacts between countries in various formats is a positive thing. I am convinced that a reliable area of democratic development should be established from the Baltic to the Black Sea.”

The presidential elections in Poland brought to power Bronislaw Komorowski of the Civic Platform. Was it unexpected for you? How are Ukrainian-Polish relations going to develop in the future?

“What was really unexpected was Jaroslaw Kaczynski’s high-level performance. Although he came second best in these elections, his political party will exert essential political influence on the future parliamentary elections. Under Poland’s political system, the prime minister and the parliamentary coalition have a greater say in tackling concrete problems and mechanisms of cooperation. Both Mr. Komorowski and Mr. Kaczynski know Ukraine very well. They understand that it is in the national interests of their country to have stability and democratic development on the eastern borders of Poland. They have been repeatedly emphasizing that they would like to see Ukraine in the European Union, even though Poland is part of the EU which is tired of Ukraine. This will also have an impact.”

The International Court of Justice in The Hague has handed down a consultative judgment that unilateral secession of Kosovo from Serbia was legitimate. Kosovo has now been recognized by 69 countries. Is this number likely to grow? To what extent can this precedent threaten the territorial integrity of Ukraine?

“The ruling was much to be expected. Some experts say it is a politico-legal, rather than legal, judgment. Unfortunately, this ruling confirms that international legal mechanisms often work by the principle of ‘right of force,” not “force of right.” But what influential countries recognize politically becomes part of legal decisions. This is corrosion of the entire international legal system. I once was of the opinion that recognizing Kosovo is a Pandora’s box that that may boost separatist sentiments in the European region. Incidentally, this was one of the reasons why Russia took a military action against Georgia and then recognized Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

“It was a wise decision when the foreign ministry actively consulted with not only other officials but also a wide circle of experts. Ukraine upholds territorial integrity of states. Why? Not only because this is a principle of international relations and international law but also because there are a lot of separatism-related frozen conflicts around Ukraine. I do not think there are any internal threats to Ukraine itself. We have a different situation. I would not put Ukraine in the same line with Moldova, Azerbaijan, or Georgia. Naturally, the Kosovo ruling may lift barriers for the countries that planned to recognize its independence. But I am not sure that Ukraine will not change its attitudes in the nearest future.”

Just a few years ago Ukraine was a hope for democracy in the post-totalitarian space, today we are steadily marching into a blind alley, giving the right of way to those who have made a lot of efforts to tarnish the image of Ukraine. What is the cause of this?

“It is a very serious question. To begin with, Ukraine has not yet formed a closely-knit political nation. We are still being ruled by the elites deeply rooted in the Soviet Union. The words ‘independence’ and ‘sovereignty’ has not become an axiom for all citizens of Ukraine. Politicians respond to demands being formed in capitals other than Kyiv, such as Moscow. But, whatever the case, we must admit that we have also had wrong perceptions before: we were too eager to follow the line of Washington or Brussels. Unfortunately, we failed to form a well-balanced national policy that could rally the country. Another objective factor is Ukraine’s geo-strategic location between the two integrationist associations: EU-Eurasian Economic Community and NATO-CSTO. We ended up in a gray buffer zone, which is quite dangerous for the further existence of a sovereign and independent state.

“What matters for many Ukrainian leaders are tactical results rather than strategy of our state’s development. I will recall that the 2004 strategy (projected until 2015), which was adopted under the guidance of the then Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych, says in no uncertain terms: accession to NATO and the EU. Today, Viktor Yanu­ko­vych, already president, is taking quite an opposite attitude to NATO. It is very difficult to trust politicians after this. But, in reality, the question of joining or not joining NATO is a mechanism. Of greater importance are the deep-rooted problems of societal development. In 2004 the middle class said its resolute word, when it thwarted an authoritarian model in Ukraine. But, in spite of this, our civil society is not yet developed enough to be the prime mover of our country’s development. In other words, the question today is whether society is prepared to build its future. Once we become certain of this, we will not lag behind the European community, where guaranteed and stable democratic development is holding sway.”