Values and post-Soviet realities

Ex-Minister of Foreign Affairs Volodymyr Ohryzko is now the first deputy of the secretary of Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council. In this position he is responsible for the country’s national security. Talking to him, it becomes evident that he keeps abreast of both domestic and foreign policy developments.

Ohryzko cannot be accused of any lack of patriotism, because he always stands up for Ukraine’s interests on the international arena and is not afraid to speak on issues that the governments of certain countries do not exactly like.

As the minister of foreign affairs, he tackled the issue of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet in Ukraine and facilitated practical steps toward its withdrawal. Furthermore, he actively supported Georgia in its military conflict with Russia in 2008, drawing Moscow’s discontent.

Ohryzko did not shy away from issuing a protest to Russia’s former ambassador to Ukraine Viktor Chernomyrdin over “unfriendly and utterly undiplomatic evaluations, commentaries, and statements on Ukraine and its leadership.” As is known, this protest cost him his ministerial seat. On March 3, 2009, the Verkhovna Rada dismissed Ohryzko with the votes of the entire Party of Regions faction, the Communist Party of Ukraine, and 49 BYuT MPs.

In an interview to The Day Ohryzko assesses the current stage of Ukraine’s integration into the Euro-Atlantic structures and the role of Ukraine’s elite in bringing the country closer to NATO, the world’s only system of collective security. In his opinion, Ukraine needs to talk and talk again about morals and values.

Mr. Ohryzko, do you believe that before the 2004 NATO summit in Istanbul Ukraine was closer to the Alliance and more prepared to receive MAP than now, in view of the fact that the stances of Sarkozy and Merkel were voiced later?

“I believe that we are fetishizing MAP as a tool for NATO membership and have replaced the concept of meeting criteria with formal indicators. In 2004 we were indeed unable to receive MAP regardless of whether there was Merkel, Sarkozy, or someone else. We did not meet the criteria.

“Incidentally, President Chirac had a fairly favorable attitude to Ukraine’s plans to join the Alliance. However, he did not mention directly any timeframe for “Ukraine’s accession to NATO,” as far as I remember. Regarding MAP, I would like to remind you that it is a long way from the formal granting of MAP to NATO membership. Some countries covered this distance in three years, some in five, and yet others in eight.

“I am convinced that today we have to discuss whether we meet certain criteria rather than whether accession to NATO is desirable or not. To the rhetorical question ‘Do we meet these basic criteria now?’ I must admit, unfortunately, that we don’t — in any aspect.

“Let us take the issue of military reform. True, we have made greater advances here and can speak about significant proximity [to NATO standards]. However, if the Ukrainian army continues to be finances as it is now, we may have to give up this advanced aspect as hopeless. If we continue to reform the political or judicial system as we are doing it now, it will take us many years to meet the criteria.

“At the Bucharest summit a political decision that Ukraine will be a NATO member was made. Therefore, the issue now is how this goal will be implemented by the political forces represented in Ukraine’s society.”

You referred to the fact that we were offered an annual national program instead of MAP as a “great victory.” Don’t you think that this was a kind of autosuggestion?

“I am still convinced that the annual national program is the quintessence and the main tool for the NATO membership preparations. What else is needed? That is why I believe that we should not seek formulas but get down to work—however, not the way the top officials of our current government are doing.”

True, the president, who stands for Ukraine’s accession to NATO, does not have leverage with the government, and it is not known what kind of government we will have in six months.

“Let me emphasize again: it is the question of morals and values. If they are in place, the political elite is moving in the right direction. If they are lacking or if certain party, clan, or personal interests predominate, we will have the results we have now.

“The question is, really, whether the declared things are backed with convictions or whether these are mere formulas used to appeal to some social groups or other. Let me tell you frankly: in my opinion, the leaders of the political forces, if they are true leaders, should explain to society the need to accept certain things. That is why they are the elite. However, I always put quotes around the word ‘elite’ when referring to our country, because what we have is the false elite. The true elite is excellence in everything. And what do we have? Our elite is, perhaps, the first only in lies, cynicism, corruption, irresponsibility, and venality.

“The true elite has more information and knows more than the ordinary citizen; it should inform the public and society on the best course of action, the course of development that will bring the optimum result in perspective. In contrast to this our false elite is now showing only the things it has—helplessness, shortsightedness, and cynicism.”

In doing so they say they rely on the opinion of the populace.

“What citizens need from the elite is truth, honest prognosis of future development, and resolute, effective actions. If the elite sees its function merely in winning someone’s favor, thus staying in power, this is not an elite. This is then a shame for the state and its people.”

So how do we convince the Ukrainian nation of the benefits of joining NATO in order to make it exert pressure on the “elite” and the leading parties?

“Let me give you simple examples from last year’s activities of the foreign affairs ministry, which I headed at the time. We were given 15 million hryvnias for informational activities, which is peanuts. From the viewpoint of a serious PR campaign this is nothing. However, we managed to take some very solid informational measures. We held several interesting informational events and gave an opportunity to a large number of citizens to at least start thinking about what NATO is and how it can influence our everyday realities.

“What happened next? When we saw the first results and when the number of proponents began to gradually but steadily rise, reaching 32–33 percent, the ministry was denied financing starting from Jan. 1, 2009.

“So tell me please, How can we inform the public? I pin great hopes on our civil society. I recently participated in a meeting of the Ukraine–NATO Civic League that gathers together representatives from all regions of Ukraine. I was sincerely surprised by the zeal and persistence with which these people are working.

“So civil society and real support from the state will yield normal results. Moreover, we need to speak about values. If we want to tell the truth to our citizens, we must speak about how human rights are secured in, say, Germany, how the political system functions in France, for example, and what social rights and guarantees the citizens of Belgium or Holland have. This is what NATO is. On top of this, we have, naturally, to think about our own security and defend our independence. This is what is on the agenda when we speak about NATO.”

You mentioned values. Did Barack Obama’s visit to Moscow confirm that the U.S. is determined to be guided by precisely this criterion in its relations with Russia and other countries?

“I don’t think something extraordinary has happened. Many people say that the American president went to Moscow instead of Kyiv or Tbilisi as he should have. The fashionable formula ‘reloading of relations’ is often used now. It seems to me that [his visit] was like extinguishing a fire that has assumed such proportions in the Russia–U.S. relations that it could lead to a real threat of escalation, which would have grave consequences not only for the bilateral relations but the global dialog in general.

“I believe Obama took a wise step by deciding to reduce the temperature of this fire and determine at least the framework for the future relations between the two countries. Though his visit he once again emphasized that de-escalation of the existing situation both in bilateral relations and on a global scale is needed.

“It is my deep conviction that every country will benefit if Russia and the U.S. speak more calmly and resolve their problems more pragmatically. In this way they will even set a pattern of conduct for our regions. This is absolutely normal. So I believe that in this respect the goal of the visit has been achieved.

“In the Ukraine–U.S. relations there are no problems, or hot potatoes, that urgently demand a visit, here and now. You may have noticed that the American president has been visiting the countries or regions that are the hot spots. Thankfully, we are not among them.

“Last year we had an extremely intensive political dialog with the U.S. The U.S. president and vice president visited Ukraine, our president was in the United States twice, and we signed the road map and the Strategic Partnership Charter. I don’t even remember how many times I met with Condoleezza Rice. This was an active political dialog, and it is continued today.

“Now we are moving to the next stage of intensifying this dialog and would like to determine, jointly with the new [U.S.] administration, the optimum forms to implement our previous agreements. We don’t need to reload anything. We only need to continue the [policy] line set by President Yushchenko.”

Mr. Ohryzko, can you comment on the recent statement made by the expert Josef Braml of the German Council on Foreign Relations in which he said that the U.S. has to pay a price for having good relations with Russia, even if such countries as Ukraine are at stake?

“For some reason I am, unfortunately, unaware of the price (in USD) set for certain ‘independent’ opinions and statements made by certain political scientists. I mean not only here but also in Europe, including Germany. So the situation seems understandable and clear to me.

“Let me tell you, however, what is really dangerous about statements of this kind. The danger is that we are essentially being forced to return to the pre-war era when it was normal to negotiate the interests of entire countries and regions without their participation and behind their backs and when the world was divided into spheres of influence and things were being traded.

“In this respect the resolution of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly that recognized that Communism in its probably most odious form, Stalinism, is equal to Nazism seems to have come at the right time. These are the forces that caused tens of millions of deaths around the world.

“That is why I regret to hear these kinds of ‘thoughts’ to emerge precisely from Germany now. This is a very serious warning to the entire democratic world. They need to be publicly and actively condemned; otherwise we will be inviting disaster.”

Returning to the dialog with the U.S., what does Ukraine expect from Vice President Joe Biden’s visit to Kyiv?

“We are talking about continuing a very deep, and I would say comprehensive, dialog that is now developing between Ukraine and the U.S. Thanks to the efforts of President Yushchenko, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and other authorities, this constructive dialog has been built and filled with specific cooperation.

“Now we simply need to compare notes and talk, above all, about the new format for our relations. We would like to return to the previous pattern of an intergovernmental commission. We need to think about intensifying several specific lines of this cooperation and new forms of cooperation in the context of the current economic situation in the world.

“Second, we definitely need to discuss the entire complex of security issues. Today Ukraine has found itself outside the security zone. It is a sad but real fact that we are not protected in terms of security. That is why these issues and the context of a new treaty on SNF [strategic nuclear forces] are, no doubt, a very important and serious topic for negotiations.

“Third, it is about cooperation in the energy sector. This is a key topic for all the world players. If you remember the Charter on Distinct Partnership between Ukraine and the U.S., it clearly says that Ukraine and the U.S. will consult [each other] and facilitate practical cooperation in the Ukraine–EU–U.S. triangle. This is a logical approach to the energy problems.

“We view the visit of the U.S. vice president as an extremely important political event per se. At the same time, this is yet another step toward the meeting of our presidents. It will, no doubt, take place. It is an issue of protocol arrangements, and it is not off the agenda. The main thing is that the line in the Ukraine–U.S. relations we have agreed on will be continued and developed.”