Ukraine’s new role in the Eurasian space

Kyrgyzstan recently marked the first anniversary of its Tulip Revolution. Although many Kyrgyz es are voicing their disappointment over the slow pace of transformation in the country, the revolutionary leadership insists that this mood is temporary and results from a host of unsolved problems inherited from the previous government.

Kyiv is a role model of sorts for Bishkek. The Orange Revolution in Ukraine touched off a wave that swept over Kyrgyzstan a few months later. Ukraine has embarked on the road of political reform by extending the powers of parliament. Kyrgyz politicians are considering the same idea.

Last Friday The Day received a letter from Erkin MAMKULOV, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Kyrgyz Republic in Ukraine, in which he shares his views on the role of Ukraine in the post-Soviet space. His opinion is a kind of appeal for responsibility. Will Ukraine become a true engine of transformations in the region?

On March 14, 2006 the Ukrainian edition of The Day published an article entitled “All Hopes on Europe: New Democracies Need Support” by Salome Zurabishvili, ex-foreign minister of Georgia, and on March 29 another Ukrainian newspaper, Delo, carried an interview with Rosa Otunbayeva, ex-foreign minister of the Kyrgyz Republic.

Without dwelling on the contents of these articles, I will only say that their publication in Ukrainian newspapers is in itself significant. I will thus take the liberty of assuming that Kyiv is becoming an important center of free political thinking in the post-Soviet space. The absence of state intervention in the Ukrainian media, the existence of conditions favoring a free exchange of ideas, the development of a network of independent political science centers, the absence of an imperial complex in Ukrainian political thought, and close ties between Ukrainian and European experts are all factors that make Kyiv an attractive place for politicians and experts from countries that are traditionally regarded as part of the post-Soviet space.

In my view, this is no surprise because Ukraine is now the CIS’s indisputable leader in carrying out political reforms, proof of which was the last parliamentary elections. While attitudes to certain forms of the constitutional system may differ, there is no denying that Ukraine is gaining priceless political experience that is of interest to countries aspiring to implement the fundamental principles of freedom and democracy.

As the last parliamentary elections showed, Ukraine has made its European choice. And while Euro-Atlantic integration (membership in NATO) remains a highly debatable issue in Ukrainian society, EU membership does not raise any serious objections from Ukrainian voters.

On the other hand, the European Parliament’s recent recommendation to grant Ukraine associated membership status shows that Ukraine’s eventual accession to the EU is quite realistic.

Meanwhile, Ukraine’s European prospects are already placing on the agenda the question of Ukraine’s fundamentally new role in the Eurasian space and, above all, in the CIS. It is the role of a bridge between united Europe and the former Soviet republics. In all probability, Ukraine, like no other country, can serve as this link for a number of reasons.

Firstly, Russia does not aim to join the EU, and owing to many factors, its EU membership is thus far unlikely. Therefore, its cooperation with the EU will largely boil down to a limited bilateral partnership.

Secondly, by force of historical reasons, the enormous post-Soviet space continues to consider Ukraine and Ukrainians as “part of us,” which is not the case with such European countries as Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and even the Baltic states. This circumstance gives Ukraine important advantages in comparison with both new and old members of the EU.

Finally, owing to its “weight” as one of Europe’s largest countries, Ukraine is going to wield influence that will be difficult not to reckon with.

In implementing its European aspirations, Ukraine should not confine itself to national priorities only (which are very important) but think over its new regional role in the post-Soviet space as a crucial link in becoming acquainted with the European and Ukrainian political experience and traditions.

By all accounts, an important role in the understanding of Ukraine’s new role can be played by Ukrainian non-governmental political science centers and independent experts. Although I may be mistaken, it seems to me that most of them continue to coast in two main directions: Ukraine-West and Ukraine-Russia, thereby unjustifiably narrowing broad, new prospects that have opened up to them. To some extent this can be explained by a kind of “growth disease.” Indeed, political processes in Ukraine have been developing too dynamically in the past few years to enable this country to respond adequately to new challenges and opportunities.

But now Ukrainian experts seem to have amassed enough “basic material” and hence experience to be able to face the new horizons in their work.

Ukrainian non-governmental expert centers could be asked to implement a concrete project, such as a workshop or a roundtable attended by Kyrgyz experts, political scientists, representatives of NGOs, and members of the public. I am sure they would gladly come to Kyiv to take part in detailed discussions with their Ukrainian counterparts of the European experience, including Ukraine’s, in the field of constitutional reform.

For now, as part of the constitutional reform, the Kyrgyz Republic is debating revisions to the constitutional system of forming government bodies. Society is discussing which type of rule better suits the country — presidential-parliamentary or parliamentary-presidential. I am certain that familiarity with the experience that Ukraine has accumulated in the course of political reform would help Kyrgyz experts in their search for correct decisions, as well as their Ukrainian counterparts to acquire experience in the new direction of their activities.

In a recent interview with The Day the Russian analyst Lilia Shevtsova was correct in saying that Ukraine’s movement toward Europe does not mean that it should put up an iron curtain between itself and Russia. I would add that it is also important that Ukraine, on its way to Europe, should not turn its back on the other post-Soviet countries.