Ukraine and CE Play Game of Being Sensible
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) begins this month’s part of its annual session today in Strasbourg. The Ukrainian theme will, or is at least planned to, sound on three occasions this time: on the 24th evaluating how Ukraine is fulfilling its obligations, followed on the 25th by hearings on the freedom of speech and the press in several countries, and on the 26th by the fifteenth anniversary of the Chornobyl disaster.
The most serious consequences can emerge today after PACE Monitoring Committee rapporteurs Hanne Severinsen and Renate Wohlwend present their reports. The committee has already recommended to CE structures earlier in April to begin the procedure of suspending Ukraine’s membership in the Council of Europe. Simultaneously, the CE Committee of Ministers, which has exclusive powers to make decisions on membership, showed far more sensible attitude toward Ukraine.
A sensible attitude is what the Ukrainian delegation is determined to seek. Minister of Foreign Affairs Anatoly Zlenko also came to Strasbourg along with members of parliament. The delegation hopes at least to alter the conclusions with expulsion recommendations. The more so that Ukraine is going to present in June another report on how it is honoring the obligations it assumed.
The prognoses are for the most part calm. Informed sources close to Ukrainian diplomacy believe that, if nothing extraordinary occurs in Ukraine before the beginning of the session, the results will be more balanced and constructive for Kyiv than the emotion- based decision of the Monitoring Committee. Actually, one source interviewed by The Day said that the decision was illogical even from the procedural point of view, for in such a case they should have raised the question of stripping the Ukrainian delegation of the right to vote at the session. This is precisely how the Council of Europe treated Russia last year. Simultaneously, the CE Committee of Ministers takes a very careful approach toward membership suspension, with no precedents having taken place so far (Greece quit the organization on its own during its military coup).
It is quite possible, Ukrainian diplomats believe, that Ukraine will get off with an admonition, albeit a severe one.
The Council of Europe’s main complaints are: slow fulfillment of obligations (including failure to pass of the law on parties and a number of codes), failure to observe democratic standards of the freedom of speech and the press, and absence of the rule of law. But, on the other hand, this raises a question: will the situation in Ukraine improve if the item on its expulsion from the CE is put on the agenda and if this really threatens to undermine our nation’s cooperation with European institutions? On the other hand, of course, the West’s traditional preoccupation over the state of affairs in Ukraine is well-deserved: we could have eradicated all vestiges of Soviet period legislation over the past five years by having all the necessary changes made through parliament. This is just the right time to recall that an effective parliamentary majority is indispensable.
In the long run, Ukraine also has something to say in reply, for example, to reiterate that the promised Chornobyl aid was and still is being rendered by the West with delays, problems, and not always in the quantities agreed upon.
