UKRAINIAN DIPLOMACY: NO MYTH

Zerkalo Nedeli is generally regarded as a prestigious newspaper read by serious-minded people. At least before it carried the article “The Myths of Ukrainian Diplomacy” (#129, July 17, 1999). I wonder who its author thought would regard his writing seriously. I mean his attempt to build a mythical structure using bad construction material such as ungrounded allegations and outright falsehood, in order to somehow smear Ukrainian diplomacy in general and Foreign Minister Borys Tarasiuk in particular. Yet groundless allegations, even if referred to as “myths,” cannot suffice to assess a complex phenomenon such as a given country's foreign policy. To do so, one must refer oneself to objective factors in the first place, ones influencing the plotting and implementation of a given foreign political course; one must analyze whether this course, adopted by the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry, really answers the interests of the state, strengthening its sovereignty and authority in the international arena; whether it helps Ukraine overcome the current grave economic condition and related social crisis. This would be a rational approach, and not zeroing in on certain Foreign Ministry's diplomatic aspects and presenting them in a distorted view.

Among the objective factors, one should single out Ukraine's geopolitical location which is advantageous on the global range.

There is also the fact that the Ukrainian state system is maturing; it needs constant protection. Regrettably, Russia is once again opposed to the United States and the two powers are Ukraine's strategic partners. This, of course, makes the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry's work harder, calling for constant attention and balanced approaches, including the issue of integration into NATO structures — precisely the topic which the ZN author capitalizes on to attack Ukrainian diplomacy and all those at its head.

Aiming his accusations at Ukrainian diplomacy, the ZN author seems to have overlooked — or maybe consciously ignored — its filigree performance during the Kosovo crisis. Our initiatives aimed at resolving the NATO-Yugoslav conflict were the first to be submitted and were eventually implemented in the final conflict-stopping instrument; they were realistic and sincere, and there were no hegemonic interests concealed behind them. In other words, our intellectual product turn out a quality one, and it was not the Foreign Ministry's fault that the country's foreign trade status and world alignment of forces prevented the Ukrainian diplomats from revealing their capacities in full. Now the task is to actively participate in the Balkan peacekeeping process, helping with the implementation of the South-East European Stability Pact.

And the ZN author's attacks on Ukrainian-Polish relationships (currently marked by special stability and closeness) look very strange. Among the foreign political ABC is the clause reading that efforts to uphold peaceful, nay close relations with the closest neighbors is a top priority. Ukrainian-Polish relationships became a major factor causing stability throughout Eastern Europe. This is the most important fact. As for the Polish-Ukrainian customs procedures after Poland joins the European Union, this issue will be resolved by the EU, Poland, and Ukraine. And they will evolve as do all the other world entities, in keeping with the dialectical laws, something the ZN author seems to have forgotten all about.

The said article is spearheaded demagogically against the Ukrainian diplomats operating to secure the state's economic safety in terms of creating primarily alternative energy sources. The significance of this was felt by all of Ukraine on a first-hand basis. Instead of voicing a rightful wrath against all those sabotaging the construction of the Odesa oil terminal for years and drawing out the construction of the Odesa-Brody oil pipeline, the ZN author “refutes the myths” about the Caspian oil reserve, doing so without any factual justification, providing no facts or figures, alleging that oil transportation via Ukraine is unprofitable, although everybody knows that this line of business is extremely beneficial, and that it explains the pitched struggle focused on the oil route(s), as there are several variants like the one guiding oil products to the Black Sea in the Turkish territory.

It is anyone's guess why the ZN author feels such hatred, nay fear about the Georgia-Uzbekistan- Ukraine-Azerbaijan-Moldova (GUUAM) alliance, although Zerkalo Nedeli claims that the member countries are economically weak, unstable, and incompetent in terms of foreign inland investment; they cut no ice with any more or less prestigious international institutions, and that their future “seems uncertain.” To this I will answer as follows: the GUUAM countries are no poor relation; we are united with them by more than economic interests. The ZN author pretends to be oblivious of GUUAM's history — that it was formed due to objective circumstances, at a point where the interests of Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Moldova coincided with regard to flange conventional armaments restrictions, and that North America had nothing to do with it whatsoever. Subsequently, it became apparent that their views on the CIS and relationships with the West also coincided, and then there emerged the economic aspect: with the growing importance of the Black-Caspian- Sea transport corridor, including energy supplies to Europe. This alliance has never been declared as aimed or intended against any CIS partners, let alone third parties.

Accusing the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry of “knocking out CIS” is as biased and unfair as it is demagogical. I would say that the CIS owes its existence to UFM's efforts, although the Chisinаu summit demonstrated CIS's inefficiency. In fact, the Commonwealth of Independent States caused not only Ukraine but also quite a few other member states to feel disappointed about the arrangement; therefore, accusing Ukraine of the CIS decay is incorrect and improper. If Russia-led CIS really dealt with pressing, vital issues relating to mutually advantageous economic cooperation among former Soviet republics, rather than concentrate on the political goal of turning CIS into yet another superpower, its future could be regarded in more optimistic terms.

And the paragraph about Foreign Minister Borys Tarasiuk's visit to the African Unity summit is perfectly ridiculous. One ought to bear in mind that such forums are a most effective (and most budget- sparing) way to maintain top-level contacts on a broad scale to resolve important specific issues. Precisely what Mr. Tarasiuk did in Africa. As for contracts, I dare say that the man brings them, too, meaning jobs for domestic producers, even though he is under no official obligation to do so. Economic issues make up the lion's share of his negotiations with the political leadership when on an official or working visit abroad.

The overall impression is that the ZN author does not know or is unwilling to know anything about the state administrative structure existing in Ukraine, including the limits of jurisdiction, responsibilities of certain bodies of the state — or that Ukraine's foreign trade endeavors are very different, compared to those practiced during Soviet times. All of Ukraine's foreign trade shortcomings are blamed on UFM, including the trade turnover (import/export) decline, small foreign inland investment increment, inadequate use of UN opportunities (compared to the developed Western counties). UFM is further accused of failing to launch an attack on foreign markets, riding on the inflation wave-crest. In particular, the Foreign Ministry is blamed for not making any attempts to master the Iraqi and Libyan markets (it is common knowledge that all economic contacts with Iraq and Libya are strictly regulated by the United Nations). The Ukrainian Foreign Minister is accused of not visiting India with its “pocketful of contracts.” Yet no mention is made of the Pakistan tank sale deal, for this would spoil the background designed by the ZN author. There are a lot of other as irresponsible and naive allegations in the economic realm throughout the article. They are all meant for the incompetent reader, but diplomats must not produce competitive goods or decide where investment and credit should be channeled. Such matters are handled by other bodies of the state.

And the ZN article's closing paragraphs are simply disgusting. By his ungrounded assumptions and accusations, reminding one of all those anonymous and signed reports, the author brings us back to the recent totalitarian past. Despite his outward concern about Ukraine, his tone sounds scandalously Moscow-like. And the article, carried by Zerkalo Nedeli during Russian Premier Sergei Stepashin's visit, is actually a list of all Russia's foreign political claims to Ukraine, topics causing special Kremlin chagrin. In a word, the article under study is obviously not intended to enhance equal partner-like relations between Russia and Ukraine. Rather, it is aimed at driving a wedge between the strategic partners/ Provocative statements are made with regard to Ukraine's other strategic partner, the United States. He is obviously impassioned to have Ukraine run afoul of this power. or Mr. Tarasiuk's contribution in upholding Russian-Ukrainian relationships is generally known. There has been sufficient media coverage. The man has been involved in and with all the important documents developed and signed lately, even when in Brussels.

All the engineered “myths” collected in the ZN article fall apart when subjected to an elementary analysis, leaving nothing but an unpleasant aftertaste. Such encroachments on Ukraine's foreign policy and diplomacy (of course, I do not mean that the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry should not be criticized) should not be carried by a prestigious newspaper; they are ridiculous, yet they are significant in that they point to the political narrow-mindedness of those ordering and writing stuff like that.