Janusz BUGAJSKI: Ukraine must have EU membership and pan-European prospects
Janusz Bugajski, director of the New European Democracies Project at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, has been dealing with Ukrainian issues for almost 20 years. He has arrived, with a few US colleagues, in Kyiv to take part in the Euro-Atlantic forum “Ukraine and the EU on the Threshold of a New Agreement on Association: Free Trade, Energy Security, and Democracy.” In spite of a tight schedule, Mr. Bugajski found 10 minutes for an exclusive interview with The Day. In his words, even before Ukraine had gained independence, the center, at which Zbigniew Brzezinski works now, worked hard on several Ukraine initiatives to help Ukraine occupy a place in Washington so that it could be recognized as an independent state and then help it remain an independent state and, at the same time, move towards international and multinational European and Transatlantic structures.
Which level do you think the Ukraine-US relations are now on, considering some statements made by the Secretary of State about the selective prosecution?
“I think, Ukraine-US relations have been disappointing. There were a lot of hopes after the Orange Revolution in November 2004 that relations would only improve, and there would be a real solid strategic partnership, which there is on paper, but I’m saying in practice I don’t think it amounts to enough. However, there is a lot of disappointment with the current government, with Yanukovych’s presidency – that side steps, or even back steps have been taken away from the progress that was made after 2004. And also that Ukraine is maybe positioning itself to exclude itself from the European project and from the Transatlantic project. And that’s in a way disappointing, but on the other hand, it’s not vital to American interests. As far as America is concerned, it is really Ukraine’s problem. If Ukraine wants to have a good strategic partnership, then the door is open.”
But there is a strategic partnership…
“I know, I said there is a strategic partnership, but it doesn’t amount to enough. It’s easy to call something a strategic partnership. For example, strategic partners would come to each other’s assistance in case there’s a military threat. That doesn’t apply. That’s just one example. A genuine strategic partnership, as for example exists bilaterally between, let’s say, England and the United States, means that each country would come to the assistance of the other, it’s considered the primary ally in many respects. So I don’t see the relationship being as such. It may develop into such in the future, but at the moment I don’t see it.”
What does it depend on, in your opinion: on the Ukrainian side, or on the White House administration?
“I think it depends mostly on the Ukrainian side. If Ukraine makes faster, better, more, let’s say, tangible progress towards building a democratic system, competitive market economy, plugs into the European project, moves more closely towards the European Union itself, harmonizes itself with the European Union, it will be more attractive to the United States. In the same way as Poland has done so over the past 10 years.
“On the other hand, yes, it does depend to some extent on the United States. I personally think that the Obama administration has probably gone too far in the detente with Russia, in neglecting some of the region between Russia and the European Union. And hopefully, in the future that will change, but at the moment I don’t see it.”
It can be seen that the United States strongly supports Ukraine and Turkey (which bids to join the EU). Why is it so important?
“It’s important because in this region Ukraine is the most important country, you know – geopolitically, geographically, territorially, in terms of resources, in every other way… Historically, Ukraine is the most important country in Eastern Europe, outside the European Union. So for the United States to have a stable Ukraine, a united Ukraine, a Ukraine that’s committed to all the European values, norms, interests, and principles, would be a stabilizing factor in the region, and it could become more of a partner as a player within this region.”
You have said that the door to the EU should be open. I can make a comparison with NATO, whose policy is that of open doors for new members. Do you think the EU is making a mistake when it does not have the same policy towards Ukraine?
“The European Union is a much tougher club to get into. It has more rules, more regulations, and more members. And it has stricter controls over membership, over entry. And it has a time-table! Even most countries that have candidacy status wait for many years before they qualify. It is a long-term process. At least if Ukraine, naturally, signs the Association Agreement with the EU, it will be the first step towards that process. Now, that’s a very important step.”
Do you think Ukraine should have prospects?
“Of course, Ukraine has to have a European Union, pan-European perspective, this is a European country. And that said, this is the core of one part of Europe – Eastern Europe.”
What do you think can encourage Ukraine to move more quickly to the EU?
“I think Europe delayed for too long. I don’t think it was committed enough to this region for many years. And it was only through the Eastern Partnership and these other arrangements that it suddenly realized that Ukraine was an important country. And next, I think thanks to some of these countries: to Sweden, Poland, Lithuania – to some of the countries within the European Union who said it was important to bring Ukraine in, because Ukraine outside was a more destabilizing factor than inside. But it’s a long process, as I said, and unfortunately, Europe has its own internal problems now. And again, it’s not looking as intensively as always it would. The enlargement question, we don’t know what will happen after Croatia enters next year, the financial fiscal European question, and the future of the European currency… there are so many questions that Europe has internally, that it only has so many resources to focus externally.”
Now it is clear that Putin will surely secure a third presidency, and maybe even a fourth. How do you think it will influence the European Union and Ukraine?
“Well, Putin’s return is not any bad news for Ukraine and Europe – more than it’s bad news for Russia. Because, presumably, it means more or less the same, unless Putin turns overnight into a real reformer, a modernizer. But I don’t see it. I mean all the indications are that he was trying to preserve the system that he has been building over the past 10 years, that he will continue to apply pressure on neighboring countries to join this big project, the Customs Union, the Eurasian Union. And unfortunately Ukraine is, I think, in the middle of this, in this vortex. Russia does look upon Ukraine as rightfully belonging under its sphere. It cannot envisage Ukraine moving to an independent posture, and giving some of its sovereignty to Brussels. If it’s going to give up sovereignty, it should give up sovereignty to Moscow. That’s how Moscow calculates it. In a way, it’s a zero-sum calculation.”
Do you agree with Zbigniew Brzezinsky’s statement that the United States should try to bring Turkey and Russia to Europe?
“I mean, as a grand scheme, this sounds good in theory. In practice, though, it depends on Russia. You cannot bring Russia into a system that Russia doesn’t want to belong to. And if Russia sees itself as a major pole of power – like China, like the United States – it doesn’t want to be subordinate to what it could see as American control, American dominance. So maybe as a long-term project, I think yes, but in a short term, with Putin back in the presidency, I don’t think at this point it’s realistic.”
Brzezinsky said that America did not study the world history, and that is why it has so many problems outside the country.
“Well, let’s say the tough Americans do understand the world history, while many Americans not only do not understand history, they don’t even understand geography. So that is a problem. But it’s an educational problem in many countries. Does Russia really understand the history of Europe, or the history of Ukraine? In many respects, Russia denies the history of Ukraine, so… (laughs). I wouldn’t just blame America.”
