You're reading: Transcript of Jose Manuel Pinto Teixeira’s interview with Kyiv Post

Editor’s Note: The following is the transcript of the Aug. 29 interview that the Kyiv Post conducted with outgoing European Union Ambassador to Ukraine Jose Manuel Pinto Teixeira.

Editor’s Note: The following is the transcript of the Aug. 29 interview that the Kyiv Post conducted with outgoing European
Union Ambassador to Ukraine Jose Manuel Pinto Teixeira.

Kyiv Post: In your time here you have been crystal clear about what you see right and what you see wrong — democratic rollbacks, the use of judicial system for political ends, bureaucracy, corruption, lack of competition. As you leave now to your next post do you see glimmers of hope that the message is getting through? If so, what are they? Or don’t you see much hope that they are going to change course?

Jose Manuel Pinto Teixeira: It’s very difficult to leave and not to leave some message of hope. Because we all would like to see Ukraine moving in the direction that we all want and that the vast majority of Ukrainians want, which is what is really
important. As it is difficult to be too diplomatic I also have to be objective.And, unfortunately, I do not see signs – and in the last two years I’ve demonstrated – of real commitment in the leadership [of Ukraine] to drive reforms in this country to achieve the objectives to eliminate the problems that you referred in your introduction.

Therefore, I think that to achieve these results you need the majority of the population conscious and aware of the need for such changes, improvements that such changes can bring to their own lives and there is a need for leadership that is really committed to put the interests of the people, the interests of the country above any other interests. And, unfortunately, I do not see that
particularly. I am talking about the latter part of this condition being fulfilled in Ukraine.

KP: If it does not change, what road lies ahead for Ukraine if we keep going down this course?

JT: I think
that unfortunately if there is not emergence of leadership that is really
committed to that. The largest handicap in Ukraine is that there is no
democratic dispensation where citizens really can determine the results and the
outcome of elections and where political leaders which are really emerging from
the people can play a fair role in the democratic process. We see that the
players are always the same for quite a long time and we see that even the
pluralism that existed 5-7 years ago has been reduced. And that has been
reduced not because the systems have changed or institutions have changed. It’s
because at that time there were at least three poles of power around of which
gravitated different economic interests. There was room for these political
players to play a role in political life.

Today we have vertical power. And
they use all the instruments that authorities have available – justice, public
institutions – to make possible potential opposition challenges. We have seen
that there are many different methods to create majorities in parliament, to prosecute
political opponents even leading them to prison and other methods. And this is
the fundamental element that needs to change in Ukraine to my mind. In the
meantime, I think that Ukraine can continue in this situation, which is more of
a post-Soviet country. The post-Sovietism of Ukraine over the last years has
been accentuated. So, it has gone further from a model in transition to a
European society. Whether the Ukrainian people will be passive and resigned
only time can determine.

KP: Is
vertical another way of saying authoritarian?

JT: The
expression of “vertical” was used by President Yanukovych from the beginning of
him taking power. He said that he is going to establish a vertical power, which
means a president, a prime minister, the parliament all following one line
because — this is what is required to end with the “mess” of the Orange
period, which did not allow reforms to take place because of this
non-verticalization of power. I think that there is a relation between
verticality and authoritarianism indeed. What is still regrettable is that in
this part of the world people are still convinced that they need an
authoritarian dispensation to have order and to stop the mess. I think this is
a wrong approach. I think what was considered as a messy during the Orange
period had in fact positive aspects of having more pluralism, more debate, more
different opinions, checks and balances that in any way were existing more than
today.

And that could have been part of the process that would take a little
longer (and it was not the first country that took longer) to achieve the
stability in democracy, which is what we all want and what is possible. Top
thirty or forty societies are all democracies. And the more democratic the
wealthier they are and the higher social standards they have. So there
definitely is a relation between democracy and economic and social development.
Unfortunately, this verticality of power as was demonstrated has not achieved
reforms. And often what was called reforms in fact is adoption of legislation
that is not compatible with European or like-minded societies. For example, the
public procurement law.

As it was
adopted in July in 2010 it was a major progress, but it has been subject to so
many amendments that it had lost any value. There is a law on public service
that was adopted recently despite of our assistance for more than two years in
supporting the authorities in drafting a European-compatible law on civil
service. All these support and appeals were ignored and the law that does not
meet such standards has been adopted. I could continue with many such examples.

So, there is a big gap between the rhetoric and the reality. And this is what
led me to be outspoken in this country. Because if you are passive when [those
in] the power are saying that everything is going fine, that they are adopting
all European laws and moving in the European integration and the counterpart is
silent then we would be accomplices to misleading the Ukrainian people. And
this is something that I never like to do.

KP: You
are saying that there is big gap between rhetoric and reality. And in the
meantime both Yanukovych and Azarov said that they are committed to holding
free and fair election in October. Would you trust that?

JT: I
cannot judge intentions. What I can say is that it was part of the commitment
of Ukraine towards the European Union, a commitment that Ukraine has taken by
its own free will in the Action Plan and more recently in the Association
Agenda to adopt an Election Code. Election Code means that it is adopted and
all elections that take place after follow this code. You do not micromanage
new electoral laws and fine-tune it ahead of each election to meet the
objectives of the power of the day.

And this in 2010 after two or three supported
by the EU the Election Code which had the endorsement of the Council of Europe
and the Venice Commission and was ready to be adopted. Even President
Yanukovych when he took office and had first meetings with EU he always pledged
that he was going to adopt this Election Code. Even after the local election in
November 2010  which he himself admitted
were bad, he continued to say that he was going to adopt an Election Code to
prevent this type of situations. We know that this has not been the case.

That  Election Code has been dumped in the bin and
the new process started. The process where the president himself shows the
electoral system and, of course, it is not for president in a democracy to show
the electoral system top-down. It is for the stakeholders, the parliament, for
the civil society to find a consensual electoral system that again, as I say,
is going to stay there for a long time and not for each election. So, I would
say that for the next election is is a problem.And, of course, not least the
fact that the main leaders of the opposition are in jail and prevented from
running.

KP:
Bearing that in mind do you see any chance with Tymoshenko and Lutsenko in jail
for the EU to recognize this election as free and fair?

JT: As you
know in foreign relations the EU takes decisions based on unanimity among 27
member states. So for such statement of the EU saying that we accept these
elections to take place after the election process the 27 members will have to
agree. I cannot predict what is going to be the decision when the time will
come. There are cases when such consensual position is not possible and then
countries individually many express even different opinions.

It has been
happening quite rarely over the last years, because the EU wants to build a
common foreign policy. But we know there are diverging interests among EU
members regarding Ukraine and, of course, this may create a difficult
situation. We have aired that the official position of the EU so far is that
the elections and the conduct of the elections and outcome of the elections is
extremely important for the continuation of the association process. These
types of concerns have not been expressed in the elections that have been held
in 2006, 2007 and 2010. We have witnessed a process of greater confidence in
the electoral process until 2010.

KP:
Given the actions you’ve outlined it seems that the leadership is not really
interested in becoming closer to the EU. Is that the way you see it? It is very
clear what steps the EU requires for the country that wants membership or
association agreements. Does the fact that the actions do not match the
rhetoric suggest to you that the leadership does not really want the EU?

 JT: I would say that at least the leadership wants an association or an
integration in the EU on their own terms. And, of course, this is not possible. Because integration process is, as I
say, not a la carte menu or buffet. All the dishes are on the table and
have to be taken as all. And of course there are aspects in the European
integration, particularly, the free access to the European market, which, I
would say, is appealing to [those at] the power and the economic sectors that
support the power. But the permanence in power to gain benefits from power,
which is obviously conflicting with European principles. That is probably not
so appealing.

KP: They
seem to be banking on the notion that Ukraine is too big and too important and
Yanukovych is too big and too important for the EU to do anything about the
situation. Is that a good strategy? Is it true?

JT: Depends
on what you mean by “anything”?

KP:
Beyond clearly stating the situation what can the EU do? That seems to be part
of the calculation of the Yanukovych administration. Is the only thing left Belarusian-style
isolation and sanctions? You said a few months ago that we are not there. Are
we there now, in terms of considering blacklists and financial holds on
overseas bank accounts? And if things continue, can we be there some time in
the future?

JT: I can
only make this type of comments according to the official position of the EU
today. Today this is not being discussed. We know that in Ukraine there is more
and more frustration among many sectors of the population that believe that the
funds and the wealth that is accumulated – often illegitimately – in power or
associated with power ends up in EU countries and other countries in the West
and then they enjoy the benefits of this world elsewhere. There are
politicians, members of the European parliament that in the EU are also raising
these concerns. But whether we are in the process of considering seriously at
this stage I would say not to my knowledge

KP: What
happened in Belarus that the EU was able to unite?

JT: I think
in Belarus the situation is very clear. There is a president who clearly says
that he does not want to do any process of European integration. He does not want
[for Belarus to become] a member of the EU. He does not want to respect the
European values. He puts opposition in jail and represses demonstrations.
Therefore, the situation in Belarus is very clear. And in Belarus we have a
good part of the population that [are] way beyond [the] Ukrainian people, who
have tasted freedom and [have an] appetite for more freedom, and [Belarusians] maybe
[are] more resigned and accepting population for the traditional Russian and
Soviet legacy of having a good czar is the best model of society.

I think in
Ukraine the situation is different. We have the leadership which says it wants
to be part of Europe and integrate Ukraine into the EU. It gives the EU the
responsibility to call them to demonstrate these commitments. But there are
more subtle and cynical ways to remain in power than the very transparent
practices of Mr. Lukashenko.

KP: How
will the EU-Ukraine relations change if elections are free and fair and if
elections are not free and fair?

JT: I am
afraid it is difficult to predict what is going to be decided in the future
regarding that matter. What I can predict is you can have an election that is
obviously problematic and, of course, would be a disaster in terms of resuming
a process. And there are elections may have an appearance of normality. I would
say that in this latter condition the different players in the decision making
process will be able to play in different ways.

KP: Do
these guys in power strike you as guys who are going to allow themselves to
lose an election?

JT: I think
that the situation in Ukraine is more complex than that. I could even be
possible to have the opposition have a majority in the parliament. We know that
the majoritarian system was chosen because it is seen to be of benefit to the
power. There is the proportional system which is less advantageous for the
current authorities. But we have seen in 2010 when Yanukovych was elected
president he had no majority in the parliament, but he created a majority. So,
even if the opposition would win [election], the vulnerability of many
lawmakers to their own business interests.

Majority of the parliament members
are not citizens who are living to defend the interests of the people and to
defend their convictions and ideologies. Many of them have businesses and want
them to survive. And we know that institutions can be used to harass and this
happens and, therefore, to tone down the eventual commitments to challenge
power. The lack of rule of law can be used for this purpose, the control of the
judiciary can also be used for this purpose. So, a significant result [during
elections] by the opposition would be very important in demonstrating an
assessment of the situation of the people of Ukraine, that would not be
guarantee that things could change. Also – something that we should not lose
sight of – Yanukovych could change the constitution. He threw away one
constitution and he brought another one – the old constitution.

KP: But
it wasn’t him it was Constitutional Court basically changing the constitution.

JT: [laughs].
Ok, someone changes a constitution at a given moment. In the previous
constitution the parliament had a much greater say in state affairs. There was
no power vertical. And the current constitution benefits the role of the
president.

KP: If
you say it is difficult to establish the idea of free and fair elections, does
it mean that with Tymoshenko and Lutsenko in jail can’t talk about free and
fair elections?

JT: There
are very eminent European leaders and politicians that have already said it
quite clearly. As I said, the judgment of that process will not be made by me
and I do not want to preempt that judgment. But we have to see all the elements
of the puzzle which may eventually lead to one position of another.

KP:
Given the business interests that you’ve raised [among Ukraine’s wealthy elite] and the fact that they are living in EU countries and banking in EU banks,
isn’t the EU missing out on a great lever it has with these guys? They want
legitimacy to fly to London when they want, to buy expensive mansions, avoid
taxes. Can’t the EU put a stop to that? Wouldn’t that be the most effective
thing to do for Ukrainians?

JT: This is
difficult question. I have my own personal convictions. On this issue I can
only speak on behalf of the EU, if there was any process even considering that.
And as I said there isn’t such.

KP: Is
it true to say that if the EU says the October elections are fine, then Ukraine
has great chances of signing the association agreement with the EU or if the
elections are not free and fair, then Ukraine no chance of signing the
agreement?

JT:
Definitely. But even in the first case it is not clear that the agreement will
be signed. Because the EU in its last official position in June in the
cooperation council Prime Minister Azarov has put clear conditions. First, the
solution to the politically motivated cases. Second, elections. And third – the
real commitment to implementing reforms. Because you know we have very
important program of financial and technical assistance to Ukraine to transform
the legislation, the institutions and so on.

In this respect the situation is
far worse than it was during the Orange period when Ukraine was one of the best
performers of neighborhood partners of the EU in terms of implementing the
technical and financial assistance. Today we have several hundred million euros
on hold because of the public finance management concerns. We have just now
closed the commitment of 17 million euros for public administration reform
because the law that was adopted is not compatible with the EU standards.

KP:
Several hundred million euros on hold because of corruption?

JT: Because
of concerns of public finance management. The government has to introduce
mechanisms of sound and transparent public finance management, which is a
precondition to disburse this fund.

KP: What
level of leadership here do you meet? How high and how often? Can you call up
Yanukovych and talk to him any time you want?

JT: Never
met with him. I deal and have always dealt with and have good personal
relations with First Deputy Prime Minister Serhiy Tigipko, earlier it was then-First
Deputy Prime Minister Andriy Klyuyev and today it is current First Deputy Prime
Minister Valeriy Khoroshkovsky. We all of them I have very good memories and
relations as well as with the current Economy Minister Petro Poroshenko. With
foreign affairs much less.

KP:
These are four powerful guys. And when you bring up these concerns, do they
just give you a blank stare?

JT: No,
they are always expressing the commitment and the eagerness to address these
issues. But they can address the issues which are on an ad hoc basis,
but one person cannot solve the systemic problem.

KP: But
do they deny the reality?

JT: Of
course, they cannot deny the reality, because what we talk are facts. They know
these things and they try to do the best they can, but I think some of these
problems are beyond the capacity and the will of one person. It has to be a
process that takes a few years and involves all the different stakeholders and
decision makers.

KP: Is
Yanukovych basically a persona non grata?

JT:
Formally, there has been no such decisions, but you have to observe the
reality. When he was elected he went to Brussels several times. There were
visits here by President Jose Manuel Barosso at least twice in one year and
President Herman Van Rompuy. So, there was a very great interaction and from
the side of the European Union there was great expectation that he was going to
fulfill his commitments. I even could sense among the Party of Regions and the
close associates of the then-presidential candidate Yanukovych a certain
preoccupation that the EU and the U.S. would be biased, but we demonstrated
that we were completely impartial and unbiased.

And when he was elected he had red carpet treatment in the EU.
The reality is that the last [EU-Ukraine] summit in December was not easy to
materialize from the side of the EU. There were many forces against it, but it
still took place. Since then there have been no contacts of that level.

And, by the
way, normally we should have the [EU-Ukraine] summit by the end of the year,
but so far we are not talking yet about it.

KP: So,
if he started with red carpet treatment what is the treatment now? Cold
shoulder?

JT: As of
now there have been no meetings. That’s all I can say. And there are no
meetings on the agenda at this moment. And another thing which is interesting
to recall is that last week German Chancellor Angela Merkel was on the visit to
Moldova, which is very significant. And we have not seen such leaders coming to
Ukraine even during the football championship.

KP: Has
Yanukovych asked for a meeting over the last several months with EU leaders?

JT: At a
certain moment there were additional attempts but not lately. In the EU and the
West at this level meetings should take place when they deliver some results.
If they do not deliver results, then there is no appetite for such meetings.

KP: A
Ukrainian high court rejected an appeal on Wednesday by former Prime Minister
Yulia Tymoshenko against her conviction for abuse of office. What do you make
of it? Do you think there is a chance that Tymoshenko can come out of jail
while Yanukovych is president?

JT: First,
these news are unfortunately are not surprising. Whether Tymoshenko can come
out while Yanukovych is in power, we have to judge by actions. When the trial
started nobody believed she would be convicted. When she was arrested, nobody
believed it was true and that it was going to last. And the answer to the
appeals to find solution you may recall were amendments to the criminal
procedural code to remove come clauses which should set her free without losing
face on the side of power have been replied with an avalanche of new cases. So,
I cannot be very optimistic.

KP: Did
you regret being outspoken? Did you get a lot of pressure because of what and
where it came from?

JT: When I
arrived four years ago I saw a lot of Euro enthusiasm particularly by President
Viktor Yushchenko. But already at that time I saw a gap between rhetoric and
many things that were still part of Ukrainian society. My concern at that time
that if we were passive and silent, this could mislead the Ukrainian public
opinion that things are moving. And this is not an honest way to work because
Ukrainian people need to know the reality. It is also a matter of the image and
the credibility of the EU.

KP: What
is your best memory about Ukraine?

JT: These
come from many visits that I have done to small rural communities throughout
the country where we have the program of community based approach where we
co-fund very small social infrastructure projects, where these communities are trained
to organize themselves to manage their funds and do tenders, to be accountable
to their communities, to realize themselves and prioritize what they want for
their communities. And, therefore, when I visit these communities I say the day
Ukraine will be operating at national level like these communities are already
doing, then Ukraine will be a European model country.

If we
cannot address the issues from the top I think we should address the issues
from the bottom with the communities and the civil societies and through that
in a longer term to contribute to change of mentalities that is very important.

KyivPost chief editor Brian Bonner can be reached at [email protected].

Kyiv Post staff writer Yuriy Onyshkiv can be reached at [email protected]