Editor's Note: The following is an interview with Kyiv Post publisher Mohammad Zahoor by Steven O'Brien, editor of The London Magazine, headlined "O Brittania Where Art Thou?" Zahoor is a Ukraine-based British businessman dedicated to preserving the Kyiv Post's independence and has been a champion of non-partisan investigative journalism in Ukraine. He is also a regular contributor to the Huffington Post.
Steven O’Brien: Mr. Zahoor, over the last few months, the (British Prime Minister David) Cameron administration been the subject of
growing criticism with regard to its perspective on Ukraine. Many commentators believe that
it has not been active enough in the theater of foreign policy, and rather supine in the face
of Russian machinations. Furthermore there is a belief that the Cameron administration has
been far too slow to adapt to new realities regarding Ukraine. Would you agree with these
criticisms?
Mohammad Zahoor: To be fair, when it comes to recent developments in Ukraine, nobody foresaw the
EuroMaidan (Revolution), where the popular uprising in Kyiv demanded closer and swift
integration with Europe. No one predicted its astonishing success, nor the extreme
reaction of the (Russian President Vladimir) Putin administration. No government, no intelligence service, no think
tank, no politician, no activist was prepared for the events that overtook Ukraine. There
was no playbook and the situation remained very much fluid until the second Minsk
agreement (in February).
That being said, I believe it to be an accurate observation that in the last 18 months, the United Kingdom government has not been engaged with foreign affairs generally. This is
chiefly because the internal political calendar in Britain has been dominated by the European Union elections, the rise of the UK Independence Party, the Scottish referendum and an unpredictable parliamentary
election. Within the compass of all these variables, the Cameron administration, post Iraq and
Afghanistan, had little to gain and much to lose by becoming active in another geopolitical
crisis which has no clear outcome. Despite the fact that the Russian-Ukrainian
conflict represents a fundamental paradigm-shift in European security policy.
SO: The prime minister has defended his foreign policy by referring to Britain’s key role in
establishing sanctions and maintaining EU unity. Do you agree with this summary?
MZ: It is clear that neither the US, Germany or France require the assistance of the
United Kingdom when it comes to Ukraine and the implementation of sanctions against
Russia. Under the auspices of the EU framework, (German Chancellor Angela) Merkel and her team have become
key players in developing general guidelines for Western policy pertaining to Ukrainian
matters and have been doing so for quite some time. As early as 2011, long before anyone else paid attention to Ukrainian affairs, Merkel attacked the Yanukovych administration in Ukraine, and actively wielded her political capital to push for the release of former Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko.
She grew up in East Germany under the old Soviet dispensation.
She speaks fluent Russian and is the only Western leader that still has regular
communications with Vladimir Putin. No other Western leader is better qualified
for this challenge. However, in these times, conflict resolution is a team effort.
There is no need to grade or rank the contributions of various partners. That is a
juvenile exercise.
Britain, is a G7 nation, a powerful NATO member, a key member of the EU, with a
seat of the UN Security Council. In this light Britain’s potential to be a key player,
to have a key role if you like, with respect to Ukraine seems self evident. Yet the
question remains – should David Cameron also lead the charge or support it from
the background?
SO: Last week, President Petro Poroshenko invited former Prime Minister Tony Blair to join his
international advisory council. While Blair has yet to announce his decision, how
do you think that his acceptance of the offer would affect the current British-Ukrainian
relationship?
MZ: It should generally be acknowledged that both countries have never worked
closer together than they do now. Yet most people realize that British-Ukrainian
relations are in their infancy. Moreover they are still a very long way from
realizing their true potential. Unfortunately, Blair will not advance the
common affairs of both nations.
SO: Isn’t that a rather harsh assessment?
MZ: One must ask how could Blair possibly advance the British-Ukrainian
cause? First, the whole set-up is unfortunate because it was Poroshenko
who announced the invitation and yet Blair did not respond for more than a
week.
Moreover Blair has no significant experiences in Ukrainian affairs and is
anyway far too controversial to be an effective mediator.
The legacy of Blair divides his own political party as well as the British people
and therefore this limits any impact he could have. The fact that he attended
the Saint Petersburg International Economic Forum (generally considered a Putin
vanity event, completely ignored by Western political leadership) only hours after
he received the Ukrainian offer makes it clear that Blair is trying to play both
sides of the fence.
This serves his own agenda, not that of Ukraine, nor even the
United Kingdom.
SO: Who would have been a better liaison?
MZ: The current Ukrainian administration no longer requires additional advisers
or advice, but it would send a strong signal if Cameron could make the first
British state visit to Ukraine since John Major in 1997. In Ukraine it is high time
for the implementation of existing policies and here the United Kingdom can assist
by proactively shaping bilateral relations.
SO: The prime minister and members of his cabinet have on countless occasions condemned
Russian interventionism and have actively supported Ukraine. There has been provision
of non-lethal military assistance as well as humanitarian aid. Isn’t the British
government already shaping bilateral relations?
MZ: Since 1991 British-Ukrainian relations have been primarily defined through
the perspective of national security. From this point of view, British policy towards
Ukraine has been linked, as a matter of expedience, to British-Russian relations
and was never developed autonomously. Current events show that this approach
is no longer working.
Punishing Russia through sanctions does not help Ukraine
to succeed in its pro-Western aspirations. While the focus is generally placed on
the military conflict in eastern Ukraine, the danger of an economic collapse and
the creation of a failed state is not being addressed in any meaningful way. The
Cameron administration has to engage the Ukrainian government independently of
its conventional Russian policy.
SO: The British government has committed 15 million (Great Britain pounds) for humanitarian aid and 850,000 (pounds) last year for non-lethal military assistance. These amounts cannot be equated
to the financial aid of G7 nations like Germany (€700 million) or Japan ($1.5
billion). We know that the British government is continuing its policy of fiscal austerity
and so there are very limited financial resources available to assist the Ukrainian
people. In specific terms what more could the UK do?
MZ: It is not only about money. What the Ukrainian people need more than
anything are assurances that they are not alone in their conflict. Here, Cameron could easily and quickly create positive momentum by strengthening his
advisory team and increasing the number of British visits of high-level officials to
Ukraine. A short trip by the prime minister to Kyiv would be a good start, as the
United Kingdom is the only G7 nation that has not yet managed a state visit to
Ukraine.
If both the Japanese and Australian premiers can manage a visit so can
the British. It might sound simplistic, but these first steps will help to overcome
various abandonment issues within the Ukrainian population and intelligentisia.
It is quite understandable that the Russian-Ukrainian conflict is discussed in a
rather heated manner across Europe, and unfortunately, the general narrative of
this conflict is immersed in cold-war rhetoric and Second World War analogies.
Within this particular narrative, Cameron currently does not come across as the
heir to great British statesmen like Churchill.
In this year of great anniversaries
more hot-tempered individuals might be tempted to draw parallels between the
current situation and the phony war, rather than triumphs of Wellington.
Also, a visit by Cameron would show the international community that the United
Kingdom is living up to the moral obligations that have arisen out of the Budapest
Memorandum of 1994, in which the UK also gave security assurance to Ukraine,
together with the U.S. and Russia. It would be a most promising starting point for
the next phase of British-Ukrainian relations.
