Editor’s Note:Olena Tregub, a freelance contributor to the Kyiv Post, conducted a series of interviews with German experts on Ukraine. The following is one of them.
Jakob Mischke lives in Kyiv, and is the coordinator of the master's in German and European Studies program jointly taught by the National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy and Friedrich Schiller University of Jena.
Kyiv Post: How would you assess the results of President Viktor Yanukovych’s first year of presidency in comparison to those of the previous Orange leadership?
Jakob Mischke: Yanukovych was able to silence any serious political opposition really fast. The usual clashes between competing camps went backstage; a picture of unity is presented to the public. But the promised reforms still did not take place as much as they should or could have. Separation of power ceased to exist and it looked as if the other branches (including the fourth power – the media). While many parliamentarians have given up acting according to their election promises (the “tushky”), opposition leaders are kept quiet through selective examination of corruption cases against them. The present political system thus can be called authoritarian but it is still subject to some constraints by society. The reaction to the anti-Tax Code protests shows that the ruling elite can be pushed to negotiations if groups in society are able to formulate their aims.
KP: Should the European Union use negotiations on an association agreement, a deep free-trade agreement and on a visa-free regime as leverage to promote political and other reforms in Ukraine, or should these agreements be signed as soon as possible?
JM: If using the visa-free regime as a mean of pressure, the ones who suffer would be the citizens of Ukraine rather than the ruling elite. If using the [free-trade agreement] for pressure, the EU risks losing its influence in Ukraine, as the Ukrainian government has the possibility to also integrate eastwards. The [free-trade agreement] could be used to promote at least market reforms.
KP: Could and should the current pro-Russian German position be replaced by a pro-Ukrainian position? To what degree may domestic political changes in Germany play a role for its future Eastern policy positions?
JM: Trade relations with Russia – especially in the energy sector – are of course more important for Europe than relations with Ukraine and that will not change in the near future.
KP: Do you have any specific advice for the Ukrainian government to change Ukraine’s image in Germany for the better, and improve Ukraine’s attractiveness for German investors?
JM: The Ukrainian government should make sure that the Ukrainian economy will follow more the formal rules rather than informal (personal networks, corruption). In the present situation, investors from countries with proper knowledge of the informal market rules (Russia, Cyprus) have more chances to secure their investments. Others are more reluctant to take the risk of putting their money into Ukraine. Predictability is one of the main features to build up successful business relations with foreign partners but, unfortunately, unpredictability and quick changes of rules sometimes seem to be used as a tool against competitors. Another problem is the bureaucratic burden and the many contradicting rules and laws that also appear to be used to create incentives for investors to speed up the bureaucratic processes with illegal payments to officials. In this situation, investors get cautious to invest into your country. Better marks in international corruption indices would be the best image campaign for Ukraine.
KP: Did the decision of prosecutors to investigate former President Leonid Kuchma for involvement in the 2000 murder of journalist Georgiy Gongadze add credibility to the current government and improve its image in the West? What are your expectations about how this case should be resolved?
JM: Yes, most observers suspect that this decision was taken in the presidential administration rather than in the prosecutor’s office, so it seems to be political. As the credibility of the judicial system is low and as this is a case raising huge public interest, any decision taken will leave a lot of questions open.
KP: Do you think Ukraine will ever enter the EU, and, if so, under what conditions and when approximately?
JM: Conditions to enter EU are written down in the Copenhagen criteria: 1. stable democracy, 2. working market economy, 3. laws according to the European aquis communitaire. The latter can be achieved in the course of the accession process. If the former ones are achieved and there is broad public support in favour of EU accession (which seems still to be missing), there will be no reason to reject Ukraine as a member. To make itself more attractive to the EU, Ukraine could think about what solutions for current European problems it could offer (for example energy or relations with Russia) and how to avoid possible problems that certain EU member states like Greece or Portugal are facing right now.
Olena Tregub is a freelance contributor to the Kyiv Post.
