At the 15th Ukraine-European Union Summit in December 2011, both sides agreed to initial the agreement. They took that preliminary step on March 2012. Finally, after tortuous negotiations, the moment of triumph – the actual signing of the agreement – was scheduled for the Nov. 28-29 Third Eastern Partnership Summit in Vilnius, Lithuania.
But six days ahead of the event, Ukraine’s government simply quit and decided to succumb to Kremlin pressure not to sign the deal with the EU.
For all his bluster about EU integration, President Viktor Yanukovych and his ruling Party of Regions simply found closer ties on Western conditions – choose your own metaphor here – a bridge too far, a bar too high. Diplomats say he told EU Commissioner Stephen Fuele in a Nov. 20 meeting that he wasn’t prepared to sign the agreement in Vilnius. The rejection became categorical the next day with a Cabinet of Ministers resolution abandoning the Western turn altogether as Yanukovych was in Austria on a two-day official visit.
__________________________________________________________________
Editor’s Note: Join top government officials, leading industry CEOs, business owners and other experts to discuss Ukraine’s future after the Vilnius Summit at this year’s Kyiv Post Tiger Conference, which will be held on Dec 3 in Premier Palace Hotel. The guests and speakers will assess the effects on Ukrainian political and economic life of not signing an association agreement with the European Union at the Eastern Partnership Summit in Vilnius, Lithuania, on Nov. 28-29. Register now or find out more here
__________________________________________________________________
The EU should not turn away from Ukraine in disappointment. They dodged a bullet of sorts. If EU officials think that Yanukovych was difficult to come to agreement with during this phase, imagine the roadblocks that Ukraine’s leaders would have put up during the implementation of the laws to make the courts more just and elections more democratic, as well as eliminate selective prosecution, all EU conditions for signature.
Yanukovych’s primary aim is not to create a Western-style democracy in Ukraine, but to keep political and economic powers at all costs. He also may have gotten a sweeter fiancial deal from Russia, in terms of loans with none of those pesky democratic conditions attached. But Moscow’s obstructionist behavior and the Kremlin’s lingering imperial ambitions show that Ukraine’s leaders should put more distance between themselves and Vladimir Putin, not less.
The economic benefits of European integration were never as clear to Ukrainians as the most popular one – the prospect of visa-free travel throughout Europe soon. In any case, Ukrainians have not made their desires known through mass demonstrations or intense political lobbying. Instead, ordinary people are either disengaged or reliant on the political opposition, which lacks the votes to pass laws.
The West should not abandon Ukraine, but rather look for ways to dislodge kleptocracy and autocracy where it exists.
Visa-free travel for Ukrainians would be very helpful. The EU reportedly budgeted up to $5 billion through 2020 to help the nation with its transition to meet the political and trade requirements of an association agreement. We hope they spend that money on supporting independent journalism, which is now endangered in Ukraine, and civil society, which is also starved for finance and in need of more leaders.
The artificial deadline of the Vilnius Summit, even though it did not bring Ukraine more closely aligned with the EU, did serve at least one important purpose – that of a cold and sobering reality check.
