The European Union-Ukraine Summit has become the single most important event of the year in Ukraine, despite being planned just ahead of the New Year celebrations. The summit held the potential to not only shape the course of foreign policy for Kyiv, Moscow and Brussels, but also to actually influence the internal situation within the country.
In the run-up to the summit, the government of Ukraine was quite optimistic about the initialing of the association agreement. On Dec. 14, Andriy Klyuev, first vice prime minister of Ukraine, stated that the agreement had been fully prepared and would be initialed during the summit. Earlier, on Oct. 20, Ukraine and the EU agreed on the basic parameters of the trade section of the association agreement after having completed preparations for the free trade zone initiated in 2008.
The Court of Appeal did not allow Tymoshenko to appeal against her incarceration prior to the Summit. The appeal against her guilty verdict will be considered on December 20th meaning that Tymoshenko’s release will still be hanging in the air throughout the Summit. The government of Ukraine seems to have adopted an intransigent attitude over the case of the ex-prime-minister. Even a meeting between President Yanukovych and Stefan Fule, European Commissioner for Enlargement and European Neighbourhood Policy, did not affect the situation.
Realising the impact of such a decision by the court of appeal, Oleh Voloshyn, press secretary at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, mentioned that the association agreement between Ukraine and EU would most likely not be initialed on Dec. 19. He also added that there will be no fundamental changes due to this. Finalizing negotiations is the most important thing.
Early in December the European parliament adopted a resolution recommending that the Council of European, the European Commission and the European External Action Service initial the association agreement with Ukraine before the end of the year.
It shows that the European Union is still open to closer relations with Ukraine, as the Association Agreement is a tool for deeper bilateral relations. The summit has been given a primary role in securing these relations. A deputy of the European Parliament, Pavel Zalevsky, commented on the recommendations, stating that the EU is not making any new conditions, reminding that the ratification of the document is directly dependent on the establishment of safeguards for democracy in Ukraine. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs took this decision as a positive sign. President Viktor Yanukovych has said that the decision of the European Parliament was good news for Ukraine and that he would try to solve problems highlighted in the resolution.
The summit has not brought any results but has set the record straight.
The parties announced the completion of negotiations over the Association Agreement between Ukraine and EU. But this did not end an initialing, which would have otherwise allowed the establishment of a free trade area between Ukraine and the EU. According to the government of Ukrainian, particularly Andriy Klyuev, this process should take little more than a month. In reality, though, the initialing might be substantially delayed if new gas agreements with Russia distract Ukraine from establishing a free trade area with the EU.
Jose Barroso, president of the European Commission, and Herman Van Rompuy, president of the European Council, also reaffirmed that the success of the association agreement would depend on the implementation of Ukraine’s democratic reforms. The summit has shown that EU is not prepared to compete for Ukraine with Russia. Ukrainian authorities in their turn evidence a preference for securing their own political ambitions and short-term economic gains over securing Ukraine’s perspectives as a part of Europe.
It is no wonder that the government’s decisions in conjunction with foreign affairs of Ukraine do not find much understanding among the people of Ukraine. According to a recent survey of public opinion 47 percent of the population think that the current foreign policy of Ukraine contradicts the national interests while 32 percent believe that it at least partially contradicts.
Sociological surveys held before the summit revealed how the people of Ukraine felt about deeper relations with EU, while 45 percent of respondents supported European integration and 34.2 percent were against it.
A lot of people (20.7 percent) refused to answer the question while 56 percent of respondents noticed that the government’s actions did not follow their declarations on the European integration of Ukraine (12 percent think the opposite), as 37 percent stated that they would personally benefit from Ukraine joining the EU; 26 percent said that it would harm them; 27 percent of respondents believe that they would benefit from Ukraine joining the customs union with Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan; 23 percent said that the union would be damaging for Ukraine.
Besides these issues respondents were asked to evaluate the availability of information about the EU. 46 percent believe it to be average, 36 percent – low and only 4 percent high). The statistics shows that Ukrainians support European integration little more than they support the Customs Union. But one third of the population has not yet made up their mind. This creates high risk for the manipulation of public opinion on the issue.
Without a doubt, the responsibility for the poor results of the summit rest on Ukraine rather than the EU or Russia. External factors, no matter how powerful they might be, have always been secondary. The head of the EU Delegation to Ukraine, Jose Teixeira, has said that the European Union has given Ukraine billions of hryvnias in technical aid over the past 10 years. He believes that if Ukrainian authorities had used it for its intended purpose, Ukraine would have been a totally different country by now.
People First comments
Russia
In order to balance its books and keep their own people in check Russia needs to be able to control the development of the Ukrainian energy industry along with that of all the former Commonwealth of Independent States’ countries through the Eurasian Union. Energy exports account for 69 percent of Russian gross domestic product and, without this, control Russia’s financial position looks progressively weaker.
Russia’s largest energy customer is Europe, followed closely by China. In 2006 and 2008 Europe saw its gas supplies cut in the depth of winter as a result of spats between Russia and Ukraine. As a direct result, Europe has engaged in an extensive supply diversification program that could see gas exports from Russia to the EU reduced by up to 50 percent by 2020. This does not bode well for the Russian economy.
At the same time, Ukraine is ramping up its own energy diversification program and seeks to be energy independent and potentially a net energy exporter within 10 years which would mean that Russia could lose a further market that accounts for 26 percent of Russian energy exports and have a competitor on its doorstep. China is sitting on the sideline and refusing to pay Russia any more than $200 per 1,000 cubic meters as it too has diversified its supply system and can buy cheaper liquefied natural gas from Australia.
Russia has in many ways been hoisted by their own petard. Their saber-rattling and Soviet style diplomacy may have worked in the 1960s, when it was backed by the Cold War and the threat of nuclear annihilation, but in the modern world, minds of equal stature have simply found alternatives leaving Russia to bathe in somewhat empty glory. In view of this we should expect Russia to play hardball.
European Union
Europe’s position is to sit back and wait. They, too, are in the midst of a financial crisis but they are far more likely to be able to ride the storm as soon as the markets regain their nerve. The EU is a club with very strict rules. They have extended an invitation to their neighbor but the dress code is very specific. They would like Ukraine to be a member of the club, they can see that the majority of the nation want Ukraine to be a member of the club. It is simply that those in power will have to sign up to the set of rules that will mean a lot of changes to the way they run the country and do business.
The financial advantages to Ukraine are immeasurable in both the short and long term as being a trading member of the European Union will mean an immediate elevation in national status and that will unlock doors. In view of this we can expect the EU to sit back and wait.
Ukraine
Ukraine is the pivot around which the two suitors are dancing and soon a decision will have to be made or the music will simply stop. The question here is who will make the decision. A number of Party of Regions senior members and benefactors have expressed their opinion that Europe is the way forwards but one in particular has so much of his Empire interwoven within Russia that the price may well be very high indeed.
The problem is that the Administration and its benefactors all have vested interests in the Russian option, especially those profiteering from the ever changing gas prices, but all clearly understand that the right decision is Europe. If Ukraine takes the European option then they will most likely be the first to suffer as it is they who will incur the Kremlin’s wrath.
If Ukraine takes the Russian option then they might be secure in the short term but only until Russia’s political culture follows Russian investments into Ukraine and, simultaneously, their interests in Europe may be much more difficult to manage and potentially less profitable. In fact they are damned if they do and damned if they don’t… but that is what happens in a ménage a trois.
The only person who can really make this decision is the President. Difficult decisions come with the job and now it is time for him to honour his oath of loyalty to the nation rather than bending to the interests of an unelected few. Since all power is finite, working in the interest of the people is the only guarantee of a long term political perspective as intrigue will only mean unending and highly damaging court cases under the next government.
Conclusion
Russia is facing an increasingly difficult time with civil unrest at home and mounting financial pressure. It is beholden on Ukraine as a fellow Slavic nation, on the UK, Germany, the USA and China as major trading partners to ensure the long-term stability and integrity of Russia as the alternative would be a disaster of unimaginable proportion.
Russia is Ukraine’s immediate neighbor. It is a giant market. But Russia’s political system is in equal need of modernization, and the EU together with Ukraine must help Russia implement this change if only for its own security. Cooperation between the EU and Ukraine could well act as an effective model for Russian political reform as clearly a peaceful and democratic Russia is in Ukraine’s long-term national interest.
The EU is also an immediate neighbor and giant market for Ukraine. But the EU’s administrative system is almost overwhelmed with its own problems of debt, unemployment and stagnation. The Europeans have the resources to overcome this crisis in their common values. Europe must share the strength of these values with the Ukrainian people and their political elite, if only for the same reasons of national security.
The current model of Ukraine’s European perspective appears stillborn. It is up to the nation to write a new one.
Viktor Tkachuk is chief executive officer of the People First Foundation, which seeks to strengthen Ukrainian democracy. The organization’s website is: www.peoplefirst.org.ua and the e-mail address is: [email protected]
