For quite a while, Ukraine’s domestic and foreign policy discourse revolved around one question – will or won’t Ukraine join an association with the European Union. In the run-up to the Dec. 19 Ukraine-European Union summit in Kyiv, the tension could be cut with a knife. But in the aftermath, we see that all is well that ends well.
Considering how much was at stake, the whole drama didn’t seem artificial. After all, the preparation of this document overall took almost five years and 21 rounds of negotiations. It wasn’t simply about an extra-long political and economic document. It was about Ukraine’s sense of direction for the coming years – or maybe decades.
So what happened? Who won? Are we in for a lengthy period of the association-bound reforms or another pause of uncertainty?
First and foremost, he winner is Ukraine (despite the fact that the EU was expressly and, in my opinion, not always justifiably modest in offering us the “vision of the future”). The paradigm of association is a step forward in relations with the EU.
This association agreement is not a guarantee of anything, but a chance for both Ukraine and the EU. Much depends upon what both sides make of it. Like any undertaking, it can end in triumph or failure. But the very fact that this undertaking got blessing at the highest levels, amid soaring isolationist moods in Europe, is a victory.
There is much ado about how it was done – whether the papers were merely agreed or initialed, whether they will be signed before or after the 2012 parliamentary elections and whether they will get stuck in the EU parliaments or not. Let’s address one problem at a time.
For starters, let’s comprehend the fact that a five-year-long process of negotiations is finally complete. We should cherish this moment and congratulate Ukraine on accomplishing something really meaningful in terms of shaping the nation’s future.
President of the European Council Herman Van Rompuy (L) Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych and European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso, right, during the 15th European Union-Ukraine Summit in Kyiv on Dec. 19 (AP)
We should be appreciative of President Viktor Yanukovych, who, despite so many obstacles, lives up to his election promise to lead Ukraine on the path to Europe. We should grasp the enormity of the negotiating work that has been done within last year.
We should appreciate the dedication of Ukraine’s parliament that in a precipitous and, for the most part, bipartisan manner passed a number of crucial laws that for quite a while have been on the Ukraine-EU agenda. And we should thank the negotiating teams, who consistently worked on, and finalized, this intricate document.
The next step will be initialing, signing and ratifying it in Kyiv and EU capitals. Timing depends on a variety of factors, not necessarily internal developments in Ukraine. The EU is currently going through the biggest crisis in its history. Agreeing on Ukraine’s future isn’t the highest of priorities. The mood on the continent is sour, not favorable to any discussion of expanding EU borders further east.
On the other hand, Europe’s decision-makers must understand that today’s juncture is unique. It’s the last possibility for the EU to bring clarity in relations with Ukraine, before the European train takes off in the direction of a new, deeper union. And it’s a unique possibility for Ukraine to hitch her wagon to this “train.”
No wonder that even those in and around Ukraine, who for whatever reasons have been urging the EU to put the association on ice, in the last moment reconsidered their position. The association is something Ukraine strives for and rightfully deserves. It is a wise decision that has been made despite the clear reluctance of some of its members to even consider the very idea of Ukraine joining the European family.
Sadly, the whole debate about recognition of Ukraine’s European perspective was rather typical for the Ukraine-EU dialogue. For many years Ukraine has been waiting for simple words from the EU like “you can join in, once you are ready.”
In retrospect, this realization was the starting point for the huge transformation that occurred in the East European countries over the last two decades. Since we want the same transformation to occur in Ukraine, the EU could have helped enormously through this simple statement of faith. This would have been politically helpful domestically in explaining to voters and companies why we adopted economically painful measures such as opening markets.
In the end, after hard and emotional negotiations, the EU didn’t deliver on our request to grant a clear membership perspective per se, but admitted (in the Summit’s Joint Statement) that Ukraine has “a European identity.” One would say – big deal. The issue seems as simple as pie. After all, what kind of identity can Ukraine have other than European? Asian? African?
Well, believe it or not, but this obvious recognition has cost our diplomacy a lot of blood over the years, starting from the Paris summit in 2008. Back then we couldn’t bring the EU to even agree to such wording as “European identity.” It was an uphill battle despite the fact that Ukraine’s democracy record was considered immaculate, despite Ukraine’s constant pledges of allegiance to the EU and despite Ukraine’s policy of following the EU’s course on all major issues of European life.
Those who tend to be over-anxious in terms of the Ukraine-EU dialogue need to realize: just like Ukraine never made things easy for the EU, the EU never made things easy for Ukraine. If the sheer recognition of Ukraine’s European identity costs so much effort, then imagine how much effort went into wrapping up the entire 1,600 page agreement.
In the end, we did it. The question and challenge now will be in how fast and successfully we implement it. And by “we” I mean both of us – the EU and Ukraine.
Vasyl Filipchuk is political director at Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine.
Part 2. Was summit successful?: Sanctions should start as EU talks continue
