Many points instead of many vectors

Foreign policy was largely out of the scope of Victor Yanukovych’s election campaign despite the fact that according to the Ukrainian Constitution, it is a primary job of the President of Ukraine. While the leader of the Regions Party (RP) emphasized economy and social sector, it will remain for the future Prime Minister to deal with them.

The election program of the presidential candidate Victor Yanukovych offers very scarce hints of his foreign policy goals and priorities. The only thing one can understand from this document is that Mr. Yanukovych believes that “preservation of Ukraine’s non-aligned status” is “the main task of the national foreign policy”. It is so because “considering the current geopolitical reality”, he is certain that “Ukraine’s non-aligned status is a key element of national security and guarantee of strengthening its international authority and influence”. The following (and the last) paragraph dedicated to foreign policy contains promises to restore “friendly and mutually beneficial relations with the Russian Federation and other CIS member states” and develop “strategic partnership with the USA, EU, and G20 countries”. That is all.

The wide public in Ukraine and beyond would have had nothing but these scarce facts, if not for Leonid Kozhara, “foreign minister in the opposition government”. Late December he presented the so-called “foreign platform” of Victor Yanukovych. According to this program, the Regions Party and its leader see European integration and Ukraine’s membership in the European Union as the country’s main strategic goal. Moreover, this integration is impossible without introducing European legal and other standards in all sectors of Ukraine’s political and social life. The new team will continue to work on the EU-Ukraine Association Agenda, but maintains that it is the quality of the document that is important and not the terms when it will be signed.

The clause on the restoration of strategic partnership with Russia and priority cooperation with the CIS was expanded to include the economic integration with Russia, Belorussia and Kazakhstan on the terms compatible with Ukraine’s membership in WTO.

It was also noted that China, India, Brazil and Argentine are very important for Ukraine, and our country should try to augment its presents at these rapidly developing markets.

As for NATO, the RP leader promised to maintain “mutually beneficial and effective ties with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization according to Ukraine’s national interests”. Last week Mr. Yanukovych in an interview with the CNN added that the country’s membership in NATO should be decided by the national referendum.

The “foreign platform” of Mr. Yanukovych also emphasized the need to facilitate “Ukraine’s participation in the discussion of the new European security architecture” and Russian President Medvedev’s proposal in this regard. Moreover, it was suggested that Kyiv should host a kind of “Helsinki-2” summit.

Roughly, this is it. But as well all know, this is only a showcase. What lies beneath, we can only find out in the years to come. Yet there exists great doubt about our huge success on the international arena. This is all the more so because even the most simple-minded have realized by now that until Ukraine has changed within, it will hardly be treated with much respect by the outsiders.

The world expects action from Ukraine. The internecine war of Ukrainian political clans, ruinous for the country’s image and prospects, has disappointed and discouraged even our most loyal lobbyists. Ukrainian politicians deceive their fellow citizens when they try to convince them that Europe views constant turmoil in the country as a normal democratic process. Europe views it as chaos and considers Ukraine totally unpredictable. In Ukraine, there is no institutional continuity and cohesion so valued by our western partners.
To Europe, democracy is about good governance in the best interests of general public, rather than a handful of politicians; clear distribution of authority amongst the branches of power; a sustainable operating government supported by a stable parliamentary majority; well-developed civil society; fair and independent judiciary; effective anti-corruption work; promotion and protection of human rights; consensus between political elites and citizens on issues of strategic importance for the nation.

Let us remind an old piece of advice: it was given repeatedly during the last five years, but it is still the only cure of our decease. Whatever big and ambitious may Ukraine’s goals be, the country’s foreign policy will fail without the following conditions.

First and foremost, it is domestic stability. Without stable parliamentary majority and effective teamwork of the president and the prime minister, Ukraine will never be treated as a reliable partner.

Ukraine should have a single voice with its foreign negotiators. This is a rule of thumb, but it is still being overlooked.

International success is only possible if the country achieves real progress in its interior life, only when it carries out real, long due reforms. Ukrainian citizens and the country’s foreign partners expect structural economic, legal and administrative reforms, true fight against corruption, and remarkable improvement of investment climate. These measures will not strengthen only the internal positions of the country’s new president, but also his authority abroad.

Another important condition is clear vision and ability to soberly evaluate one’s potential. It is better to pleasantly surprise our partners with overfulfillment of our modest obligations rather than disappoint them with failing to fulfill so many promises one has made.

Restoration of constructive relations with Russia is indeed an important task. We have no other choice, particularly in view of “the reset” of Russian-American relations. Even Victor Yushchenko used to repeat that no one expects us in Europe with bundles of problems in Russian-Ukrainian relations (although, urged by his Russian counterparts, he has added greatly to these problems)…Today we have to draw a list of unsolved problems in our bilateral relations and handle them one by one. Our Russian peers have to hear a distinct definition of Ukraine’s national interests from our new head of state.

Of course, poor diplomats cannot be effective. Our foreign policy should be amply financed. We do not mean increasing expenses for numerous and often useless foreign visits of the ruling elite, but rather securing normal working conditions in the central department and overseas missions of the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry.

All components of success are very well known. This recipe has been probed by many of our neighbors. It is high time for us to use it as our remedy.

Nobody is willing to forecast the development of Ukraine’s foreign policy under the new leadership. The range is wide – from apocalyptic foretelling of betrayal of Ukraine’s national interests and the country’s transformation into Russia’s humble satellite to euphoria over Ukraine’s joining G20. I am sure it will not be a mistake to frown at both of these options. Victor Yanukovych promises he will not become the Kremlin’s pawn, and we believe him. Yet it is difficult to say how prone he will be to accept certain Moscow’s proposals. If the new Ukrainian leader is indeed willing to pursue independent policy and defend the country’s national interests, he should avoid participation in any shadow schemes for personal profit – which his predecessors as well as he himself during premiership failed to do. Rumors about Mr. Firtash’s Centregas participation in the future gas consortium is merely a single reason to fear… There are also fuel and energy, petroleum industry, uranium, etc.

Mr. Yanukovych does not see the Russian Black Sea Fleet as a threat to Ukraine’s security. Moreover, he is sincerely outraged with these implications. Yet why not try to free expensive land, defending “Ukrainian economic interests”? All the more so because he promised to deal with this issue “creatively” and “as a good landlord”...

There will be no single economic space with former Soviet countries. Let us not forget that it was Mr. Yanukovych’s government that in 2003 finally buried this forcefully imposed on President Kuchma project. Moreover, the “exhumation” of this initiative is technically impossible now. Last but not least, for the Regions Party businessmen, a free trade zone with the EU seems to be much more attractive.

It is clear that there will be no NATO membership either. Cooperation with the Alliance will become routine; it will stop to be a bone of contention in Ukraine’s domestic and foreign policy, and this will suit both parties. Of course, the country will still remain in security vacuum, but this issue is of little concern to the new leadership. As to Dmitry Medvedev’s initiative on the new European security architecture, there is hope that Ukraine will team up professionals, capable of more than rewrite Russian press releases and proclamations, and who may tip off the leader that his “great interest” in Russian President’s proposal may seriously offend the Russian Prime Minister… Besides, the European support of this initiative is too exaggerated.

We will not join the EU even during the decade of Mr. Yanukovych’s possible presidency (except that he will somehow make Ukraine the country of G20). However, his talks about the creation of free trade zone seem to be more rigid and pragmatic than under pro-European Yushchenko.

The word “pragmatic” is ubiquitous among the experts contemplating over Ukrainian future foreign policy. Most of them believe that this policy will be greatly defined by business interests of the RP. Many say this policy will have “many points” rather than “many vectors”. The person in charge of the Foreign Ministry will have a decisive say on how the country’s national interests are secured. The new President of Ukraine does not have a vision of global processes. Who will brief him and prepare for the meetings with foreign colleagues? International preferences of Mykola Azarov, Borys Kolesnykov, and Sergiy Levochkin are well-known. That is why it is extremely important for the future Minister of Foreign Affairs to keep the balance. Today we hear several names for this post. Petro Poroshenko, who hopes to retain his position, has minimal chances. The names of Volodymyr Elchenko, who has close friendly relations with Mr. Yanukovych, and Leonid Kozhara are heard most, although the latter is more likely to head the international department of the President’s Secretariat. Konstantyn Gryshchenko remains candidate no. 1, but there is still no unanimous opinion on this matter among the Regions Party members. So far, we have learnt that the representatives of two rivaling groups prepare President Yanukovych’s first foreign visit: to Germany, “Russia’s Europe”…

print friendly version

	Comments (0) add a comment