Politics is a concentrated form of expression of an economic situation - this is an axiom. If one wants to understand the internal reasons for political actions, then one needs to turn to an analysis of economic conditions from a political perspective. Of course, quite often there is no direct link between an economy and politics, but such a link can be determined by political actions being taken. After all, economic factors are the basis of many of such political actions.
So, for the last several months Ukrainian, Russian and the Euro-Atlantic public has been paying attention to events surrounding Ukraine's entering into The Unified Economic Space (UES) between Ukraine, Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan. Ukrainian and the Euro-Atlantic communities started to trouble over the possibility of the revival of a new empire union that might become a "candidate" for a new superpower located on most of the territory of the former Soviet Union, now the CIS. The public is concerned about the possibility of Ukraine abandoning its strategic policy of integration into Europe, its structures, even to entrance into NATO. After all, Ukraine previously proclaimed such a strategic policy. The prior concrete statements of the President of Ukraine, Leonid Kuchma, and leading center and national-patriotic political forces about the policy of integration into Europe seem no more than statements made for certain purposes and situations, meaning that in words one thing is meant, but in reality other things are done. In words - we are integrating into Europe, but in reality - we are leaning towards the East. As to this I will say one thing: No changes have happened in Ukraine's strategic policy of integration into Europe; not only are such changes not happening, they will not be happening in the future regardless of who will be conducting Ukraine's foreign economic policy. And I will explain why. Under all circumstances, either internal or foreign, Ukraine will approach step by step the Euro-Atlantic community, its institutions, standards, etc. Even though my statements may sound paradoxical, for the sake of achieving a European living standard and integration into Europe, it is also necessary that Ukraine agree to be a part of the Unified Economic Space together with Russia, Belarus, and Kazakhstan. Precisely so. For the sake of Ukraine's integration into Europe, and not against it.
The necessity for Ukraine to go in the direction of Europe is explained not by the desires of some political forces, but by certain imminent economic reasons. While for many decades Ukraine was busy creating perfect missile carriers, "Kolchugas" and other militarily "exotic" products, the developed countries of the world were improving their technologies for home appliances manufacture, electronics, cars, clothes etc. As a result, when the Cold War ended, Ukraine's economy collapsed and the country appeared to be among the most underdeveloped countries of the world. The people of Ukraine were bewildered with this unexpected situation. It became apparent that the civil sectors of the Ukrainian economy were not competitive compared to the other world economies. And it's not so easy, as it might seem at the first glance, to switch right away from the manufacture of missiles to the manufacture of washing machines, digital cameras etc. To make such a "leap" in an economy, one needs technologies, production capabilities etc. But the West hasn't rushed to share such things. The West seeks and needs Ukraine's raw materials, its qualified workforce and its latest scientific inventions. But it doesn't need one more competitor. Ukrainians started to realize this at the turn of the millenium. From the year of 2000 Ukraine's renascence started on a new technological, management and market basis. Ukraine has now determined that the policy should be to outrun Europe. We are talking about not only the policy of the Ukrainian President, government or parliament. We are talking about the Ukrainian businessmen's real vision of the future and their day-to-day business activities. In order to catch up with Europe, one needs to reach its development level, and for Ukraine to become competitive with the European economy, it needs even to be a little bit ahead of it. Planning for and anticipating the future is Ukrainians' recipe for survival.
In principle, out running Europe is possible to do. The history of civilization shows that in order to do this however, one needs to rely on the achievements of predecessors. Japan is an example. From a war-ravaged beginning, Japan started to apply Western technologies for the manufacturing of electronics, cars, and eventually surpassed many countries previously far more advanced. And, there is no other alternative for Ukrainians. To bring the economy to a higher level, Ukraine needs to apply European standards, technologies etc. And it doesn't matter how Europe will react to this - whether it will contribute or hinder these processes in Ukraine, whether it will agree on Ukraine's integration into Europe or not. Of course, close cooperation would be a much better option. But this will happen even against the wills of the "fathers" of the European Union.
It was not by accident that the Ministry for Integration into Europe was created in Ukraine or that a new subject, "Ukraine's integration into Europe", was introduced in secondary schools. All center and national-patriotic parties have proclaimed a policy of integration into Europe.
Moreover, one must understand that Europe is not going to help, and the U.S. has enough problems to solve around the whole world. That's why Ukraine needs to count only on its resources and the capabilities of its own people. In order to assist other Eastern European countries, Europe "invested" about 39 billion USD into Estonia's "europeazation", and more than 80 billion USD - into Poland's economy. Correspondingly one would need to invest about one to two trillion dollars into Ukraine. It's not realistic to expect Europe to do this. The only financial source for Ukraine's renascence can be the money received from the selling of Ukraine's "traditional" and new products in various markets. And the CIS markets don't play a minor role in this process. Today Ukraine sells one third of its output in the CIS markets.
To appear in the CIS markets, Ukrainian products need to constantly pass through custom procedures, duties, overcome unavoidable bureaucratic obstacles etc. Therefore, one needs a free trade zone without any restrictions and limitations. It is for this reason that Ukraine has insisted since before the year 1994 that a free trade zone agreement be signed with Russia. But the Russian Duma has failed to date to adopt or endorse any agreement. The rationale for overcoming such economic barriers can be clearly seen in the example of Europe. Europe's first step towards unification was to create a free trade zone. Only later did Europe adopt a single currency and begin to create "above-the-national" European structures. So, upon Ukraine's entering into the Unified Economic Space agreement, the country desires first of all that a free trade zone be established.
The countries of Europe also need to have a free trade zone in the CIS countries in order for European products to appear, let's say in Kyrgyzstan or Turkmenistan, they too have to cross four or five borders of different countries. Again one sees that economic and not political issues are involved here. Politicians merely put economic reasons into political actions. Though at first the European countries didn't really like the idea of the creation of the Unified Economic Space between Ukraine, Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan they now indicate some recognition of the need.
Not only do scientists and businessmen understand the economic expediency of this step but also the ordinary citizen can see that it will be easier to travel and work etc.
Compared to the joint interests of Europe and Ukraine, Russia's reasons for entering into the agreement seem to be somewhat different. In the short-term Russia's economic interests are weaker, even sometimes opposite to Ukraine's and the EU's interests in this issue. However, Russia's long-term interests seem to be rather good because later it might find the opportunity to integrate Ukraine into Russia's economy. So, currently Russia is more interested in political unity of countries-members of the Unified Economic Space, and Ukraine is more interested in the economic side of the UES agreement - a free trade zone.
Of course, certain forces in Ukraine have concerns about any limitation of Ukraine's sovereignty by "above-national" structures. And in this regard that political opposition forces and national-patriotic forces share the same ideas. They are not against the creation of the UES, but only on the condition of having a free trade zone without any restrictions and limitations and a guarantee that Ukraine's national sovereignty will not be infringed. Contrary to the Communists and government people, the opposition doesn't campaign for either a pro-Russian or a pro-Western orientation, but it argues for having both an Eastern and Western orientation for the sake of Ukraine's national interests.
No matter what political struggle lie in the future around the UES agreement, this will be a struggle by three forces: pro-Russian, pro-Western and pro-Ukrainian. Since the positions of the pro-Western forces are closer to the positions and intentions of the pro-Ukrainian forces, one can forecast their joint victory in this struggle, and at the same time a strengthening of the pro-Ukrainian forces on the eve of presidential elections in the spring of 2004.
|
