 Ukraine & Europe By Glen Willard |
"Our way to the future is the way followed by the United Europe. We are the people of the same civilization, sharing the same values. History, economic prospects and the interests of people give a clear answer - where we should look for our fate. Our place is in the European Union. My goal is Ukraine in a United Europe."
The words above were spoken on January 23, 2005 to the people of Ukraine by Viktor Yushchenko at Kyiv's Independence Square. This was shortly after his official swearing in as president of Ukraine.
And the next day, the president was in Moscow meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. During that first official visit to another state leader, he declared that Russia was Ukraine's "eternal strategic partner."
On January 21, just a few days earlier, Secretary General of the European Union Javier Solana had invited Yushchenko for a discussion on possible EU membership for Ukraine. This invitation seemed to be either in contravention of, or at least inconsistent with, an almost contemporaneous report from the EU's Executive Commission that indicated it had no present plans to consider Ukraine's entrance into the EU.
Earlier in the month of January, a "flap" occurred when European Parliament President Josep Borrell criticized the roles played by Polish and Lithuanian leaders in attempting to assist Ukraine in working through its election problems. It seems that the Spanish MEP felt that Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski and Lithuanian President Valdas Adamkus were acting at the behest of the United States. He made a "Trojan Horse" reference that he later assured was just an informal, off-the-cuff remark. Both the Polish and the Lithuanian leaders considered it a serious matter. Whether those two considered it such or not, some likened it to French President Chirac's comments of a relatively short while back that seemed to suggest newer EU members should butt out when there was real and serious work to be done. So there appears to be an 'old' versus 'new' Europe bit of play here, to use the now famous distinction drawn by U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld a few years back.
Oh, and Mr. Solana was also bustling around along with the presidents' Kwasniewski and Adamkus, in those Kyiv meetings with Yushchenko, Kuchma and other parties of concern in that time of the election crisis. But, some have accused him more of wanting to make sure things turned out ok. You see, big 'old' Europe had a concern that the situation might become unstable (destabled?), or to put it another way, that all hell might break loose. That could be bad for relations between the EU and Russia. And, besides, weren't the pesky Americans causing all this trouble anyway?
As to the controversy, most of the people of Ukraine who rallied in Kyiv seemed to think that they were standing up for themselves. That's why they showed up in such numbers and hung around so long. Yes, Yushchenko was the man of the moment. He was the principle leader at that point. But, it could have been someone else. The people's main point was they voted and the votes didn't get totaled correctly. They were more than a little miffed. I'm not sure most of those thousands who showed up in Kyiv for the couple of months had too much thought particularly of Europe or any 'union' at the time. They probably were somewhat worried about stability, but it wasn't exactly the same 'stability' concept that Solana had in mind. The 'new' guys from Poland and Lithuania, whose countries incidentally, once had almost a four-century partnership, may have had more current and genuine feeling for the situation of the people and Yushchenko than the two Spaniards (the MEP and Solana). Add too that their countries were closer to the action; they have adjoining borders with Ukraine.
Also, during the election crisis, another non-EU type (besides Mr. Putin) offered some advice and comfort. That was Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili. Maybe he looked through rose-colored glasses and saw orange. He had some experience though and seemed to understand the objectives.
So what do we have here? Two 'old' EU Spaniards, two 'new' EUs, a Balt and a Pole, and two non-EUs, a Russian and a Georgian... plus a U.S. Trojan Horse? Does Yushchenko get in the game? Has the man from Turkey suddenly become a wild card? What's it take for openers in this card game? Do the old EU members hold the face cards? Does Solana hold the 'extra' ace? What's going on here!
Excuse the non-analysis. The Ukrainian Observer Cartoon Cover brings up serious subjects though. One election, ultimately more honest than not, has changed the European scene considerably. At least it may have - with implications reaching further than just Europe.
This article makes little attempt to analyze, but just throws out a few words and groups of words that may cause the mind to wander and the eyes to glaze over. Besides the EU, there is: NATO, WTO, Turkey, CIS, GUUAM, Eurasia, Single Economic Space, Tuzla Island, Kerch Strait, the Russian Fleet, Sevastopol, expansion, corridors of influence, military power, economic zones, trade tariffs, agriculture subsidies, the pan-Slavic dream, etc. The list is just to cause the beginning of thought.
The EU recently gained 10 new members. Turkey, until a couple of months ago, looked like the next big problem for the EU, after years of preparation and waiting. Besides the truly tough problems of absorbing a large country like Turkey, the country is fairly prejudiced against due to its, shall we say politely, insufficiently European look. Also its religion doesn't fit quite right (all part and parcel of the same).
Ukraine was not even remotely on the minds of EU members back in October-November 2004. Years of Ukrainian leadership had made this so. Even though at times Ukraine's now former leader, Leonid Kuchma, made some pretension of interest, and even at times tried to work both Russia and Western Europe into whatever seemed to motivate policy at the time. Operationally, his stewardship of the country and European democratic norms always grew further apart.
Ukraine, like Turkey, is a large country. It has a lot of people, but not as many as Turkey. And no one could say that Ukraine approaches the power and influence in world affairs that Turkey does. But Ukraine, like Turkey, is geographically important to power alignments in the world.
The EU wants to adopt a new constitution. It wants greater power and influence as a block. Yet, it has conflicts within. The old versus the new. France and Germany, maybe a little more equal than the others. Yet Germany may think strategically of Ukraine as a Russian buffer; France may think Russian relationships, a German hedge. England seems not so sure of anything, particularly of trading a pound for a euro. And there is the English 'special relationship' with the U.S. There is also Brussels ... Is that a country, a city, a bureaucracy or a 'place' to do government business? What is Strasbourg? Luxemburg? Where is it that they make the big decisions? Where do they size the tomatoes and potatoes and protect the kids from plastic toys?
Another question? Does anyone think Russia fell off the map? That Mr. Putin doesn't still think not only of the importance of Crimea, but also the Donbas. And most Russians have a fondness for a history that includes the city of Kyiv. So, what exactly was Putin thinking and what did Yushchenko mean with that 'eternal strategic partners' bit? The EU and the U.S. want to know.
Question. Is there a way for Ukraine to run both these traps? Run an independent, neutral course? Maintain relationships with Russia and its former Eurasian republics? Be in the WTO and NATO? Friendly to the U.S. and opening trade relationships and breaking down trade barriers with the EU and its countries?
Oleh Rybachuk, Yushchenko's former chief of staff, was quoted recently in a major news magazine as having said that EU membership was a top priority and vowed to "knock down" the door until such membership was achieved.
My guess is that at this stage Mr. Solana and a lot of other 'old' EU members have a splitting headache. Three months ago there was only this "Turkey problem" and the constitution to worry about. In hindsight, given the opportunity, they probably would have voted for Kuchma.
What a difference a couple of months and an election can make. Plus a few hundred thousand Ukrainians hanging around on Khreshatyk.
|
Read also previous issue' articles:
Tourism: Ukraine's Greatest Lost Opportunity
Cars, Cars - and More Cars
The Long Slide Into Instability
Sex, Money and the Modern Dacha
How to Stop Worrying and Love the Property Market
Separating Chornobyl
Fact and Fiction
|
| |
CONTACT US |
|
|
|
