It could be that proverbial cold day in hell when Ukraine - or even Turkey - are seriously considered for membership in the European Union. We're talking the next Ice Age.
I realize such predictions often go down beside the intellectual giant who said people would never watch a box of plywood with a screen, speaking of the television, or the IBM pioneer who said computers were a passing fad.
However, the good news for Ukraine in the defeat of the European Constitution by France in late May, and the Netherlands a few days later, is that it will be given time to pause, reflect and reconsider its strategic foreign-policy priorities.
I believe Ukraine should look both East and West, and hopefully its leaders would be sufficiently wise to balance the two.
One of the battle cries during the Orange Revolution was that Ukraine didn't need Russia. That was nonsensical braggadocio. Sort of like me saying I could be singing the lead in Madam Butterfly when I was kicked out of the church choir for being tone deaf.
Russia is Ukraine's largest trading partner by far. Earlier this year, we saw the confusion caused when, in a fit of pique, the Ukrainian prime minister placed price controls on oil products that came from Russia. The valve was turned off, and long lines appeared.
Ukraine needs Russia, and Russia needs Ukraine, and this partnership should grow. But they also both need the West. Or more specifically, it is in their own national interests to move closer to Western models of democracy, and with it the rule of law.
The constitutional election setbacks might or might not have been catastrophic to the entire European Union concept, but it was certainly a blow to E.U. enlargement. The latest report out of Turkey is one of growing ambivalence to E.U. membership. Previously, it was a point of wounded pride when European officials suggested Europeans had little in common with the Turks.
The Ukraine Administration is still striking a positive tone about E.U. membership, but it has to have been shaken. President Viktor Yushchenko staked much of his prestige on Ukraine leaning West, not just toward the E.U., but also the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
Both views, in my opinion, should have been tempered, and
a more real-politik approach taken. The inherent problems with NATO membership are many, and Ukraine can have the benefit without the political headache. As to E.U. membership, that chess piece just might have been taken off the table in May.
Perhaps Ukraine should concentrate on compliance with the World Trade Organization, and look in all directions for reliable trading partners and strategic economic alliances. There is nothing wrong with looking East and West -- and even South.
While my own company does business with multinationals around the world, we expect fully 25 per cent of our revenue to come from Turkish companies this year, including such giants as Migros, Turkcell, Ulker and Arcelik. Most of that Turkish business is in Russia or Ukraine, and was the reason we opened an office in Istanbul.
I was heartened when Yushchenko, prior to his visit to Turkey in June, noted that foreign investment from Turkish business interests in Ukraine had topped $2 billion. The president told the Anadolu News Agency that Turkey was a special partner for Ukraine and that political and economic ties should be upgraded.
As to the Constitutional referendums, I don't pretend to know the mishmash of hostile ingredients that caused traditional French foes to line up against the document, which mostly was a compendium of previously approved actions. However, a 10-point shellacking rocks the stadium.
French President Jacques Chirac was castigated by some for his lack of foresight. They said the Constitution should not have gone to a referendum, but only to the Parliament, which is not that much different than the famous "let them eat cake."
Chirac was right. His wake-up call by the people was merely sooner than later. If Germany had done the same, it is doubtful Chancellor Gerhard Schroder would have been campaigning for passage in France. He would have been licking his own wounds.
With the defeat, followed by that in the Netherlands, the Euroskeptics are gleeful, and the pro-E.U. forces are back pedaling. However, there is more a sea-change going on here, and it isn't merely the unpopularity of a particular government.
There is genuine doubt.
There is the concern about surrendering sovereignty, which does not necessarily mean one is a right-wing nationalist. There is worry over bureaucrats spitting out regulations and edicts simply because that is what bureaucrats do. There is a self-preservation concern of rolling back labor advances. And, of course, there are those who believe Ukraine and Turkey are simply not, well, like them.
But what does this mean for Ukraine. In my view, it suggests options that are much smarter than hanging around the E.U. door, knocking hopelessly. It suggests a rearranging of foreign priorities more clearly thought out.
The temptation is to say that these are the views of an American Euroskeptic, but I believe many good things have come out of an economic union without the attendant federalization of a political European Union.
Democratic history suggests that nations tend to do that which is in their own national interests, and when they veer away from this, referendums and regular elections tend to cause a course correction, whether in France or in the United States.
Then what does all this mean for Europe? Well, in the words of one confirmed Euroskeptic, Czech President Vaclav Klaus: "Nothing is changing in Europe. Europe has been functioning without a constitution for half a century and will be functioning for another half century."
|
