Archives: Новини

Institute of World Policy and the Open Ukraine Foundation of Arseniy Yatsenyuk with the support of the Victor Pinchuk Foundation organised a the Diplomatic Club meeting, participated by leading Ukrainian experts, journalists and diplomats.{12}
During the open session of the Diplomatic Club the final results of a joint experts’ survey on Ukrainian foreign policy activity and understanding of external influences on Ukraine in 2010 conducted by the Institute of World Politics and the Open Ukraine Foundation were announced.
The results were as follows:
The most important developments in the foreign policy of Ukraine in 2010

1 Prolongation of deployment of the Russian Black Sea Fleet on the territory of Ukraine
2 Adoption of “The Law on principles of domestic and foreign policy of Ukraine”. Declaration of Ukraine’s “non-bloc” status.
3 Signing of the EU-Ukraine Action Plan for Visa-Free Regime.
4 Adoption by PACE and the European Parliament Resolutions on Ukraine, in which undemocratic trends are criticized.
5 Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich’s visit to the People’s Republic of China the declaration of intentions to establish Strategic Partnership with China.

Important developments in world politics, which have influenced Ukraine
1 Economic and financial decline in European Union (economic situation in Greece, Portugal, Ireland and Spain).
2 Russia-NATO Council meeting in Lisbon. Rapprochement of Moscow and the Alliance.
3 NATO Lisbon Summit. Adoption of the new Strategic Concept of the Alliance
4 Death of Lech Kaczynsky, President of Poland.
5 Wikileaks’ publishing codified cables of the U.S. diplomats.{1}

Decision-makers whose achievements and actions have had a considerable impact on Ukraine
1 Dmitriy Medvedev. Signing Kharkiv Agreements.
2 Vladimir Putin. Backing the interests of Russia in gas trade. Suggestion to found “Gazprom-Naftogaz” joint venture.
3 Hillary Clinton. The first among the Western leaders to warn Ukraine on authoritarian trends.
4 Jerzy Buzek. Adoption of the Resolution on the situation in Ukraine by the European Parliament.
5 Anders Fogh Rasmussen. Re-confirming the Bucharest Declaration principles.

{2}
In the presentation took part Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ukraine Pavlo Klimkin, Ambassador of France to Ukraine Jacques Faure, Ambassador of Germany to Ukraine Hans-Jurgen Heimsoeth, Ambassdor Yuriy Shcherbak, ex-Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ukraine Borys Tarasiuk. {3}
The results of the survey were presented by Director of the Institute of World Policy Alyona Getmanchuk and Director of the Open Ukraine Foundation Ivanna Klympush-Tsyntsadze. Guests of the presentation emphasized the importance of the conducted survey and expressed the hope that it can be put on regular basis. “This is the most reliable survey as 90 experts were interviewed”, Valeriy Chaliy, Ukrainian expert said. Evaluating the foreign policy of Ukraine he mentioned that one “observes the new style in foreign policy”. Prolongation of the deployment of the Russian Fleet is the long-going threat to the national security of Ukraine and Ukrainian-Russian relations. Chaliy negatively sees the declaration of the non-bloc status of Ukraine, as it “will be the obstacle to the Ukraine’s foreign activities in the future”.
{5}Ambassador Yuriy Shcherbak, commenting on the world political events having influenced on the Ukrainian foreign policy stressed that except the events, which were included to Top-5, he would like to pay special attention to the elections to the U.S. Congress, and the win of the Republican Party. He supposes that USA can see Ukraine in the different way in the future.
He claimed that 2010-s will be the period of the “extremely dynamic challenges, which can lead to full-scaled conflicts.”
Well-known Ukrainian journalist Vitaliy Portnikov, commenting on the rating of the world decision-makers, who influenced the Ukrainian foreign policy, said that the rating itself proves that the foreign policy of Ukraine is absent. {7}According to him the only politician, who influence on the Ukrainian foreign policy if Vladimir Putin, Russian Prime Minister. “We have to deal with not policy, but bargains”, he said. “It is not the Ukrainian diplomats’ fault, they are doing their best and only owing to them we have the agreement with EU on facilitation of the visa regime. But our authorities play a different role in our policy and turn it into the bargains and unofficial deals”.
{14}Ex-Minister for Foreign Affairs Borys Tarasiuk pointed out that the majority of the events in the Top-list have negative impact on Ukrainian Foreign Policy. Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs Pavlo Klimkin pointed out that the rating caused the active discussion, and contradicted to Borys Tarasiuk, claiming that “the main feature of the Ukrainian foreign Policy 2010 was drive”. {16}{15} “Drive and tight contacts. I think it is a positive sign”, diplomat emphasized.
{6}{11}{13}{17}{19}{4}{8}{9}{10}

Full list of the experts who took part in the survey

1. Aslund Anders
Senior Fellow, Peterson Institute for International Economics (USA)
2. Balanutsa Oleksandr
Deputy Director, United World Foundation (Ukraine)
3. Bekeshkina Iryna
Director, Ilko Kucheriv Democratic Initiatives Fund (Ukraine)
4 Belitser Nataliya
Expert, Pylyp Orlyk Institute for Democracy (Ukraine)
5.Bystrytsky Evhen
Executive director, International Renaissance Foudation (Ukraine)
6.Buhriy Maksym
Expert, Ukrainian Institute of Public Policy (Ukraine)
7.Chaliy Oleksandr
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, (Ukraine)
8.Chaliy Valeriy
Deputy director, Razumkov Center for Political and Economical Studies(Ukraine)
9.De Spiegeleire Stephan
MSc, the Hague Centre for Strategic Studies (the Netherlands)
10. Deychakivskiy Orest
Staff Advisor, US Helsinki Commission (USA)
11 Dzherdzh Serhiy
Head, Ukraine-NATO Civil League (Ukraine)
11. Fesenko Volodymyr
Director, Kyiv Gorshenin Institute of Managemnt Problems (Ukraine)
12. Finko Anton
Political expert, Kyiv Center for Political and Conflict Studies (Ukraine)
13. Fisher Sabine
Research fellow, EU Institute for Security Studies (France)
14. Getmanchuk Alyona
Director, Institute of World Policy (Ukraine)
15. Glebov Serhiy
Expert, Center of International Studies of the Mechnikov Odessa National University (Ukraine)
16. Greene James
Senior Adviser, Ukraine-USA Business Council, ex-Head of the NATO Liaison Office in Kyiv (USA)
17. Haran Oleksiy
Political analyst, National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy (Ukraine)
19.Honchar Mykhailo
Expert of Energy Programs, NOMOS Center (Ukraine)
20. Horbach Volodymyr
Expert, Institute for Euro-Atlantic Cooperation (Ukraine)
21. Jarabik Balazs
Head, PACT Ukraine, Associate fellow of FRIDE
22. Jeglinski Nina
Correspondent, DPA Agency (Germany)
23.Kaczynski Piotr Maciej
Research fellow, Center for European Policy Studies (Belgium)
24.Karasov Vadym
Director, Institute of Global Strategies (Ukraine)
25.Karatnytsky Adrian
Senior Analyst, the U.S. Atlantic Council (USA)
26.Klympush-Tsyntsadze Ivanna
Director, Open Ukraine Foundation (Ukraine)
27.Kokoshynsky Oleh
Vice-President, Atlantic Council of Ukraine
28.Kolomiyets Оleksiy
President, Center of the European and Transatlantic Studies (Ukraine)
29.Kovacz Roland
Director, UNITER
30.Krapivin Oleksandr
Expert, National Institute of the Strategic Studies
(Donetsk, Ukraine)
31. Kravchenko Volodymyr
International Observer, “Mirror Weekly” Weekly (Ukraine)
32.Kucharczyk Jacek
President of the Executive Board, Institute of Public Affairs (Poland)
33. Kulyk Vitaliy
Director, Institute of the Civic Society Problem Studies (Ukraine)
34. Lange Niko
Director, Kyiv Office of the Konrad Adenauer Foundation (Germany)
35. Lutsenko Anatoliy
Director, GMT Group (Ukraine)
36. Lymar Yulia
Editor-in Chief, GLAVCOM Information-Analytical Agency (Ukraine)
37. Lytvynenko Oleksandr
Deputy Director, National Institute for Strategic Studies (Ukraine)
38. Martsinovskii Anatoliy
Observer, “Gazeta po Ukrainski” (Ukraine)
39. Matuszak Slawomir
Expert of the Ukraine, Belarus and Baltic States Department, Centre for Eastern Studies (Poland)
40. Melnyk Oleksiy
Leading expert, Razumkov Center for Political and Economical Studies(Ukraine)
41. Michnik Adam
Editor-in-Chief, “Gazeta Wyborcza” (Poland)
42. Motyl Alexander
Professor, Rutgers University-Newark (USA)
43. Ogryzko Volodymyr
ex-Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ukraine
44. Onyshkiv Yuriy
Observer, KyivPost (Ukraine)
45.Opgenorth Mark
Staff Officer, Russia and Ukraine Section, Political and Security Policy Division, NATO HQ
46. Paliy Oleksandr
Expert, PhD (Ukraine)
47. Pidluska Inna
Director, Yalta European Strategy (YES) (Ukraine)
48. Poliakov Leonid
Expert, Center of the Army Studies, Conversion and Disarmament (Ukraine)
49. Portnikov Vitaliy
Editor-in-Chief, TVi Channel (Ukraine)
50. Potyekhin Oleksandr
Director, Center for Peace, conversion and foreign policy of Ukraine
51. Probytiuk Oleh
Director, InoZMI project, Glavred (Ukraine)
52. Rojansky Matthew
Deputy Director, Russia and Eurasia Program, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (USA)
53. Rybachuk Oleh
Head, “Center UA” (Ukraine)
54. Savin Kyryl
Director, Kyiv Office of Heinrich Boell Foundation
55. Semeniy Oleksiy
Expert, PhD (Ukraine)
56. Severinsen Hanne
Co-Rapporteur of the Monitor Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly, Council of Europe (Denmark)
57. Shamshur Oleh
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary. Leading Adviser on Investments and State Policy The PBN Company (Ukraine)
58.Shapovalova Olexandra
Expert, Institute of the Foreign Policy by MFA (Ukraine)
59. Shariy Andrey
Journalist, Radio Liberty (Russia)
60. Shcherbak Yuriy
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary (Ukraine)
61. Shelest Anna
Expert, Regional Branch of the National Institute of the Strategic Studies (Odessa, Ukraine)
62. Sherr James
Director, Russian and Eurasian program, Chatham House (UK)
63. Shlinchak Viktor
Chair of the Supervisory Board, Institute of World Policy (Ukraine)
64. Shevtsov Anatoliy
Director, Regional Branch of the
National Institute of the Strategic Studies, Dnipropetrovsk (Ukraine)
65. Shumylo-Tapiola Olga
Visiting Scholar, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (Beligum)
66.Siruk Mykola
Editor of International Politics and Information Department, “The Day” daily newspaper (Ukraine)
67. Sokolovskyy Bohdan
ex-Representative of the President of Ukraine on International Energy Security Issues (Ukraine)
68. Solodkyy Serhiy
Deputy Director, Institute of World Policy (Ukraine)
69. Solonenko Iryna
Manager of the European Integration Program, International Renaissance Foudation (Ukraine)
70. Soskin Oleg
Director, Institute of the Society Transformation (Ukraine)
71. Sushko Oleksandr
Scientific Director, Institute of the Euro-Atlantic Cooperation (Ukraine)
72. Stachetti Carina
Head of Russia, Ukraine & Eurasia Desk Directorate for Strategic Affairs, Ministry of Defence (France)
73. Swiecicki Marcin
Director, UNDP Blue Ribbon Analytical and Advisory Centre (Ukraine)
74. Sydorenko Serhiy
Observer, “Kommersant” newspaper (Russia)
75. Sylina Tetiana
International Observer, “Mirror Weekly” Weekly (Ukraine)
76. Szeptycki Andjey
Political Scientist, Institute of International Relations of the University of Warsaw (Poland)
77. Tarasiuk Borys
ex-Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, Head of the Parliamentary Committee for European Intagration (Ukraine)
78. Taylor William
Vice President, Center for Post-Conflict Peace and Stability Operations, United States Institute of Peace (USA)
79.Temirov Yuriy
Member of the Executive Board, Donetsk Institute of Social Studies and Political Analysis
80. Todorov Ihor
Deputy Director, International Security and Euro-Atlantic Cooperation Center, Donetsk National University, PhD (Ukraine)
81. Triukhan Vadym
Special Envoy, Ministry of the Foreign Affairs of Ukraine
82. Udovenko Hennadiy
Ex-Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ukraine
83. Umland Andreas
Political analyst, associate professor, National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy (Ukraine)
84. Valasek Tomas
Director of foreign policy and defence, Centre for European Reform (UK)
85. Veselovsky Andriy
Ambassador, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine
86. Zamyatin Viktor
Analyst, Council on Foreign and Security Policy (Ukraine)
87. Zarembo Kateryna
Analyst, Institute of World Policy
88. Zarytsky Walter
Professor, New-York University, Director of the “U.S. – Ukraine Relations Center” (USA)
89. Zhluktenko Varvara
Deputy Editor-in-Chief, “Profile” Magazine (Ukraine)
90. Zhovnirenko Pavlo
Chairman of the Board, Center for Strategic Studies (Ukraine)

Photo by Natalia Sagalata

Institute of World Policy opens the world of the Georgian cinematography to Ukrainian viewers.Cinema Club opened with the worldwide well-known Georgian film “Pirosmani” (1969, directed by Giorgi Shengelaya). Film won several international prizes, in 1972 it won the Grand Prix at the Chicago Film Festival, in 1974 the first prize at the Azolo Film Festival.{7} ( frame from the movie)

In his opening speech Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Georgia to Ukraine Grigol Katamadze claimed that this film is a great opportunity to get to know Georgia better, to understand it”.{3}{1}

Presentation was visited by prominent Ukrainian journalists, experts, political analysts. Mykhailo Honchar, VolodymyrFesenko, Oleksandr Paliy, Evhen Bystrytskyy, Oleksandr Balanutsa were among the Georgian cinematography’s connoisseurs.

Cinema Club took place in the “CHAO” Restaurant in Kyiv.

{5}{4}{2}{8}{6}{9}{13}{11}{12}{14}{15}{16}
Photo by Natalia Sagalata

Institute of World Policy held a videoconference with Giorgi Bokeria, Secretary of the National Security Council and Adviser on national security to President of Georgia.Answering the question by the Ukrainian experts on the current situation in relations Ukraine-Georgia, Bokeria claimed that Georgia still is a strategic partner of Ukraine. “Relations with Ukraine is a matter of consensus in Georgia. We see Ukraine as the most friendly country. I hope Ukrainian authorities shares the same position towards Georgia”, underlined Bokeria and added that change of the Governement in Ukraine has not influenced the relations with Georgia. “Any democratic government in Georgia as well as in Ukraine would follow the course of the strategic partnership. this is our fundamental principle”.

{1}
Giorgi Bokeria also said that the change of leadership of Ukraine has not have an impact on the military cooperation with Georgia. “Our military-technical cooperation develops in a very dynamic and constructive way, all previous agrrements are being fulfilled”.

On December, 7 2010 NATO headquarters hosted the presentation of the Euro-Atlantic Fashion Collection, created by Ukrainian designer Olena Dats and commissioned by the Institute of World Policy. The mannequins at NATO headquarters hall featured the best collection samples, decorated with North Atlantic Treaty Organization ornament. The plasma screens were showing the Ukrainian models demonstrating the collection at the catwalk.The event took place on the threshold of the Ukraine-NATO Commission meeting.

The official presentation of the Euro-Atlantic Fashion Collection was attended by diplomats accredited at NATO headquarters, journalists, representatives of the Mission of Ukraine to NATO.
{7}

The exhibition was opened by Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Ukraine to Belgium and Head of the Mission of Ukraine to NATO Ihor Dolhov.

{9}
Alyona Getmanchuk, Director of the Institute of World Policy, pointed out in the opening word that Euro-Atlantic Fashion Collection is aimed at changing the emotional perception of NATO among Ukrainians: “We at the Institute of World Policy are convinced that in order to give information about NATO you must first create a wish to hear it”. Ms. Getmanchuk also called on the audience “not to forget Ukraine”, as sooner or later Ukraine will return on the Euro-Atlantic orbit.
{2}

In his turn Michel Duray, head of the NATO Public Diplomacy Division, said that “it was an unprecedented event in NATO’s history which will be long talked about”.
The presentation was followed by informal communication of the representatives of NATO headquarters and journalists with IWP delegation – Viktor Shlinchak, head of IWP board, Alyona Getmanchuk, IWP director, and Olena Dats, who had created the collection.

The idea of the Euro-Atlantic Collection appeared at the Institute of World Policy a year ago. It was realized within the Ukrainian Fashion Week in March 2010.
{1}
{4}
{5}
{6}
{8}
{10}
{11}
{12}

Institute of World Policy has held a videoconference with famous American political scientist, former National Security Advisor to US President Zbigniew Brzezinski. The prominent Ukrainian experts, journalists and student leaders took part in the event.

The videoconference was made possible thanks to the support of the US Embassy to Ukraine.The full version of discussion is available in Ukrainian only.

On December 2, 2010 at 17.30 the Institute of World Policy organized a videoconference with Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, American political scientist and statesman, who served as United States National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter from 1977 to 1981 and is now a scholar at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies.Dr. Brzezinski discussed issues of the democratic development of Ukraine and current problems of international relations with Ukrainian experts and journalists. {8}
American political scientist positively assessed perspectives of democracy-building in Ukraine, although he pointed out that Ukraine wasted its historical chance for dynamic European integration and democratic transit. {1}
“That did much harm to national interest, but I am still positive when Ukrainian future is concerned”, he said and added: “Almost 20 years Ukraine has been demonstrating its devotion to democracy, that’s why its development as a democratic, modern European state is beyond any doubt”. He underlined that democracy in Ukraine can not be promoted by external forces, there is an extremal need of internal political will and social support. {3}{5}

Answering the questions by Ukrainian experts Dr. Brzezinski claimed the further normalization of the USA – Russia relations is needed, to make international politics more stable. {9}
He argued that Russia can not play a formative role in European security, saying that Russia is deeply concerned with internal problems and is not sure about its foreign policy goals, except its nostalgia on imperial past and aspirations to get advantage from modernization and westernization. {2}

{7}{4}
Photo by Natalia Sagalata

The Media-Club Discussion, participated by Juri Luik, Estonian Ambassador to NATO, took place in the Institute of World Policy.Ukrainian experts and journalists had an opportunity to discuss the results of NATO Lisbon Summit. Estonian diplomat paid much attention to the new Strategic Concept.

«In this document we managed to answer the question, what is the reason for NATO’s existence in modern international environment. Firstly, it is the defense of the Allies according to the Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty and, secondly, it is the cooperative security», he said.

Answering the question on the perspectives of the Ukrainian membership in NATO, Ambassador Luik claimed that this issue depends on the position of the Ukrainian leaders. «In Strategic Concept we reconfirmed the decision of the Bucharest Summit, concerning Ukraine and Georgia. But we also took into consideration the current position of Ukraine, which we tried to depict as precise as possible», he stated and added that NATO’s door is still opened.

Ambassador Luik also touched upon Russia-NATO relations, mentioning that the general political atmosphere in these relations is very positive at the moment, disposing to further cooperation in number of fields, Afghanistan in particular.

«Overall, Lisbon Summit was a historical one and it was really successful, though we need time to see how we manage to implement all decisions. We will see that at the next Summit, which will take place 2012 in the USA»

{1}
{2}
{5}
{6}
{4}
{7}
{8}
{3}

Photo by Natalia Sagalata

NATO’s Assistant Secretary General for Political Affairs and Security Policy Dirk Brengelmann spoke at a videoconference organized by the Institute of World Policy.On November 24, 2010 NATO’s Assistant Secretary General for Political Affairs and Security Policy Dirk Brengelmann spoke at a videoconference organized by the Institute of World Policy. He summed up the results of the NATO summit in Lisbon and answered the questions from the Ukrainian experts. The videoconference was organized with the support from the Embassy of the United States to Ukraine and NATO Information and Documentation Centre in Ukraine.

The full text of the lecture by President of Lithuania Valdas Adamkus (1998-2003, 2004-2009) at the Institute of International Relations (Kyiv National Taras Shevchenko University) on November 24, 2010. The President’s visit to the University was organized by the Institute of World Policy.Ladies and Gentlemen,

Very soon, on January 13, we will be commemorating the 20th anniversary of the tragic events in Vilnius when the Soviet tanks literally crushed unarmed and peaceful civilians at the TV Tower.

On August 24, we will celebrate the 20th anniversary of Independence in Ukraine.

Can you believe that it’s been twenty years since we broke free from the Soviet Union – the empire that sent millions of its own citizens to die in gulags and starved millions of your people to death.

Twenty years of freedom is an entire epoch and most of you are the children of this epoch.

It seemed back then when the Soviet Union was crumbling to pieces that the world could not change more drastically. But today, on the eve of the 20th anniversary of Ukraine’s Independence, the pace and extent of change is still incredible.

It seemed back then when the Cold War system collapsed that freedom and democracy would reign and that governments throughout the world would settle their mutual issues peacefully and by respecting the principles of international law.

Yet, just two years ago, we saw these principles trampled in our neighborhood, Georgia, and only the actions taken by the European Union and your President’s resolute intervention stopped the Russian tanks just 20 kilometers away from Tbilisi.

The world has not become simpler, far from it! Yes, there is more freedom and more democracy. According to Freedom House, there are now 89 free democracies compared to 61 countries that were Free two decades ago.

Regrettably, the wave of democratization has not changed the basic set-up of the international system. Although we keep promoting freedom and democracy as the overarching values, states that lack democracy still have a very strong say in the United Nations.

Meanwhile, Ukraine cannot express its voice as it should as a country with a population of 50 million and one of the best advancers on the democratic scale over the past twenty years.

The world is still controlled by a lever frame that reflects the post-war balance of powers when the number of dependent states was two or three times higher than that of independent ones.

But bearing in mind that independent states account for as much as 46 percent of the overall number of countries in the world, compared to only 24 percent of dependent states, they should be the ones to set the rules of the game.

The map of the European Continent – now almost entirely painted in the colors of freedom and liberty – shows the new order of democracy.

What is even more, the European nations have created such a multi-level system of checks and balances and mutual integration that the use of force in Europe is inconceivable.

Therefore, whenever they ask me if it is worthwhile joining the European Union and NATO, I always ask in return: Is there a better place for a country which believes in democratic ideals and is committed to building a future for the world, together with the prevailing majority of democracies?

The fact that the number of democratic states has approached 50 percent in the past twenty years sends a clear message to everybody as to where the world is moving. Being an outsider in this process of transformation and ignoring the world’s strongest democratic structures leads to self-isolation and self-exclusion from global issues.

I would probably think and talk differently if a real alternative to the European, Western democracy had emerged in the past twenty years. Attempts to create such an alternative were numerous, especially in our region. Just think, for instance,
of the Commonwealth of Independent States or the Collective Security Treaty Organization, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and other similar structures. Of the numerous examples, only the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, all six member states of which are considered to be not free, could probably claim to be taking the initiative from the European Union and NATO in shaping the future of the world.
On second thought though, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization has only three advantages over Western structures – territory, population and mineral resources. Whether these advantages are still relevant in the 21st century is for you to decide. As for me, the mere fact that the standard of living in Lithuania, a small country with actually no mineral resources, is twice as high as the average in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization member states is the best answer to me.

Would Lithuania have achieved this without joining the European Union and NATO?

Today I often hear claims that it is the external factors that have played the crucial role in the transformation of post-soviet states. They say that the Baltic economies are growing only thanks to the gigantic support from the European Union, and that Georgia has suddenly started doing well only thanks to American billions.

But then why don’t we see impressive economic achievements in Belarus, Central Asian countries or the occupied Abkhazia – countries that receive hundreds of millions worth of funding from Russia?

I am confident that the central role for the success of domestic and foreign policies is played by the quality of governance, which is inseparable from the level of freedom and democracy in a country.
No matter what my opponents might say, it is hardly possible to spend your own or someone else’s money efficiently if there is no democracy, if the government does not talk to the people and if the decision-making mechanism is flawed.

In many post-soviet countries, slightly different opinions prevail. The belief in a “firm hand” and “good ruler” is deeply rooted there. And Lithuania is no exception.
But if we take a look at our major achievements of the past two decades, we will see that all of them were made not by unilateral decisions but through consensus among all political forces and with a strong backing from the general public. Membership in the European Union and NATO is probably the best illustration.
It might sometimes seem very easy to decide on membership in the European Union. But that is not so! Membership is conditional on fundamental structural transformations that change drastically the acceding country’ architecture and might spark off huge problems, unless political forces agree on such reforms and explain them to the general public.

Allow me to mention several examples. At the time of acceding the European Union, Lithuania claimed „equal conditions“ with other EU countries and was resentful of having to accept transitional periods for the free movement of labor. In six years, these periods practically melted away, reducing alongside about 13 percent of the Lithuanian population. Emigration has reached such a scale that at one time Lithuanian companies had to import labor from Belarus, Ukraine and other countries. Lithuania was not properly prepared to face the problem of emigration and today it is a growing political, social and economic issue.
One of the areas where membership in the European Union has provided a very strong impetus is agriculture. Support to agriculture totaled 612 million euros in the first year of membership and 2.2 billion euros for the 2007-2013 period, nearly 22 thousand euros per farmer. Perfect as it may seem, it brings the issue of how this money should be distributed to make sure that it stimulates the restructuring of agriculture and the consolidation of land holdings, on one hand,
and does not drain the countryside of people and helps keep its centuries-long rural traditions, on the other hand. This is a million-dollar question. Our government adopted multiannual programs which were positively assessed by the European Commission, but a wide political debate on this issue did not take place in Lithuania. In this respect, we keep moving adrift, with inertia, without having a clear vision of where we find ourselves in five or six years’ time. I think this is not good.

Another problematic issue: the Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant. Even before accession, Lithuania tried to resist the pressure to close it down, but ultimately had to give up. We came to the European Union, as they say, “with our fingers crossed”, as the political parties and Lithuanian society were nursing a secret hope that other EU Member States would change their stance and agree to extend Ignalina’s operation. I would even say jokingly that we were reluctant to surrender the status of Lithuania as a nuclear country.

Our “fight” with the European Commission for this status cost us much time which could have been spent, instead, for a comprehensive structural reform of our energy sector. And even today, when the EU has allocated hundreds of millions worth of support for this purpose, we are not sure if we will manage to absorb it.

Therefore, when I speak with representatives of countries aspiring for EU membership, I always try to make it clear: membership needs a proper preparation. It is not only about proper planning and timely transposition of thousands of EU legal acts into the national law – it is also about having a clear national development vision discussed with the general public and backed by major political forces of the country, a vision for energy, transport and agriculture, and for many other areas such as the demographic situation, employment and education, which we normally consider “not relevant” to foreign policy.

Moreover, membership in the club of the most powerful states of the world calls not only for good governance but also for a contribution to the common pool. For instance, next year Lithuania will start making payments to the European Development Fund aimed at providing aid to the poorest African countries. The first payment will be four million euros. The total contribution paid by Lithuania to the EU budget amounts to 300 million Euros a year.

But there is also a much higher price that we pay – our best diplomats, civil servants, translators and interpreters, lawyers leave to work for the European institutions in Brussels and to other countries. As of today, their number has reached 700.

We could hardly find another international organization that takes so much from Lithuania in terms of money and people. But this only shows the importance and uniqueness of the European Union in the modern set-up of international organizations.

Such a country as Ukraine would have to contribute much more, but, at the same time, it would carry a stronger political weight and influence in European and global matters.

Before I finish, there is one last question that will probably come up later in the discussion. “So when can Ukraine expect to join the European Union?” Nobody knows. This is a moving target. When Lithuania joined the European Union, it was already much different from what it used to be 15 years earlier, when membership negotiations started. That new European Union already had a single currency, a more consolidated common foreign policy and reformed institutions.

Nearly a year ago, new changes were brought by the Lisbon Treaty which reformed the decision-making mechanism in the EU, expanding the list of issues decided by the EU Member States by qualified majority, not unanimously. This is a testimony of great mutual trust.

But in the past few days we have been hearing calls to amend the Lisbon Treaty again, to inject more financial discipline into Europe. I confess I was slightly shocked at the news, as I recall how difficult it was and how much time it took to agree on the text of the Lisbon Treaty. This means that even Iceland, which has applied for EU membership quite recently, will join a Union different from the one that existed at the time of the last wave of enlargement.

Therefore, my wish for you is: as you prepare for membership, do your homework, implement reforms and build plans for the future, always keep watching, out of the corner of your eye, the processes in the European democratic space unfold. The European Union seeks to be an active shaper of the democratic world and much will depend on its ability to reach a long-term integrative agreement with the United States
Ukraine has a very important role to play in this policy. It is crucial that Ukraine speak its own words and reinforce them by concrete actions.
I wish success to you all.
Thank you for your attention.
Photo by Roman Malko

Photo account of the President Adamkus’ visit to Kyiv.Meeting the President
{1}
Presentation of Рhoto Рroject “Georgia 2000 vs. Georgia 2010”
{3}
{4}
{6}
{7}
{8}
{11}
{15}
Meeting with President of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko
(2005-2010)
{2}
{5}
{10}
Discussion at the Institute of World Policy
{12}
{13}

Meeting with leader of the party “Front zmin” Arseniy Yatseniuk
{14}
{16}
At a meeting with the leader of the party “Batkivshchyna” Yulia Tymoshenko
{17}
{18}
{19}
{20}
{9}