Archives: Публікації

Blog by Serhiy Solodkyy, First Deputy Director of the Institute of World Policy for “Radio Liberty” Russian ServiceAvailable in Russian

Article by Oksana Pyliavets, analyst of the Institute of World Policy for EuropeanVoice.comYour recent article by Aleksander Kwasniewski, a former president of Poland, was an excellent reminder that the EU should be providing fuller and deeper support to Ukraine (“A hub in need of stronger spokes” , EuropeanVoice.com, 17 March).

The EU currently has a unique opportunity to prove whether it really regards the relationship with Ukraine as a strategic priority. Indeed, this may be its last chance to do so. If the EU wastes the chance, Ukraine’s future as a stable democracy looks uncertain.

That opportunity is agreement on a free-trade area with Ukraine that – as the ritual adjectives suggest – truly is “deep and comprehensive”. Why is this so important?

Firstly, as Kwasniewski rightly pointed out, it would anchor Ukraine within the wider European market, which could be beneficial for both parties.

Secondly, and more importantly, it would have a strategic geopolitical significance. European leaders’ doubts and hesitation about Ukraine are well-founded and based on an experience of disillusionment, misunderstandings and failed expectations. However, the EU should not ignore the obvious signs that there is a strong political will in Ukraine to have the free-trade agreement signed this year. Ukraine has been seeking to move negotiations up a gear: Andriy Kliuiev, the first deputy prime minister, has visited Brussels several times to outline a possible compromise, and at the end of March another high-level delegation, including Kliuiev and Foreign Minister Kostiantyn Hryshchenko, visited Brussels again.

The EU should not take these steps for granted. There are strong interest groups in Ukraine (especially the agricultural lobby) that oppose a free-trade agreement and they have increased their lobbying considerably. Russia too has intensified its political and economic efforts to restrain Ukraine from European integration. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin could not have been clearer when on 16 March he said that Russia would “be forced to start building [a trade] border” if Ukraine and the EU were to establish a free-trade area.

Some pundits have previously claimed that Russia is strongly against Ukraine’s membership of NATO, but quite supportive of its European integration; the current situation proves them wrong. When Ukraine’s integration with Europe meant no more than talks, Russia could handle it, but the Kremlin has been in a state of permanent irritation since Ukraine demanded more action. Russia still nurtures hopes of involving Ukraine in a customs union along with Kazakhstan and Belarus.

The EU should keep this in mind when negotiating with Ukraine. With due respect to the “mandate” of European diplomats (the explanation always offered by European diplomats when explaining why the negotiations cannot move on), the EU’s position could be more flexible. The Russian authorities habitually exploit the hesitations and disagreements within the EU. The EU should accelerate Ukraine’s integration, by at least suggesting compromises at the April round of negotiations on the free-trade agreement.

The Ukrainian authorities would appreciate these efforts, mostly because they have a strong desire to have the free-trade agreement signed triumphantly at the EU-Ukraine summit, which is likely to take place in Kiev in December.
Source of the publication

By Alyona Getmanchuk, director of the Institute of World Policy for “UKRAINSKA PRAVDA”

Blog by Serhiy Solodkyy, Deputy Director of the Institute of World Policy for “Radio Liberty” Russian ServiceAvailable in Russian

Interview with Alyona Getmanchuk, Director of the Institute of World Policy to Gazeta Wyborcza (Poland)

Op-Ed by Alyona Getmanchuk, Director of the Institute of World Policy for Kyiv PostThe closer Ukraine gets to inking a free trade agreement with the European Union, the more negotiations take on the taste of French cuisine.

In ordinary life, Ukrainian negotiators would welcome exquisite dishes sauced with béchamel, one of the mother sauces of French cuisine, or savoring aperitif champagne or dessert French cognac. But as the latest round of talks in Brussels approach on April 4, the masterpieces of French cuisine could leave a bad taste in the mouths of Ukrainian negotiators.

French negotiators taking part in negotiations between Brussels and Kyiv are posing a big challenge for Ukraine. Even as a Ukrainian who is eager for my country to get the best deal, I admire the zeal with which French negotiators are defending the interests of their national producers.

When France’s representatives say that “every 1,000 tons of meat imported from Ukraine threatens 100 French beef producers with bankruptcy,” they should be respected. The same goes for their efforts to protect trademarks such as “champagne” and “cognac.”

It is also understandable why the French doubts Ukraine’s intentions. Even at home in Ukraine, not everyone believes that President Viktor Yanukovych – seen as vulnerable to big business ambitions and pressure from the Russian leadership – will muster enough courage to bring big competitors from the EU onto home turf through a free trade agreement.

However, it is also difficult to understand why our EU friends do not express as strong displeasure about the cognac brand being used in Armenia, as they do when it comes to Ukraine. In another example, tiny Moldova gets a quota to export 50,000 tons of grain to the EU, when Ukraine, a vast agriculture power, is being offered a quota of only 12,000 tons of barley.

While such issues remain to be resolved, it looks as of late that Ukraine is really eager to sign the free trade agreement with Brussels by the end of the year. First Deputy Prime Minister Andriy Klyuyev, who recently took over negotiations and proved a strong negotiator, is a sign of the seriousness of the negotiations.

Indirect confirmation that Ukraine is moving fast in this direction can be seen in the panic coming from Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, who threatened to shut off Russia to Ukrainian goods if the EU deal is reached. Such threats should not be taken lightly. Russia has shown in recent years that its intentions and warnings are serious.

Take, for example, Ukraine’s efforts in past years to integration into NATO. As Russia did not believe in the sincerity of Ukraine’s aspirations to join the military alliance under ex-President Leonid Kuchma (1994-2005), it did not raise serious objections. But under ex-President Viktor Yushchenko (2005-2010), Russia made every effort to take this issue off the agenda – and to pressure Europe into taking NATO prospects for Ukraine off the table. European states should, thus, expect mounting pressure from Russia over the free trade agreement.
To draw a line under the negotiations in June, the EU and our French friends, in particular, should realize that it is hard to achieve any result while the EU keeps on protecting its national producers.

It should not be forgotten that it was under the French presidency in the EU that the decision to undertake a free trade deal with Ukraine was taken. Therefore, the signing of such an agreement, even if reached under the Polish presidency, could be a French triumph as well. On that day, a champagne or cognac toast would be most appropriate, perhaps with a tasty béchamel-laced croque-monsieur.

By Alyona Getmanchuk, director of the Institute of World Policy for “UKRAINSKA PRAVDA”This article is available only in Ukrainian

Article by Serhiy Solodkyy, deputy director of the Institute of World Policy for EUobserverThe Ukrainian leadership is trying to demonstrate its democratic face. This could be the consequence of criticism towards President Viktor Yanukovych, which is of late constantly being expressed by Western governments.

The Ukrainian authorities are throwing the best of the best at succeeding in finishing negotiations on the Free Trade Area. This year could be crucial for future relations between the EU and Ukraine, and as such for the future of the whole of Europe.

Here is the chronology of last week’s events in Ukraine.

The main opposition leader of the country, Yulia Tymoshenko, was allowed to pay a visit to Brussels. She had been banned from travel due to the criminal proceedings initiated against her.

The Prosecutor General’s office launched a criminal probe against former President Leonid Kuchma. In this way Kyiv wants to demonstrate that not only opposition figures are being brought to trial in the country.

Ukrainian authorities also met the needs of the European Union by deciding not to invite the president of Belarus, Aleksander Lukashenko, to a conference marking the 25th anniversary of the Chernobyl Disaster.

However, President Yanukovych and his team made too many mistakes last year to regain the trust of their foreign partners with the help of a few decisions of this kind. So it would not be a big surprise if the European Union does not yet believe that Ukrainian authorities have cured themselves of the authoritarian syndrome.

Why do the Ukrainian authorities want to attract the EU’s attention? One can assume that mercantile ambitions are uppermost. Some say that Yanukovych, a man from the provinces, gets satisfaction from being in the company of world leaders. They also say that being a pro-European politician is trendy in Ukraine.

But there is another assumption: President Yanukovych has finally realised that Kiev can only have a real partnership with the European Union and that Ukraine-Russia relations can never reach this level.

It is said that disillusion with Russia was the real reason why Yanukovych has committing his best diplomatic and political resources into finalising the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area with the European Union. That is why the deputy PM Andryi Kliuiev, who heads up negotiations, paid a second visit to Brussels in a month on Friday (25 March).

He met, among others, European neighbourhood commissioner Stefan Fule. The main issue is difficulties encountered by the Free Trade Area negotiators. President Yanukovych expects to sign the document by the end of the year. But the positions of the EU and Ukraine are so far from any compromise that there are considerable concerns the grand design for Ukraine-EU rapprochement could spectacularly fail.

Meanwhile, Russian diplomats are rubbing hands their hands with glee over the difficulties between Kiev and Brussels.

“You will not succeed anyway, so you will have to go back to the idea of the Customs Union with Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus” – this is one favorite argument of the Russian diplomacy. “With the only difference that if now Ukraine can negotiate on equal terms about the Customs Union, in a year it will join on extremely disadvantageous conditions.”

This message was sent by the deputy PM of the Russian Federation, Igor Shuvalov, during his visit to Kiev. Russia’s Prime Minister Vladimir Putin even warned that Moscow will have to ‘react’ to the future FTA between the EU and Ukraine.

Activation of the EU-Ukraine talks has revealed Russia’s true face. Up till now Moscow had said that it strictly opposes Ukraine’s integration with Nato but that it has nothing against Ukraine joining the European Union. The current situation demonstrates vividly that Russia was lying: it has no intention of letting Ukraine slip out of its hands.

That is why EU-Ukraine relations are at a turning point. You can be skeptical about the democratic credentials of Ukrainian authorities. But the fact is that Viktor Yanukovych’s personal future and the future of his administration hangs on the EU Association Agreement.

The very future of Europe hangs on it as well. The fate of the agreement will determine whether the European Union shares its eastern borders with a mature democracy of 46 million people or with an unpredictable Kremlin hinterland.

The negotiations on the Free Trade Area are conducted confidentially, but the main areas of disagreement between the parties are well known. They include transport, Ukrainian grain exports and protection of geographical indicators in trade brands (the main problem is ‘cognac’ and ‘champagne’).

Who will give in for the sake of compromise? Maybe it should be Ukraine, which aspires to become an EU member. Or maybe the EU, which aspires to turn its eastern neighbor into a EU-like open market liberal democracy.

My point is that while hammering day day and night on the free trade talks, one should remember the pact is not about ‘cognac’ or grain. It is about important historical issues. While driving a hard bargain over a couple of million of euros, the EU could lose influence over this strategic country.

Civil society in Ukraine and the EU should urge their governments to take a more responsible approach. Ukraine is ready to compromise, but within limits. The Ukrainian delegation is not going to forego national interests just to sign the agreement.

Blog of the deputy director of the Institute of World Police Serhiy Solodkiy for radio “Svoboda” (Russia)The article is availeble only in Russian.

Blog by Kateryna Zarembo, analyst of the Institute of World Policy for KyivPostweek ago, the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China) have shown that they can have allies among the developed democratic world leaders.

The countries who abstained from voting on UN Security Council Resolution 1973 concerning the establishment of a no-flight zone over Libya were the mentioned states and… Germany.

While the decision of Russia, China, Brazil and India did not become make great resonance, Germany’s abstention was a surprise even Deputy Foreign Minister of Libya Khaled Kaim. What was a reason for such decision?

In principle, Germany, represented by Chancellor Angela Merkel and Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle, sincerely supports the goal of resolution. They are even ready to fight. But not in the Libyan airspace. Instead, Germany will eagery take on more missions in Afghanistan to free resources for allies in the fight against Gaddafi.

Westerwelle himself explains this decision by the “dangers and risks” of the project. In other words, the German Foreign Ministry does not believe that the war will end quickly. Moreover, the involved parties cannot agree on the expected outcome of military intervention parties, while the UNSC Resolution has no clearly defined ultimate goal either.

Even the countries who take part in the operation lack consensus on the expected results and sincerity of the partners: on Wednesday President of Turkey Abdullah Gul hinted that the leaders of some countries use the operation to their own benefit.

Probably the anti-war syndrome of Germany has to do with the non-intervention decision. German population and even the military had put the politicians under heavy pressure for the German participation in the Afghanistan war. Engagement into another trouble spot would hardly be a wise decision. But is sending more troops to the war which is not supported by 79% of the population wiser?

Some analysts also suggest that other countries have influence Germany’s abstination. For example, Israel – according to Eckart Stratenschulte, Professor of the European Academy Berlin. The only democracy in the Middle East, Israel prefers stability, rather than democracy in the region. Professor Stratenschulte did not rule out that Israel’s restraint about the conflict had to do with the German cautious stance.

And finally, let’s nit forget who else, alongside Germany, sits on the fence, not supporting the Resolution, but not vetoing it, either. Especially in the context of building a “new European security architecture”.

Last year Germany made great efforts to involve Russia in the European security space in return for solving the conflict in Transnistria. Voting in favor of Resolution 1973 would mean that Russia and its Western partners would again find themselves on different banks. This again would testify that a common security space in Europe is possible only in words.

Obviously, Merkel would be loath to quarrel with France, which plays the first fiddle in operations in Libya, over Russia – and Nicolas Sarkozy was not too happy about the German abstination. But is it not a short-term tactical move for the sake of the long-term outcome?

When passions die away, and popular discontent with the war will grow, Germany could find itself as a state, which would solve one of the old “frozen” conflicts right at the EU border without sacrificing a signle human life. Such success is worth some temporary tensions with colleagues.