Ukraine after the Orange Revolution
09 August 2005
Report Conference “Ukraine after the Orange Revolution”Venue: Kiev
Date: 18-19 June 2005
Background
The year 2004 was a historical and decisive year for Ukraine. The fraudulent presidential elections, followed by massive demonstrations and rerun of the elections won by Viktor Yushchenko, marked the beginning of a new phase in internal affairs as well as foreign relations. The European Forum and foundations through the years have been dedicated to support the democratic opposition in general and the Socialist Party of Ukraine (SPU) in particular. The new government, which took office in the beginning of this year, also includes the SPU. Next year parliamentary elections will be held.
Report
On 18 and 19 June the European Forum organized in cooperation with the Socialist Party of Ukraine (SPU) a conference. During the conference the internal situation after the 2004 presidential elections in Ukraine and consequences for the relations between Russia, Ukraine and the European Union were discussed.
Moscow-Kiev-Brussels relations
On the first day Hannes Swoboda (MEP and Vice President of the PES) presented the PES discussion paper “A New Eastern Dimension for the European Union”. Despite the current crisis after the Dutch and French no-votes against the European Constitution, Hannes Swoboda emphasized the necessity to go forward, but with more consideration. According to him the EU should stick to the principles of neighborhood and enlargement and in the same time the EU population should be convinced of the benefits of European integration. Both Ukraine and the EU have to do their homework before steps towards a membership perspective can be made. In the eastern dimension specific attention is paid to relations with Russia.
In reaction, the leader of the Social Democratic Party of Russia, Vladimir Kishenin, said that Russia should give up its imperial ambitions in the near abroad. However, he thinks the EU should give more attention to Russia because of its economic and nuclear potential.
Tatiana Lariushin from the Democratic Party of Moldova expressed her concerns about the role of Russia in the Transnistria conflict. According to her the main question should be how to prevent the expansionism of Russia.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs, Boris Tarasyuk, sent a deputy who explained the government point of view. It is clear that European and NATO integration is a number one priority of the Ukrainian government. Adjustment to European standards is also seen as a way to access WTO. The Action Plan is the framework in which the European integration is given shape. However the Action Plan does not offer the possibility of future membership, which the Ukrainian government regrets. According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs public opinion in Ukraine supports this direction of foreign policy. Besides the focus on the EU, Russia is still considered to be the “eternal and strategic partner”. Main issues between Ukraine and Russia are the creation of free trade areas and resolving bilateral problems.
Alexander Moroz, the leader of the SPU, said that his party is not for formal membership of the EU. In his view the current relation should focus on economic co-operation and Ukraine should work to adopt European standards of democracy and freedom. Also he found it understandable that the European Union has some things to solve at home after the no-votes in the referenda on the European Constitution and last year’s round of enlargement. According to Alexander Moroz Ukraine has to act in such a way that it is also in the interest of Russia.
The conference continued with the presentation of a second discussion paper by Dr. André Gerrits (University of Amsterdam/ chairman Alfred Mozer Stichting). According to him Ukraine and other post Soviet states will be the theatre for EU – Russia and US geopolitical relations. For both Russia and the EU these states are “the near abroad”. Mr. Gerrits argued that it is necessary to uncouple EU-Russia and EU-near abroad relations and that EU enlargement is not an option at the moment, since the no-votes against the Constitution were a vote against the scope and nature of European integration, including enlargement. Enlargement is not in the interest of the EU at the moment and should therefore be off the agenda, according to Dr. Gerrits.
The discussion that followed confirmed the idea that both Ukraine and the European Union have to do their homework before there can be any additional steps in the sense of membership perspective.
In the afternoon the discussion on foreign relations continued with a speech of Yuriy Buzdugan, the leader of the Social Democratic Party of Ukraine. He stressed the important role Ukraine has to play in promoting democracy in the former Soviet Union, especially neighboring Belarus. Also in solving the Transnistria conflict Ukraine has an important role to play, Mr. Buzdugan said and added that it is understandable that the EU takes a brake – but found it too extreme to stop enlargement, because it is part of the social democratic ideology.
Mr. Zbigniew Kulak, chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the Polish Senate (SLD) added that the no votes in France and the Netherlands were not against enlargement and argued to continue with enlargement. According to him it is not the question if Ukraine will be a member of the EU, but when.
Vladimir Kishenin said that Ukraine is more than a neighbor to Russia, because the people were once in one state and the countries are linked by culture. He regrets the rivalry between the ruling elites of both countries and expressed his desire to co-operate with European Socialists.
Olexandr Moroz said that the Orange Revolution is just a first step in the democratization process. He said it is the task of the SPU to unite the Ukrainian population and develop good relations with Russia and the EU. Also he stressed the importance of separating business interests from politics.
Jan Marinus Wiersma (MEP and Vice President of the PES) said that enlargement of the EU is an instrument of promoting democratic standards. Regarding relations between Ukraine and the EU he pointed at the common agenda in the field of foreign security, trade and environment as well as regional issues such as the problems in Moldova and Belarus. A stronger co-operation of the GUAM countries can help to strengthen co-operation with the EU in his view.
Ukraine on its way to the 2006 parliamentary elections
Later in the afternoon the focus shifted from foreign affairs to the internal situation in Ukraine. The first speaker was Interior Minister Lutsenko (SPU). He sketched the hard job the new government is facing. The fight against corruption clearly is a number one priority of the government. Not less than 22.000 cases against corruption have opened and salaries of policemen have been increased since the new government came into power. The first 100 days of the government showed a decrease of crime and an increase of trust in the police. However, Mr. Lutsenko pointed out that the pace of changes disappoints many people. According to him the biggest challenge is the necessary change of mindset of the elite: they should have contact with the population in such a way that the people can have influence. In addition, he said that more attention to social problems should be paid and that this stance the existent left-right division and competition in the current government shows.
Mr. Buzdugan of the SDPU was less positive about the current situation in Ukraine. He said that oligarchs still rule the economy and media. Also he expressed his hope that one day there will be a centre-left coalition, including his party and the SPU.
On Sunday morning the session continued with a speech of Stanislav Nikolaenko, the Minister for Science and Education and President of the NGO Gronu. He explained that one of the things he is working on at the moment is cutting back the number of universities (currently 300), the democratization of schools by establishing civic councils and taking measures against corruption. His slogan is “happy students, happy teachers, happy Ukraine”. The NGO he chairs focuses on solving social problems of teachers, such as housing.
Tatiana Lariushin asked how the cooperation with Moldova in respect to the Transnistria conflict in the field of education is arranged. Mr. Nikolaenko said that there are open schools created for everybody in Transnistria with the help of the Ukrainian embassy.
Following a question of Helmut Kurth of the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung in Kiev about political education, Mr. Nikolaenko stressed that courses about elections, the political system and the EU are standard in secondary schools. In addition, teachers cannot create political organizations, though they can be politically active.
Giovanni Magnolini from Direzione Nazionale dei Democratici di Sinistra asked how education is arranged in connection to language and religion. Mr. Nikolaenko explained that everybody can have education in the native language. At half of the universities Russian is the main language and this is not considered problematic. Church and education are strictly separated, because there are more than six Christian directions and interference would create conflicts, according to Mr. Nikolaenko.
Valentyna Semenyuk, the chairman of the state property fund, explained how she is dealing with the legacy of the Kuchma era, when many properties were privatized while the money disappeared. The government is making an inventory of all stolen objects and she is preparing new legislation, which must make it possible to beat the powerful clans. She assured that there would be no re-privatization: only property that was illegally privatized will be brought back to the state.
Ivan Musienko, deputy head of the NGO “Children of War” stressed the importance of assistance to the poor who do not receive any money from the government. His NGO focuses on the generation that was children in World War 2 and is according to Mr. Musienko the victims of the transition. Exchange of information between the PES and the SPU is necessary according to him.
Conclusions
The Orange Revolution was a very important moment in the history of Ukraine and can be seen as a first step in the democratization process. At the same time the Orange Revolution is just a starting point. Internally as well as in foreign relations challenges lay ahead.
Solving crime and corruption and dealing with the legacy of President Kuchma are the main domestic challenges. The SPU tries to distinguish itself from the other liberal/ conservative government parties by stressing the importance of uniting the population and social policies.
Russia remains a strategic partner of Ukraine, while EU integration is a number one priority of the Ukrainian government. However, the no votes against the European Constitution in France and the Netherlands showed that the scope and nature of European integration is far from self-evident.
Because both the EU and Ukraine are not ready for a Ukrainian membership perspective, the focus should be on smaller forms of co-operation between the EU and Ukraine. The PES will support the SPU in the run up to the parliamentary elections of 2006 and will continue cooperation.
Reactions
Will the meansPosted: Wednesday 02 November 2005 - 08:56:16
I would like to suggest that the nuances between the views expressed at this conference (whether / when Ukraine should join the EU) are constructively reconcilable around the vehicle of EU pre-accession status and, more to the point, the funding that goes with it.
Instead, however, the consensus that appeared to emerge is depressingly, dangerously close to the cop-out inertia of the EU elite, which amounts to appeasement of the Kremlin. This default position, aside from the soothing, sympathetic rhetoric, largely isolates the beleaguered pro-democratic forces, both within government and civil society in Ukraine, which are engaged in constant struggle against internal mafia power and corruption, and against the international economic hardball being played by both the Kremlin and the interests of western organised capital. They are fighting on all fronts and need more tangible support.
If you scratch beneath the friction in the above dialogue, there is unity around the fundamentals. For democratic socialists, the bottom 'red' lines are: overcoming poverty and grotesque inequalities within Europe (some 2 million street children sleep in the sewers and basements of the 'near abroad' and western Russia), democratic development, establishing the rule of law, defeating the mafia, upholding human rights, extending international solidarity. To coin a phrase, the people's priorities. We believe in institutions such the EU, not for their own sake, but conditionally as vehicles for achieving these goals.
I believe Ukraine's place is in the heart of Europe; already a geographical fact, not yet a political reality. But, that is so not the same as signing in blood, at this point in time, an advance blank cheque for Ukraine's membership of the EU, on any terms or at any price. Moreover, it is impossible to reach agreement now on the desirability of Ukraine's future membership without being in possession of a crystal ball. We cannot even be sure that, 10 or 15 years from now, the EU will still exist as we know it today, let alone what its form and structure is going to be. Ukraine's European integration is a two-way street: it is not just about Ukraine's economy and agriculture contorting to comply with EU convergence criteria; it's also about the EU reforming itself in the meantime so that the conditions are right for Ukraine. And the whole Social Europe agenda is, for us, a critical and unresolved factor in that equation.
However, none of this is an argument for caution. Caution in this context is a pretext for procrastination, an excuse for inertia, which surrenders all the initiatives to Washington and Moscow, for whom Ukraine has ever been an expendable bargaining piece on the great chessboard of global strategy. With their respective track records, neither can be trusted with the fate of a young and vulnerable democracy.
Here is the positive alternative which keeps Ukraine's options wide open (always a wise course in uncertain times). Pre-accession status for Ukraine need not commit the EU to a further round of enlargement by any deadline date, if at all; that would depend on a host of conditions which could not be met for at least 15 years anyway, and as such should be saleable to the EU public and non-threatening to economic ties between Ukraine and Russia. But it would provide a whole apparatus of support and incentives, including billions of Euros such as were pumped into Turkey, Romania, Bulgaria, the Western Balkans and the ten newest Member States, in a way that delivered the best value for money the EU taxpayer has ever had.
All the current preconditions that have been imposed before negotiations for Ukraine's future EU accession can begin, including the three-year 'action' plan, would then become the subject of those negotiations. The criteria for democratic development and everything else would remain the same. The only difference would be, the means would have been willed to make it happen. Then we would see some real action.
See the petition at
http://www.petitionthem.com/default.asp?sect=detail&pet=1756
Will the meansPosted: Wednesday 02 November 2005 - 09:45:29
I would like to suggest that the nuances between the views expressed at this conference (whether / when Ukraine should join the EU) are constructively reconcilable around the vehicle of EU pre-accession status and, more to the point, the funding that goes with it.
Instead, however, the consensus that appeared to emerge is depressingly, dangerously close to the cop-out inertia of the EU elite, which amounts to appeasement of the Kremlin. This default position, aside from the soothing, sympathetic rhetoric, largely isolates the beleaguered pro-democratic forces, both within government and civil society in Ukraine, which are engaged in constant struggle against internal mafia power and corruption, and against the international economic hardball being played by both the Kremlin and the interests of western organised capital. They are fighting on all fronts and need more tangible support.
If you scratch beneath the friction in the above dialogue, there is unity around the fundamentals. For democratic socialists, the bottom 'red' lines are: overcoming poverty and grotesque inequalities within Europe (some 2 million street children sleep in the sewers and basements of the 'near abroad' and western Russia), democratic development, establishing the rule of law, defeating the mafia, upholding human rights, extending international solidarity. To coin a phrase, the people's priorities. We believe in institutions such the EU, not for their own sake, but conditionally as vehicles for achieving these goals.
I believe Ukraine's place is in the heart of Europe; already a geographical fact, not yet a political reality. But, that is so not the same as signing in blood, at this point in time, an advance blank cheque for Ukraine's membership of the EU, on any terms or at any price. Moreover, it is impossible to reach agreement now on the desirability of Ukraine's future membership without being in possession of a crystal ball. We cannot even be sure that, 10 or 15 years from now, the EU will still exist as we know it today, let alone what its form and structure is going to be. Ukraine's European integration is a two-way street: it is not just about Ukraine's economy and agriculture contorting to comply with EU convergence criteria; it's also about the EU reforming itself in the meantime so that the conditions are right for Ukraine. And the whole Social Europe agenda is, for us, a critical and unresolved factor in that equation.
However, none of this is an argument for caution. Caution in this context is a pretext for procrastination, an excuse for inertia, which surrenders all the initiatives to Washington and Moscow, for whom Ukraine has ever been an expendable bargaining piece on the great chessboard of global strategy. With their respective track records, neither can be trusted with the fate of a young and vulnerable democracy.
Here is the positive alternative which keeps Ukraine's options wide open (always a wise course in uncertain times). Pre-accession status for Ukraine need not commit the EU to a further round of enlargement by any deadline date, if at all; that would depend on a host of conditions which could not be met for at least 15 years anyway, and as such should be saleable to the EU public and non-threatening to economic ties between Ukraine and Russia. But it would provide a whole apparatus of support and incentives, including billions of Euros such as were pumped into Turkey, Romania, Bulgaria, the Western Balkans and the ten newest Member States, in a way that delivered the best value for money the EU taxpayer has ever had.
All the current preconditions that have been imposed before negotiations for Ukraine's future EU accession can begin, including the three-year 'action' plan, would then become the subject of those negotiations. The criteria for democratic development and everything else would remain the same. The only difference would be, the means would have been willed to make it happen. Then we would see some real action.
See the petition at
http://www.petitionthem.com/default.asp?sect=detail&pet=1756
Michael DavisPosted: Monday 07 November 2005 - 22:18:29
Hey! I liked your site very much! it has been well said: http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Charles_Mackay , <a href="http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Lily_Tomlin">It's the other lousy two percent</a> , <a href="http://news.linux.com/news/05/10/10/0213220.shtml?tid=96" rel="itsok">Linux pioneer wins</a>
mailPosted: Tuesday 05 September 2006 - 17:55:29
i'm a college student and need help.
could you send me another analisys about ukraine's foreign policy in 2005-6.
thanks.
i would be a favorable help for my research
