Ukraine-EU Visa Regime: Doesn’t Europe want too much?

The European Union began to speak to Ukraine using a language of ultimatums, and this is not about the forthcoming elections, as might be expected, but about Ukraine’s visa regime for Romanian and Bulgarian citizens. Speaking in an interview published in the Delo (‘business’) newspaper last week, the European Commissioner for External Relations and European Neighborhood Policy Benita Ferrero-Waldner warned that the European Union would not ratify agreement on simplified visa requirements for Ukrainian nationals until and unless Ukraine cancels the visa regime for citizens of Bulgaria and Romania. In so saying Mrs. Ferrero-Waldner emphasized that the EU is a solidary organization, and, since Romania and Bulgaria are now member states, they should be treated like older member states. The European Commissioner went on to say that Ukraine’s refusal to abolish visa requirements for Romanian and Bulgarian nationals “…influences the authority of the president, the prime minister and Ukraine itself”. .

This statement by the high-ranked European official angered many in Ukraine. Although the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry’s press office confined itself to a carefully-worded statement, comments from Ukraine’s envoy to the European Union Roman Shpeck were more straightforward and closer to the sentiments of most of his compatriots: “It’s too bad that such a respectable European institution resorts to the language of ultimatums and intimidation when addressing issues like that. I don’t think this is the right language to be used in a dialogue between good and reliable partners like Ukraine and the EU”.

There is nothing surprising about Ukraine’s reaction to this ultimatum, in that Brussels has no legal (much less moral) grounds to propose – in such a categorical and unacceptable form -- that this issue be resolved in a package with other ones. What hurts us most is that the unilateral freewill decision by the Ukrainian authorities to abolish visa requirements for EU citizens seems to be taken by Brussels as Kyiv’s readiness to make concessions wherever possible, even to the detriment of its own national interests.

In formal terms, the European Commission does have the right to raise an issue with Kyiv about abolishing visa requirements for Romanian and Bulgarian citizens. For one thing, a presidential decree issued on July 25, 2005 grants visa-free travel rights beginning on September 1, 2005 to “citizens of the European Union member states (emphasis added), the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein”. Second, after Romania and Bulgaria were officially admitted to the European Union in January 2007, the presidents of Romania and Ukraine said in a statement that Bucharest would introduce free visas for Ukrainian citizens and Kyiv would abolish visa requirements for Romanian nationals as it did for other EU members. But these agreements have never been made a reality: visa requirements for citizens of the two states remain in place, while Ukrainians, as before, have to pay 40 euros for a Romanian visa and 20 euros for an entry visa to Bulgaria.

For this reason, European Commission officials – encouraged by the Romanians who are skillfully lobbying for their interests in Brussels – have for more than six months now raised during negotiations with Ukrainian diplomats the issue of visa-free travel for Romanian and Bulgarian nationals. Not infrequently, this issue has been raised in the context of simplified visa requirements for Ukrainians travelling to EU member countries.

The issue of visa requirements for Bulgarians and Romanians was on the agenda for the most recent Ukraine-EU summit meeting in Kyiv. According to Roman Shpeck, Ukrainian representatives said during the summit that this issue is under consideration, and a decision would be made after the required internal procedures are completed. As Mirror Weekly has learnt from usually well-informed sources, even prior to the Kyiv summit the Foreign Ministry requested President Yushchenko’s administration to abolish visa requirements for citizens of Romania and Bulgaria, even though they in the Foreign Ministry well knew that Romanians and Bulgarians are not going to grant free visas to Ukrainians.

That said, the keynote of Mrs. Ferrero-Waldner’s statement seems very strange, to say the least. Once Brussels raised the issue this way, nobody knows now if it will be able to achieve its goal. At any rate, all states that respect themselves will think twice before making a decision. What is clear is that statements by European bureaucrats humiliating Ukraine will hardly add to the number of Ukrainians supporting Ukraine’s possible membership in the European Union. What is more, this kind of categorical demand being made by the European Commission’s functionaries pull the carpet out from under the feet of pro-European politicians and diplomats in Ukraine.

In any case, EU representatives would be well advised not to forget that none of the Ukraine-EU documents contain provisions obliging Ukraine to grant free-visa travel rights to citizens of any of the EU member states. The decision the Ukrainian authorities made in 2005 on the tide of Euro-romantic sentiments as a result of the Orange Revolution was nothing but an act of good will on Kyiv’s part rather than an ‘entry-ticket’ to an agreement on simplifying visa requirements for Ukrainian citizens traveling to European countries. And Ukraine’s possible decision to cancel the visa regime for nationals of Romania and Bulgaria would be a manifestation of good will of the same kind.

If the principle of unity of action is honored in the European Union, Kyiv, which is no member of this club, has the right, acting in pursuance of its own interests, to selectively apply visa requirements to individual EU member states. The more so as Kyiv has a good example to follow: the United States displays a highly selective approach when deciding which of the EU members to give visa-free travel rights and which not to give. Visa requirements are applied, for example, to citizens of Greece, just like the majority of countries in Eastern and Central Europe. But in its dialogue with Washington Brussels, for some reason, does not object, neither does it appeal to ‘solidary society’.

On the other hand (on this point we agree with Roman Shpeck), once Brussels began talking about a ‘solidary society’, the principle of unity of action should be also applied to EU member states’ consular institutions in Ukraine. In embassies of some EU member countries (including those entering the EU’s Schengen passport free travel area as of January 1, 2008) Ukrainians are often denied entry visas without any plausible grounds or explanations, while consular agencies resort to services of intermediary firms, which adds significantly to the cost of already expensive visas. Ukrainian children are forced to sing and dance outside embassy buildings so that consular officers can satisfy themselves that the children are not potential illegal immigrants.

“I am not as much surprised by B.Ferrero-Waldner’s interview as by the silence the EU is keeping on the practices of groundless and humiliating visa denials Ukrainian citizens are given by consular offices of some EU member nations, and also on operation of intermediary visa centers. A practice like this is at variance with the provisions in the visa agreement the two parties signed in June. I dare to mention that one of the basic principles underlying the foundation of the EU activities is the principle of the unity of the EU’s and its member states’ action on the international arena. We expect that the EU would unswervingly adhere to this principle in its relations with Ukraine just like it does in relations with other states. The need to resolve problems involved with the issue of visas to Ukrainian nationals was placed on record by the two parties in the joint statement on the results of the Kyiv summit,” Roman Shpeck said.

Various political forces in Ukraine often cite the Ukraine-EU agreement on simplified visa regime as an example of their respective governments’ or individual government agencies’ progress reached in relations between Kyiv and Brussels. This document also appears in promotional videos for one of Ukraine’s political parties. Is it worthwhile for the Ukrainian government to continue holding to a document for whose ratification Brussels, ignoring Ukraine’s national interests and injuring Ukrainians’ feelings, demands one concession after another?

Wouldn’t it be better for Kyiv to give up the agreement altogether, the more so as simplified visa requirements only apply to a small group of citizens? And wouldn’t it be worthwhile for Ukraine to resume visa requirements for the EU so its citizens could feel the difference? Incidentally, the yet-to-be-ratified agreement on simplified visa regime suggests that, if Kyiv re-introduces visa requirements for EU citizens, the latter should be treated according to the same regulations in the document as are applicable to Ukrainian nationals.

Finally, I have to mention that Brussels’ refusal to ratify the agreement on simplified visa requirements will release Ukraine from obligation to ratify a readmission agreement with the European Union, in that the two accords were linked to each other in a single package on the insistence of the EU party. For Brussels, the issue of the readmission of third-country nationals to their country of origin is of much greater importance than the issue concerning free visas for journalists or business entrepreneurs.