European Integration is for the Worthy

I always keep up with the publications on Ukraine’s relations with the European Union, not in the line of duty but, rather, out of sheer interest. I will remain interested in European integration even when I retire from diplomatic service, as Ukraine’s membership in the EU will ensure high living standards for the people, civil rights and freedoms, personal and national security. What else does one need to feel comfortable, confident and protected, especially upon retirement?

Much to my surprise, a new discussion is unfolding amongst Ukrainian intellectuals as to the nation’s values and goals. Initiators of the discussion call on Brussels to “forgo double standards,” i.e. to stop laying in front of Ukraine requirements that some EU member-states fail to meet today and never met in the pre-accession period. They call on Ukrainians to show determination, decline dubious ersatz instruments, like the Association Agreement, and insist on explicit membership prospects. Some retrieve the masochistic slogan “Europe does not want us,” and revive the old debate on “where” to go instead of thinking of “how” to get there. Skeptics suggest that we should scale down our European integration efforts, citing to the German Chancellor who recommended Ukrainian authorities not to hurry. Did German chancellors agree not to hurry when it came to their country’s reunification or entering the Russian gas market?

Paradoxically, all this debate resumes at a time when neutral “partnership” in the EU-Ukraine relations is being replaced with friendly “association.” Instead of getting to active work towards this end, we lift our hands in dismay. Worst of all, attempts are being made to find a theoretical rationale for challenging active integration. Throughout the history of the EU’s development, such theoreticians would say, there were a lot of countries granted easy access that were practically pulled forcibly into the union. Why can’t we be like them? We should be proud and wait till the EU invites us to join it. I strongly disagree with this approach, as it weakens my own and my family’s chances to ever become European citizens.

Those who advise Ukrainian leaders “to show dignity” and wait for a special offer quote the case of post-totalitarian Spain that was pulled into the EU; Turkey, “the country from Asia Minor” that is being pulled into it; and Romania that has been pulled into the EU unfortunately for the latter, to fill in “vacancy of the pauper-nation.” What irritates them most of all is the Balkan countries’ rapid accession to the EU. And they insist a similar approach would be applied to us: if we “show dignity”, the EU will pull us in, too. I am afraid that their logic won’t work.

In today’s world, as at all times, interstate relations are determined by national interests, rather than altruistic motives. Ukraine will become an EU member when the latter gets interested in it. Everyone engaged in Ukraine’s European integration, be it a specially authorized official or a concerned citizen, should proceed from this assumption. Transition from the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA) to association characterizes a transformation in Brussels’ outlook vis-à-vis Ukraine. Our country does not scare the EU any more but it does not attract it yet, either. Once we are attractive enough, they will pull us in.

Numerous episodes from the history of the Balkans and Finland bear this out. The Balkans, wedged between the EU member states Greece, Italy and Austria, had to be integrated to avoid the outbreak of yet another conflict on the Mediterranean underbelly of the continent. Romania and Bulgaria have given the EU access to the Black Sea, where Turkey remains a big challenge. Spain and Portugal were taken on board so as to get rid of neighbouring dictatorships. Furthermore, all of the above countries, as well as Slovakia, Slovenia and Malta, had been in Europe before, operated as market economies and lawful states, made up an integral part of European history and culture; they have returned to where they belong.

Ukrainian experts of European studies often muddle facts and notions when they speak of Ukraine as an equally indispensable component of European history, culture and values, just like the new EU member states from Central and Eastern Europe. Unfortunately, it is an overstatement. Even back in Х—ХІІ centuries, the Kyiv princely state was a neighbour to other parts of Europe; it lay within the expanse of the Byzantine Empire whose spiritual heritage is exploited by contemporary Russia and whose geographic territory is occupied by Turkey and the newest (and most problematic) EU members – Bulgaria and Romania. Ukraine is also located in this geographical territory; it has similar problems, but much more aggravated.

Ukraine’s difficulty with EU accession is easy to explain if one analyzes its history. Only for brief periods of time, in XIII—XIV and XVI—XVII centuries, did Ukraine manage to break free from the Byzantine influence. Even in those periods it was divided geographically (among Russia, the Austrian-Hungarian Empire and Poland) and spiritually (between Rome and Constantinople); and it was at war. Meanwhile, in the second half of XIX century, both of our Black Sea neighbours distanced themselves from Turkey and Russia, and started their rapprochement with France and Germany. It played a crucial role in their subsequent history. Unlike them, Ukraine remained part of the Russian Empire and later, for more than 70 years, – of the Soviet Union. Recent history is even more elucidatory.

In 1993, Romanian political parties organized a days-long brainstorming exercise and agreed to speak in unison about the nation’s accession to NATO and the EU. That was an over-ambitious decision at the time, particularly given the country’s political and economic situation. And yet, it has been implemented after all.

In Bulgaria, it took another five to seven years to come to a nationwide consensus in those matters; hence additional problems with reforms. One example will suffice: only a couple of months ago, Bulgaria, which has been an EU member for two years now, finally reformed its aviation sector enough to meet the minimum EU standards and become a member of the ERU common aviation space. It still faces challenges in the sphere of public administration, the allocation of European subsidies, and anti-corruption activities. At the same time, there is no doubt whatsoever that these challenges will be addressed eventually, albeit over a long time and at a great cost.

Ukraine, however, continues to be a post-Soviet, rather than a European state, which is evidenced by the lack of unity amongst political forces on national priorities. This is the major reason why “they don’t’ want us in Europe.”

The Soviet way of life is an ongoing battle: with saboteurs, enemies of the nation, pests and weeds, floods and droughts, American imperialism and Chinese revisionism, anachronisms and modernism, tips and so on.

The European way of life entails lifelong self-development. In Rome, they still use the Road of Appius as a motorway. In the Netherlands, the river locks built in XIII century are still in operation. In the Slovak city of Bardejov, residents bathe in mineral fonts dating to the time of Bohdan Khmelnytsky. In France, centuries-old wine cellars serve their purpose perfectly. In Europe they no longer burn their enemies as 400 years ago: they rehabilitate and reform them, instead, to avoid making martyrs.

In Ukraine, the two abovementioned antipode models co-exist painfully. We lead a battle for good harvests, peace and order on the roads and against corruption. Despite that, harvests still depend on the weather, corruption becomes rampant, and traffic mortality breaks all possible records.

We need to show dignity through actively learning from the European system: improving what is already in place, borrowing what has been tested and proved useful, supporting what is innovative. We should foster self-development on an indigenous, national basis. So far, unfortunately, it has been more of a travesty. National self-development is not about going back to “sharovary” but about, say, growing organic flax or preserving and developing the gene pool of the Ukrainian grey breed of cattle.

The European Union suggests walking shoulder-to-shoulder along the path of self-development. Why should we doubt their sincerity? Is there any alternative to it apart from polluted atmosphere, depressed social infrastructure, growing gap between the rich and the poor, politicized (and, thus, dysfunctional) oblasts and economy sectors, enterprises and universities, community councils and kindergartens? How can we lay down conditions, given the above weaknesses? I asked myself what will happen if Kyiv really starts “demanding” and “declining”? I know the answer: Brussels will turn its back on Ukraine.

I will repeat, emphatically: the EU invites to dance those who are willing to do so, who show dignity as partners, rather than reproachful bystanders. I should also remind the Ukrainian Euro-skeptics that Europe does invite us to dance, more enthusiastically than we deserve. I can recollect several instances over the last eighteen months. Three months ago we viewed them as opportunities; now they are turning into reality. They testify to our ability to cope with the tasks set forth under European integration policy and plans and to Brussels’ appreciation of this ability. I want to explain, so that our readers can share my belief in Ukraine’s European future.

First and foremost, we should stop downplaying the Ukraine-EU Association Agreement, which is often compared with the Chilean one to prove its uselessness from the EU-integration standpoint. A lot has been said about the term “association” and its different meanings in various EU documents. The so-called Mediterranean Association (Morocco, Egypt and others) does not imply any membership, whereas the Balkan “stabilization and association” does (although without 100% guarantee thereof). “Association” in the Ukraine-EU agreement gives a green light to our national vehicle but it does not buy petrol for it. Ukrainian association is a navigator, rather than a tow platform; we should drive to the destination ourselves, observing all of the traffic rules along the way.

The parties negotiated the new agreement on association in September 2008, at the Ukraine-EU summit in Paris. In spite of its ambiguity, the term “association” opens up to Ukraine new opportunities for establishing privileged relations with European structures in miscellaneous areas of human social and economic activity: sanitary and environmental standards, regional cooperation, social sphere, fishing, emergency relief, trade, communications, research, etc. There is a typical procedure: a memorandum of cooperation is signed by representatives of respective sectors (the first such document brought together energy sectors of Ukraine and the EU in 2005); an action plan for providing technical assistance is designed; national legislation is harmonized with the EU acquis communotaires; parties collaborate within the current EU programmes. The EU has proposed this algorithm to the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine for three years in a row. To the incumbent minister’s credit, the situation has recently broken the impasse and, hopefully, the memorandum negotiations will start soon to subsequently enable Ukraine to join the EU 7^th framework science and technology programme, which introduces national research community to the world of requirements and opportunities for future Nobel laureates. Israel, for example, without being a European country, has been actively participating in the programme for a few years.

The term “association” is neutral, in and of itself, but when it means the beginning of negotiations on Ukraine’s joining the Energy Community (due on 25 November 2008), the context changes. Chile cannot integrate into the EU. Ukraine, being an associated neighbouring state, is integrating into the energy market.

The same pertains to our entry into the associated European zone thanks to negotiations on common aviation space. There is less optimism here because resistance is stronger and more difficult to overcome. However, the European Commission offers its total support. Common aviation space means common rules for European and Ukrainian aircraft manufacturers and airlines, common security measures and guarantees for passengers. Within the common aviation space Ukrainian aviation will be subject to strict European control, both on land and in the air, as is the case with Finnish, Italian, Romanian and other national services. Yet the flight security and quality of service, both on land and in the air, will also be as good as, say, in Helsinki.

The third, most recent example will be of interest to the general public: on 29 October 2008, a dialogue on the likelihood of visa-free travel for Ukrainian nationals was officially launched in Brussels. On the very next day, the high-level delegations defined the subject matter of negotiations, scope of work and timeframes for different task forces. Visa-free travel appeals to everybody. Cooperation in the energy sector seems fairly abstract. Aviation concerns a lot of people but, in fact, only ten percent of our compatriots travel by air more of less regularly. At the same time, over 20 million Ukrainians cross European borders every year, and to them, the Schengen visa application procedure has become an indicator of EU friendliness. It is the message the Ukrainian delegation tried to bring home to its negotiation partners in Paris. We received an affirmative answer, so now diplomats, legal professionals, police and border-guards are working to implement the agreements reached during the talks. We hope to complete the work by Euro-2012.

Of course, there are stumbling blocks on our road to European integration. In particular, little progress has been achieved to date in the utilization of surplus arms and munitions. Both Brussels and Kyiv failed to adequately assess all the potential difficulties of military cooperation. It took Ukraine too long to develop a comprehensive plan for utilizing the hazardous legacy of the Soviet Army. The European Union underestimated the dependency of security-and-defence measures on the availability of funds. Today the parties understand how they should proceed but, we wasted a lot of time.

Ukraine lost too much time preparing for the implementation of energy-sector lending plans proposed by the European Investment Bank. What normally takes two or three months to accomplish dragged on for more than a year. Poor communication and bureaucratic red tape account for Ukraine’s delayed response to the offer of loans at the lowest interest rate possible. When the response was ready in the autumn, the financial crisis erupted…

No breakthrough has occurred so far in the agrarian sector, either. The herculean efforts of experts from the Ministry of Health, State Committee for Consumer Standards and Ministry of Agrarian Policy, supported by European client-companies, resulted in the improved system of control over sunflower-seed oil and its resumed export to EU member states. The General Directorate of SANCO – the European Commission body responsible for the food safety of 500 million EU nationals – is preparing a favourable expert opinion on this score. However, the incident and subsequent remedial actions did not force the authorities to clearly divide functions and responsibilities amongst concerned agencies. As before, three organizations in Kyiv and dozens of bureaucrats locally deal in food safety. The incident with sunflower-seed oil should have urged the decision-makers to set up a structure akin to SANCO in powers and responsibilities.

It is a must if we aspire to get integrated into the EU agrarian sector. At present, Ukraine supplies EU member states with agrarian products, such as: honey, fruit, seeds, vegetables. We want to expand our exports to include dairy products, meat and fish. The EU entrance control for sunflower-seed oil is carried out by the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF), which denies entrance to all foreign products of poor quality. This year, RASFF has turned down a score of Ukrainian agricultural exporters. This information is confirmed by Ukrainian Ministry of Health and other government agencies. Unfortunately, Ukraine has no levers in place that would bring this work to its logical completion (e.g. impose sanctions on exporters at fault). It cannot be ruled out that low-quality foodstuffs rejected by Europeans get onto the domestic market. Notably, China is developing an export control system similar to the EU one. By doing so, it will prevent the repetition of food poisoning inside the country and, on the other hand, get a better access to the European market.

Today, Brussels is also concerned over the current political crisis in Ukraine and reaction of all branches of power to it. The EU does not seem to believe any more in the Ukrainian authorities’ ability to reach accord and cooperate meaningfully. Their doubts as to the internal stability and consistency of pro-European course have never been so explicitly articulated.

And yet, Ukraine is advancing towards European integration. We do move ahead: sometimes in zigzags, sometimes at a crawling pace, sometimes trying to jump over mandatory steps of the integration stairs - to our Brussels partners’ displeasure. On 20 November 2008, a meeting of the Cooperation Committee will be held to synchronize our efforts. On Ukraine’s part, the Committee is co-chaired by the Vice Prime Minister for European, Euro-Atlantic Integration and International Relations; all key ministries and agencies will be represented. Hopefully, the dialogue will be fair and constructive: an exchange of compliments and niceities , especially under the current economic conditions, would be totally unacceptable.

Concurrently, the EU has a new Eastern European Partnership (EEP) initiative in the pipeline. This format, proposed by Sweden and Poland, will cover the Southern Caucasian countries (Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia), Ukraine, Moldova and, perhaps, Belarus. The EEP initiative has a two-fold aim: all participating countries will develop common values, standards and norms uniting them with EU member states; those countries that are willing and capable will advance from the “aspirant” to the “candidate” status. In early December, the EU is expected to release a statement on the EEP contents and mechanisms. Ukrainian diplomats insisted (sometimes quite unceremoniously) on adding a firm skeleton to the initiative in the form of an institutional structure and on growing some flesh on the skeleton in the form of practical regional projects. Eastern Europe needs security, prosperity and solidarity as much as Central Europe and the Balkans. We keep proving it to Brussels.

I hope there is no need to prove it to many people in Kyiv, and in the entire Ukraine. Nor is there a need to prove that thanks to association with Brussels we can achieve security, prosperity and solidarity. We still have to cover a long road, which saddens some people and annoys others. We can make it shorter by staying on the road and steering clear of pointless debate.