Volodymyr OHRYZKO: “Ukraine will become a NATO Member and will have Good Relations with Russia”.

In December 2008, the foreign ministers of the NATO member-states will discuss the question of Ukraine’s and Georgia’s joining the NATO Membership Action Plan. Russia is not going to let this happen and is aggravating its relations with Ukraine and Georgia by threatening Kyiv and Tbilisi. Not so long ago, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, Sergey Lavrov, and the head of the Joint Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, Yuriy Baluyevskiy, said that Russia was intending to do everything possible in order to stop Ukraine and Georgia from receiving NATO membership.

Kyiv responded to those threats by addressing the international community – the Foreign Ministry of Ukraine last week sent a letter to the UN regarding the scandalous statements of the Kremlin’s representatives. ZN asked the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, Volodymyr Ohryzko, to comment on this letter as well as on the results of his recent talks with Sergey Lavrov.

— Mr. Minister, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine sent a letter to the UN headquarters regarding the statements of high-ranking Russian officials. Is there any reaction from the UN? What may be the possible actions of the General Assembly of the UN? Is this enough to stop Russia from threatening Ukraine?

— The Ministry of Foreign Affairs sent a letter to the UN General Assembly on the day of its publication. Unfortunately, they are also not very quick in such things.

I don’t want to talk about all possible actions. There are quite serious international-juridical mechanisms of influence, which may be applied in such cases. You know that we used those mechanisms in the past while resolving similar problems. For instance, we appealed to the UN Security Council. However, I think that today, we have made the right conclusions. We – Ukraine and Russia – are partners and neighbors. We will work and live together. That’s why there shouldn’t be any statement of that kind. And if somebody is too nervous then we have the right to use all necessary international-juridical means.

— Incidentally, this week, the UN also analyzed the incident with the Georgian pilot-less vehicle-scout destroyed in Abkhazia. This incident contributed to the conflict between Tbilisi and Moscow as well as Vladimir Putin’s recent decision to change the status of Russia’s relations with Abkhazia and Southern Ossetia. Georgia considers this to be an attempt of the Kremlin to annex that part of Georgia. What is Kyiv’s opinion on this matter? How might this affect the situation in Southern Caucasia?

— Our opinion is that such steps threaten the process of peaceful settlement of the conflict in the region. We have stated more than once that territorial integrity of Georgia is beyond doubt. We will perceive any unilateral actions regarding Georgia as illegal. As you know, the reaction of the European Union and the United States of America regarding this matter is the same.

— While using the Abkhazia factor to influence Georgia, high-ranking Russian officials are only making statements concerning Ukraine. Did Sergey Lavrov explain what he meant in saying that Russia would do everything possible in order to prevent Ukraine and Georgia from receiving NATO membership?

— During my recent visit to Russia, I expressed our worries about the recent statements of those high-ranking Russian officials. Actually, by saying “everything possible,” they meant measures that they would undertake on a bilateral level and in the international arena to hamper Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic integration course.

During the visit to Moscow, we emphasized once again that Ukraine was a sovereign state with its own international interests. We explained that the Ukrainian nation supported the country’s Euro-Atlantic integration course since the majority of Ukrainians voted for Viktor Yushchenko, in the presidential elections, and for the parties that declared this course in their programs, in the last parliamentary elections. Additionally, the Euro-Atlantic integration course was approved legislatively as early as in 2003. We also pointed out that Ukraine’s position regarding joining NATO was not anti-Russian.

The Ukrainian side offered to start a bilateral dialog in the form of consultations to ease the tension between our courtiers. We have agreed that vice-ministers of foreign affairs from Ukraine and Russia will start the first round of consultations in May 2008.

Analyzing the results of my talks with Mr. Lavrov, it seems to me that there won’t be any statements like those that the high-ranking Russian officials have recently made.

— Did the Russian side explain why they thought Ukraine’s joining NATO could threaten Russian interests? What were their arguments?

— We didn’t hear any concrete arguments. We pointed out that Russia’s relations with NATO were closer than Ukraine’s. Considering their close relations with, as they say, the “hostile camp,” their objection to possible integration of Ukraine into this organization is not logical. Why is it that the development of the Russian Federation’s relations with NATO is good and some other state’s attempt to join this structure is bad?

— Some Russian politicians accuse Kyiv of violation of the basic political treaty between Ukraine and Russia and call upon denunciating it if our country enters the Alliance…

— These accusations are absolutely unreasonable. Basic treaty and the principals of national security are not connected with each other. We have the right to provide for our national security in the most, in our opinion, rational way.

— Thus, the opponents of Ukraine’s joining NATO say that it is not reasonable to enter the Alliance if this worsens relations with Russia…

— In my opinion, everything is simple: Ukraine will become a NATO member and will have good relations with Russia. No one is going to build “Berlin walls” or create barriers between the people. Those are the examples of the past. And we are looking forward into the future.

— During recent parliamentary hearings in the Russian state Duma, a number of the deputies connected prolongation of the big political agreement with prolongation of the term of the stay of the Russian Black Fleet in Ukraine. Do Russian diplomats have the same opinion?

— This is out of the question, at least on an official level. During our talks, I emphasized that the agreement’s term expires in 2017. We handed our Russian colleagues a memorandum on the preparation of the withdrawal of the Russian Black Sea Fleet from Ukraine. And, as you know, the ambassador of the Russian Federation to Ukraine, Mr. Chernomyrdin, has confirmed that Russia will leave Sevastopol and other Crimean military towns by 2017.

Nevertheless, we will certainly discuss the procedure of the withdrawal of the Black Sea Fleet from Crimea at the talks within the committee on the functioning and temporary stay of the Black Sea Fleet of the Russian Federation in Ukraine. We need to discuss a lot of details to avoid humanitarian and technical problems.

— However, the Russians say that the agreement expires in 9 years and that’s why it is too early to talk about preparation for the withdrawal of naval bases of the Russian Black Sea Fleet. How will Kyiv convince the Russians to start the talks on this matter?

— I think that the first discussion of the draft memorandum will already take place in June at the sitting of the committee on the functioning and temporary stay of the Black Sea Fleet of the Russian Federation in Ukraine. And we will try to explain to the Russians that it is necessary to define the concrete steps of the withdrawal. Hopefully we will succeed in this. If not, then we will start thinking of how to make the Russians understand this.

— A number of Ukrainian politicians suggest seeking for the Bucharest Memorandum the status of an intergovernmental multilateral agreement which will be ratified by the parliaments of all the states- guarantors. Is this possible? May the guarantees defined in this document substitute NATO membership for Ukraine?

— I think it is self-deception. Those Ukrainian politicians just want to detract the attention of the public from the key question about national security and replace it with some ephemeral guarantees, which won’t actually have any effect.

The Bucharest Memorandum states: in case of threat to the national security of Ukraine it will be possible to hold consultations on some matter or another. If these are guarantees then they are not enough. We shouldn’t hold consultations today; we should have clear mechanisms of securing our sovereignty. In my opinion, the main issue today is not about “Bucharest guarantees” but about joining NATO – this proven mechanism that allows for an effective guarantee of national security.

— Does Ukraine have a chance to join the NATO Membership Action Plan in December 2008? May domestic political events affect the decision concerning Ukraine’s joining the NATO Membership Action Plan?

— In order to join the NATO Membership Action Plan in December, we should intensify the process of reforming our state. And, undoubtedly, political stability in Ukraine is one of the main factors here. The NATO member-states are eager to see our country politically stable and predictable. Our President said that he would “chain” the coalition. I hope that the coalition will hold on and work effectively.

— Will Kyiv take unilateral steps, as stipulated by international law, to solve the problem of delimitation of the Kerch Strait?

— We have agreed in Moscow that we will conclude the negotiations on delimitation in the Sea of Azov in June – at the next sitting of the delegation on demarcation of the Black Sea, the Sea of Azov and the Kerch Strait. Hopefully the agreements will be reached since it is now necessary to solve only technical problems of delimitation in the Sea of Azov – it is just necessary to calculate the line of demarcation. The situation with the Kerch Strait is more complicated: we haven’t reached mutual understanding here yet. However, we have exchanged propositions on this matter and we will try to reconcile them with each other during the next round of negotiations.

— Why hasn’t the first sitting of the joint committee on demarcation of the Ukrainian-Russian border taken place yet?

— Because the Russian side is deliberately delaying the entire process of demarcation of the Ukrainian-Russian border. We had to sign the agreement on demarcation during my last visit to Moscow. In the two weeks before my visit, they said all the documents were ready. And suddenly, one day before the talks, something had happened and they couldn’t get the documents ready. We said that it was unacceptable from the Russian side to delay this process. They promised to get the documents ready as soon as possible. It is difficult for me to say if this is due to only technical reasons. It seems to me that there are some other factors…