bet · GS01UU10 · 2005-04-26 00:00:00 — We created the Coalition, which isthe most successful political project in . We have the largestfaction in the Ukrainian parliament, 100 deputies.What are the other oppositional forces? The other oppositional force inmy understanding is the Coalition led by , a lady, asmaller coalition. They have 19 deputies in parliament. The secondpotential opposition force is the faction of the Socialists in theUkrainian Parliament. Again 20 deputies. The question is whether thosetwo political forces are ready to be together with Our . We arenot going to unite with them. They may express their interest in gettingtogether with Our , our major political force.This is the question mark. We are trying to work with the Socialists inorder to be together, but we cannot prejudge what the result will be.Recently the leader of the Socialists, , closely co-operatedwith authorities, and thus betraying the agreements the three politicalforces reached together. I still believe that by the end of the electionswe will be together, the Socialists, the Coalition of Ukraine.As to the Communists, I do not refer them to the opposition. This isnot the opposition. They are just speculating. They are working withthe authorities. We cannot say if the Communists one day will become aninseparable part of the united opposition. They can only tactically betogether with us.Can be a state of democracy? Despite of my criticism aboutundemocratic and authoritarian trends in demonstrated by thecurrent authorities, I do claim that out of all countries of the formerSoviet Union has the best chances to become a democracy and thesuccess story from the Soviet Union. Certainly, does not fit inwith the criteria and standards set forth by the criteriafor membership in Union. But this is for the time being.Ukraine, unlike our friends from and , has the largestpotential in returning back to democracy. There is a strong oppositionand strong support from society. Only mass scale fraud on the part ofthe authorites can prevent from changing the political system in Ukrainethis coming fall.Trygve Kalland: I am at the International Peace ResearchInstitute. I have two questions for Mr. Mecklenburg.My first question: As regards inter-pillar coherence within the EuropeanUnion, how does the Commission envision that NeighbourhoodPolicy will fit in with the Union's broader external policy objectivestowards these three countries in terms of the CSFP and so forth, themore overtly political part? How will you achieve inter-pillarcoherence?My second question regards conditionality. Since we are talking aboutdemocratization, which inevitably will mean threatening dangers ofcurrent élites and current interests, how do you propose that the EuropeanUnion or the Neighbourhood Policy will create incentives in the actualplans that are being drawn up in order to make these élites, and societyas well, make necessary profound political changes?Since membership is not in the cards at the moment, you lack an overarchingpolitical framework which can drive this. What will actually be part ofthese action plans?I am also thinking about the fact that the Commission tends to take avery low level technical approach, which is often insufficient to bringabout such changes.If I may also sneak in a third question to the panel. You put forwardquite a few good points about why these three countries should be givena membership . Isn't there a bit of disregard for the fact thatthe European Union might not be able to give a membership, even thoughit wanted to, because it has already absorbed one wave of enlargementand will absorbe another? The cost may be too high, and the institutionsmay not be able to handle it.Lotta N (): My question might be a bit provocative, but Ithink that Mr. Tarasyuk invited us to be a bit morepolitical.Talking about "carrots" and talking about subjects and objects, or beinga subject, I would like to know why the strategy couldn't be moreindependent of the EU as well as being independent of the former SovietUnion? Why wait for approval or wait for access instead of setting yourown goals and carrots? I am saying this a bit in the perspective ofMoldova. In the Swedish newspaper is rated asthe most democratic country today among your three countries as well asamong the Central Asian and Caucasian countries. In spite of this youhave voted for the return of the Communists. Isn't that an act ofindependent thinking? Could you please try to comment on the question ofwhy waiting for the EU and not starting out on your own with your owncarrots hanging in front of your eyes and co-operate freely towards theEast and the West?Cecilia Wigström (fp): I would also like to add a third question. Therewill be many questions to answer at one time.I am thinking about Union policy towards , whichhas been a policy of isolation, of not having contacts with the highleadership. Romanchuk said it is good if Union has alot of projects on environmental matters and criminal networks withlower authority levels, local authorities and regional authorities. Isit possible for local and regional authorities to engage actively inEuropean projects without the central level in the country authorizingthis? Regarding the fact that the isolation of has not led toany results, the repression is worsening every month, is it not time toreevaluate that Union establishes contacts with Mr. Lukashenko,not to give him lots of money but at least to talk to him and discuss?That is another provocative question.Boris Tarasyuk: That was a good question. If I were in the shoes of theEuropean Commission I would take the following position: You would liketo join Union. At least you are declaring that you wouldlike to join Union. We accept your intention tojoin Union, but don't forget about your commitments andyour qualifications according to the criteria. Do you meetthe criteria? You do not. Go home and do your homework.This is the kind of pragmatic approach we may expect from the EuropeanUnion, both , and . At least this is my vision.Ifully agree with you that we shouldn't wait for Union tosay: "Okay guys, we are generous. We are going to provide you with aprospective membership. "Certainly, this should be our whole agenda, i.e. to make profoundeconomic, political and democratic reforms. This is our own agenda. Forus, or the political force I represent, this is quite clear andunderstandable. We say what we mean. We did what we said while being ingovernment. That is why we think that our fundamental objectives inreforming our society is coinciding with the major requirements formembership in Union. We are moving in the right direction.This is our understanding. We have to do this job, not to please theEuropean Union - forgive me Mr. Mecklenburg - and the bureaucrats inBrussels, but to please our own people. This is our major objective. Itis to make into a real democracy, to make a state underthe rule of law and to make a prosperous country. This is ourmajor agenda. We have to pursue this agenda consistently and not deviatefrom this agenda. This is demonstrated by the current regime. They saythat they are for a membership in Union and NATO. On theother side they are actually pushing in the opposite direction,into the Euroasian community, together with , andBelarus.This is not a consistent policy. We have to do what we have declared.I am referring to our current authorities. On the part of the EuropeanUnion we have to have a clear perspective, a logical perspective, anda logical answer. We don't hear logical answers from Union.This is our internal agenda. Our internal agenda coincides with ourforeign policy objective, i.e. to be together with other democratic andprosperous countries of Union.Mr. Mecklenburg referred to the low knowledge of Ukrainians about whatthe European Union is, what is. Forgive me, butthe average Ukrainian knows as about the EU and the Council ofEurope as the average citizen of any European Union member state. Byusing this argument you are leading to the perception of crossing outthe prospective of to join Union: "Your peopleknow a about Union." Following this logic we maycome to the conclusion that those EU countries where the citizens knowa about Union should be excluded from the EuropeanUnion. This is not a correct logic. The correct logic is that in anycountry, in any society, this is the responsibility of the politicalélite, i.e. to lead the nation. The political élite is finding its way,it has found its way, and one part of this political élite is justspeculating on this subject in order to remain in power. Another partof this political leadership is sincerely hoping and wanting tojoin other democratic and prosperous European countries. This is ourresponsibility, i.e. the responsibility of the political élite in Ukraine.And we are going to meet this responsibility, but we are waiting forthe clear, logical and pragmatic signal from Union.Stefan Urito: I agree with the position of Mr. The EuropeanUnion, in my opinion, shows a level of standard for democracy, humanrights, transparency etc. In my opinion, also, the biggest changes canbe effectuated in advance at the reins of the country to the EuropeanUnion. This means that in the prospective membership of the EuropeanUnion, should make changes in politics and democracy. In thissense I think a mistake was made. was acceptedas member of when it bombed Chechnya. In thissense was the standard of human rights. Before was that.After this it was different. In this sense, in my opinion, the EuropeanUnion should give a message for the population that can be amember of Union, but should do this and this andthen become a member.Now, I think civil society in is too strong, and there is abarrier to come back, a tendency of the Communist Party to come back.We have a lot of examples of this. We should have support from theEuropean Union.Mr. asked about promoting democracy in . I think therecan be opportunities for better collaboration between and ,maybe , civil society and state structures. We had in theInternational some years ago a common project. Staterepresentative officials wanted to come to to discuss oppositionin and civil society in . They discussed better than athome. This can be an opportunity to improve and influence changes incivil society in Belarus.Karsten Mecklenburg: I understand that time's up. I don't know how togive further comments on the number of issues raised.Mr. Tarasyuk commented on the level of knowledge about the EuropeanUnion. I didn't, by no means, intend to insult the average level ofknowledge about Union in or neighbouring countriesas compared to the EU. I completely admit that inside Unionand its member states you have not so much a different situation, butthat would even support my argumentation. I agree with what you say. Itis the responsibility of the political élite to translate the expectationsof the population and what the people expect into political messagesand political strategies. It is probably also legitimate sometimes toabuse this. The member states also take hostage for painfuldecisions and developments that are actually taken at a national levelor for developments in terms of economy and social situation that areby no means objectively to be blamed on . You want to turn aroundto the opposite. You cannot expect all the positive developments tocome from , whether you talk about EU citizens in member statesor you talk about your countries.If you want to talk about , and , it remains thetask of the countries themselves and their élites and politicians, andthe efforts of the citizen, to get on on the path of reform and to getto the objective which are defined earlier of well-being, of improvedeconomic and social development. What we can offer, and that is whatthe intention of the Commission was, and is, is a very logic approach,is a real incentive - also to respond to the question from the gentlemanfrom the research institute. We meant to offer a high profile incentivefor the countries that are involved in the neighbourhood policy to offera structured co-operation, offer a joint definition of priorities foraction over a medium-term perspective, which means the next three andfive years. With we agreed on a perspective for the next threeyears for those things that should be done as a priority in terms ofeconomic reform, structural reform, legislative reform, also includinglegislative alignment with the EU, that are necessary to improve theeconomic and social integration. In return, what we are offering is agradual opening up of our markets, a gradual opening up of further EUactions and programmes, including a perspective for free trade.Let me take the example of . Again, we have already concludedbilateral negotiations on WTO accession with a year ago, withRussia it happened only last week. Once we support 's accessionto the WTO and the lateral framework, once that is completed, we willtalk about a free trade agreement, certainly, with and with theother countries. There is quite a substantial high profile offer.I don't agree talking about low level Commission technical approach. Ifail to understand that remark. If you say that we talk about theEuropean Neighbourhood Policy as a distinct offer to EU enlargement youmay say that is defining the priorities, but that doesn't mean that weturn down to a low level technical co-operation.On the question on inter-pillar coherence of NeighbourhoodPolicy. If you take the strategy paper which I referred to earlier,which is published on the Commission web site, NeighbourhoodStrategy Paper, adopted on the 12th , you will find the EuropeanNeighbourhood Policy is exactly about inter-pillar coherence, it coversall pillars. It is not only about opening up markets and economicco-operation, it is about co-operation in the area of foreign securitypolicy, crisis management, fighting terrorism. It covers andhome affairs, co-operation on migration issues etc. I wouldn't dwell ondetails. But to me it is so obvious. The strategy paper also mentionsthe new Strategy as one of the targets to be supportedby Neighbourhood Policy. Security Strategy ina global sense has been developed in the EU to be supported by thisEuropean Neighbourhood Policy. I responded on your question about theincentives as an alternative to EU membership.I shall quickly come back to what you said on and your questionabout EU policy of isolation. I would define it in a different way. Iwould say self-isolation of . The EU has over the past two yearsmade some attempts to offer to Mr. Lukashenka, to the current authorities,a way to get back on a normal way of relationship, including astep-by-step approach to get back on the path of democracy for andin parallell to get back on the path of meaningful co-operation betweenthe EU and . But that has been turned down.On the other side there is actually a quite great potential for civilsociety co-operation, co-operation of NGO's, but also the participationof regional and local authorities of in cross-border co-operation.There has already been an admittedly low level over the past years.But in the framework of Neighbourhood Policy isactually benefiting from the new neighbourhood programmes. We launchedlast year as part of the overall European Neighbourhood Policy approachneighbourhood programmes in terms of assistance that run under theexisting Tacis and other assistant instruments. It is basically Tacis.We don't have much national budgets to be allocated to assist Belarus.But in terms of regional programmes and cross-border programmes wehave quite considerable amounts that can also be allocated to Belarus.There are three of these neighbourhood programmes where is apart. That applies to one neighbourhood programme with andMoldova and another one with - my geography and programme knowledge arelost! - I think and . There were three programmes.Belarus is the beneficiary. There is quite a potential. Our intention isfor the near future to increase that level of assistance and co-operation.Jaroslav Romanchuk: We welcome technical co-operation on security issues,because they are beneficial both for Union and particularlyfor and , which border . This has been going on,and that is why I also call it the policy of isolation from the EuropeanUnion. It has been on these issues. What I am anxious about isnot to have it as a substitution for civil society development, whichis the case with Tacis, because Tacis is very remote and distant toeverything that deals with civil society and democratization. It islike the dilemma that faced. By the way, I believe the ismore well known in than in Union countries. It wasvery and everybody knew the name of the person who chaired theorganization. An awareness of European structures.If we deal with civil society issues as part of European Tacis programmesand any other programmes to add to the co-operation on cross-borderissues and other stuff that would be a very important development. ButI don't want it to be kind of the only. If you don't move forward inthis area we don't want to move in any other sphere. There shouldn't bethis kind of binding liaison.The last remark is that I think there is a kind of shadow country thatis part of our discusson, i.e. We should also be very anxiousof what Union is willing to trade-off with relations withRussia; as a person comments on one Russian politician who believedBelarus should not exist as a state. It is common in . Also, weshould have a very clear message for the whole European Union that suchpolicy towards from should not, and will not, be tolerated.Boris Tarasyuk: To your question, deputy Wigström, about EU and Belaruspolicy. The first point is that one cannot but reject the policy whichhas been conducted by the current Belarusian regime under Lukashenka.The second point is that if you are interested in influencing thedevelopment of events in a country, it is better to have this countryinside of the international institution rather than outside. The policyof Union, despite of the assertion by Mr. Mecklenburg, ofexternal isolation of , I am not talking about the internalisolation, has proven to be wrong. No result is the result of thisexternal isolation of . To my mind internationalinstitutions, which do care about to come back to the family ofindependent democratic European nations, have to work closely withBelarus, certainly not compromising with fundamental values with thecurrent regime, but helping first of all civil society. This should bethe target of the activity on the international level and the EuropeanUnion level. I am not that great a specialist on the possibility oflocal authorities to co-operate in the framework of trans-borderco-operation in . To my mind there are no limits for this kind ofco-operation. This is the matter of Mr. Romanchuk.My second comment, again, is connected with the comments made by Mr.Mecklenburg: "Union is not responsible for the internalproblems you have." I agree with you. Union isnot responsible. But why then is Union not clearly declaring:"Unless you cope with and decide your internal problems, your undemocraticbehaviour will not stop your undemocratic behaviour. There will be noprogress, and there will be no prospective EU membership. At least itwill be clear for the authorities and it will be clear for society. Itis in order that society knows the full truth about co-operation." Butwe don't hear such a message. Instead we are witnessing differentdiplomatic tangles. If the message is if you cope with those internalproblems, if you stop undemocratic activity, if you come back to thedemocratic road, you will clearly perceive the of membership,this, at least, could be understandable. In my mind this is logical.But I fully agree with saying that the policy of the socalled European Neighbourhood Policy is the attempt to close theperspective of membership for the neighbouring countries rather than toopen this perspective.Cecilia Wigström (fp): We have now come to the closing part of theseminar. I know we are behind the time schedule. My closing commentswill be brief.For this seminar we chose the title Neighbourhood Policyand the State of Democracy and Human Rights in , andUkraine. We chose this title because we know that the objectives of theEuropean Union in this policy to achieve stability and prosperity atour borders can only be reached if democracy and human rights in ourneighbouring countries are reached. Reading through the Strategy Paperof Commission that was put forward just a few weeks ago,it is clearly stated that adherence to shared values of democracy, humanrights, human dignity, rule of law, and equality must be one ofthe core components of the partnership between Union andits neighbouring countries. It is very good that in the strategy andthe action plans it says that the policy will take into account theextent to which each country shares these values. Of course, the situationin each country differ. I think it is very important that we do favourizethose that clearly try hard to work towards more democracy and humanrights.I must agree with Ms. Zimmer when she said that this is how easy itshould be. Those countries that adhere to the criteria, thosecountries that fulfill the criteria of democracy, human rights, rule oflaw and market economy should be welcome into Union.The three countries we have focused on today, , andUkraine, are European countries, which should be welcomed the day theydo fulfill these criteria.The strategy paper does clearly line out how important democracy andhuman rights are. But, when you look into the strategy paper, and lookingat neighbourhood instrument, which is a programme to beput in place in 2007 with economic budgets behind it, there are onlyfour objectives laid down for this European neighbourhood instrument.The first objective is sustainable development. The second objective isto work with environment, health and organized crime. The third objectivefor this new instrument is to secure borders between our countries. Andforthly, to support local people-to-people projects. Here suddenly thewords democracy and human rights have disappeared. There is no objectiveto support the democratization of these countries outlined in the paperby Commission. This is a great default that needs to berectified. We must not forget the fundamental values which we agreeupon. They must also be implemented in the instruments we put in placeafter 2007.I must also agree with Mr. Romanchuk about the importance of information.Such a programme as Union now is putting in place shouldnot only help central institutions of these countries with democraticpractices, it is also very fundamental that we increase our support toNGO's and also media-information. People in the three countries todaylive in a situation where media freedom is restricted. We need to supportmedia channels, i.e. information dissemination to citizens.My last point I would like to make is also something that the speakershave brought up, i.e. the fact that the three countries are groupedtogether with the southern neighbouring countries. I thinkit is important that we should have good and friendly relations withall our neighbouring countries, but we must also acknowledge that thethree new neighbouring states, , and , are on thesame continent as we are. They are European countries, and we shareland borders with them. I think they should therefore be prioritized.If we look today at the money Union has been spending withinTacis between 2000 and 2003, are spent in the Medaprogramme where there are 180 million inhabitants. In , ,and we have 210 million inhabitants and only 1.3 billioneuros are spent in the Tacis programme. That is one third of what isspent in the region. Clearly Union needs togive higher priority to the new neighbouring states not only politicallybut also financially.I would like to thank our distinguished guests who have travelled farfrom , , , am and Chisinau.