Friday, 26 February 2010 00:00

Yanukovich should not be an alibi for the EU

Paweł Zerka

We should not expect that under Victor Yanukovich Ukraine will modernize or come closer to the EU. But many in the EU may feel ‘comfortable’ with his presidency since it will produce a powerful temptation towards inaction. Under these circumstances, Poland should put aside its political sympathies and reinforce its position of  a bridge linking Ukraine with Europe. We should be reminding the EU that the Eastern Partnership is in the long run not a sufficient proposition while urging Ukrainians that without major reforms they cannot expect anything better.

Business as usual
Contrary to popular belief, the Ukrainians did not have much choice. Out of the two well-known political figures, they chose Yanukovich whose dedication towards “gradualism” means that the chances for major reforms are rather low. But we should not be deluded that Yulia Timoshenko would be more effective. Although charismatic and politically efficient, she is not a typical reformist.

To a large extent, the foreign policy of Ukraine would have to be the same no matter who had won the second round of the elections. Given its geographical location, its strong economic ties with both Russia and the EU, and last but not least the fast increasing credit needs, Ukraine must maintain equally close relations with both sides. There is no symbolic meaning in the fact that Yanukovich chose Brussels as his first foreign destination. We can be sure that Moscow will be the next stop.

The two presidencies might differ in the way they are treated by the West. Therefore, what really matters is not the order of visits but their practical conclusions. If it is true that the EU would like to develop closer relations with Ukrainians –and it should- then it must not write them off just because they chose a president who seems too close to Moscow.

Yanukovich may be handy
Paradoxically, Yanukovich as Ukraine’s president may be convenient for many in the EU – and this for two reasons. We have to accept that Poland, traditionally idealistic about Ukraine, is seen in the rest of Europe as an exception that proves the rule. The EU in general is far more pragmatic on this issue.

First of all, the election of Yanukovich enables the EU to postpone to the undetermined future the troubling discussion about Ukrainian accession. Is there anything to talk about if the President of Ukraine is not pressing for a quick accession? With a clear mind, the EU can focus on the Eastern Partnership. This underestimated project, for some a temporary solution or a smoke-screen enabling the EU to maintain its control over the European neighborhood without major obligations, can turn out to be a successful medium-term strategy “within the confines of the possible” – provided that its form is filled with substance. The Partnership can be considered a sort of ‘foreplay’ which may have a promising continuation unless one of the parties messes everything up.  

If Yulia Timoshenko was elected, then the EU-Ukraine relations could become even more problematic than they are now. Timoshenko might insist on the EU determining the potential date for Ukraine’s accession – whereas neither the EU, nor Ukraine are ready for this and it is not clear when they will be. From the point of view of the EU, the large, poor, corrupt and unstable Ukraine, situated in a geopolitically strategic part of the world, would be at least as troubling a candidate for accession as Turkey. Moreover, it is hard to imagine that Ukraine could join the EU before Turkey, whereas the latter does not seem to be able to enter the EU anytime soon (Turks themselves are talking about year 2023, a centenary of their republic). From the Ukrainian perspective, it is becoming evident that the accession will be impossible until the necessary economic and political reforms are introduced, until they reduce social inequalities and improve the level of living up to the European average.

Secondly, for the majority of European countries Yanukovich will be a convenient trading partner. Despite his allegedly close relationship with Russia, he will be interested in improving the economic relations with the EU, if only for the sake of the Eastern Ukraine: deeply industrialized and controlled by the oligarchs from his entourage. The fact that he will not insist on setting the accession perspective will favor the completion of a longed-for EU Association Agreement whose important part would be an enhanced free trade agreement (the so-called FTA+). Notwithstanding his alleged pro-Russian preferences, Yanukovich is very much interested in clinching this deal.

Double role for Poland
Once again, Poland can play an important role in cementing the EU-Ukraine relations. However, if we want to be effective, we will have to recover from the deep disappointment about the  state of Ukrainian democracy. Poland should be ready to cooperate with Yanukovich, putting the emphasis on the stabilization of the internal situation in Ukraine. Encouragingly enough, the current government of Poland is much less ideological than the previous one. And it is worth noting that even during the government of Law and Justice, when Yanukovich was Prime Minister in Ukraine, cooperation between Ukraine and Poland was surprisingly good.

The results of the election created a need for action, and Poland is the only EU member who can be successful and reliable in initiating it. What is promising is that Polish diplomacy seems to be fully aware of this fact – judging by the recent initiative of Radek Sikorski to temporarily lift visas during the Euro 2012 football championship.

At the time when the EU may be justified in slowing down the dialog with Ukraine, while the new President of the latter is not necessarily craving for developing this dialog, Poland should ensure that both sides remain in touch. We should remind them that in the long run Europe needs Ukraine just the same as Ukraine needs Europe. Given that it will take a lot of time for the EU to be ready for another enlargement, and for Ukraine to make all the necessary reforms, both parties should establish a tailor-made relationship “within the bounds of possibility”. Eastern Partnership, together with the eventual Association Agreement, may for some time remain an optimal solution. However, if in the coming years Ukrainians do their homework, the EU should come up with a new initiative – for example accepting Ukraine as a potential member who could access the EU after having fulfilled all the necessary criteria and provided that the EU had a sufficient absorption capacity. The Western Balkans received such a promise already in 2000 with a clear message that this would only be the beginning of a long road. Why shouldn’t Ukraine be given a similar promise during the Polish Presidency in the EU Council in the second half of 2011?