The danger is in the middle

The EU-Ukraine Parliamentary Cooperation Committee recently held its 17th joint meeting. A number of Euro MPs for various groups of the European Parliament were in attendance. Despite the pressures of his tight schedule, which included numerous meetings with representatives of the Ukrainian government, opposition and civic society, Pawel Kowal, Chairman of the EU-Ukraine Parliamentary Cooperation Committee in the European Parliament, found time for an exclusive interview for The Day. Kowal is a regular contributor to our newspaper and is a member of the Friends of Ukraine group in the European Parliament. He has shared his impressions of the most recent developments in our country and has said what Ukraine and the EU have to do to make the December EU-Ukraine summit a success.

“UKRAINE HAS A NATURAL TENDENCY OF BEING SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE”

“My work in the European Parliament used to deal with Ukrainian issues on the daily basis. The Ukraine-EU relations have always been a string of dramatic events that constantly demand commentaries and meetings. The biannual meetings of the EU-Ukraine Parliamentary Cooperation Committee help me sense and understand the situation in Ukraine better.”

In your opinion, is Ukraine moving toward the European or the Eurasian Union?

“Ukraine has a natural tendency to be somewhere in the middle. Many Ukrainians believe that this is a value in itself. And this is the main difference between Poles and Ukrainians. When Poland regained independence, Poles only for a short while believed it was good to be in between. In my opinion, this is a wrong policy which dooms the subsequent generations to live somewhere on the border between the European Union and Russian influences. Part of Ukrainians let themselves be persuaded that the way to the European Union and European institutions is the way against Russia. I don’t think this is so. I believe that this desire to avoid doing anything against Russia is very negative and may have long ranging consequences for Ukraine.”

But the foundations of domestic and foreign policy of Ukraine, passed by the current government and the pro-government majority, clearly acknowledge a course on EU integration…

“Two weeks ago I was in Ukraine and I turned on the TV at 7 a.m. In a program for peasants a journalist was explaining whether it was good or bad to go to Europe. And the conclusion was that it was good to be with both. It is true, but it is also a trivial, banal truth which adds nothing to serious politics. There are such moments in politics when you need to clearly say: ‘We have to go in such and such direction.’ And I believe that the EU-Ukraine summit expected to take place in December is precisely the moment when this has to be said. It does not mean that this cannot be changed in the future. If this agreement fails to be initialed during the summit, friends in Europe may say that it is not so bad really. The truth is that this is just the right time to sign it, and many people understand and feel it.

“I don’t want to draw comparisons, but there was a similar situation at the NATO summit in Bucharest. And the summit passed a half-and-half decision. Georgia was especially geared to join NATO and did not receive this kind of promise from the Alliance. On the other hand, it was told that it would be okay. But this did not keep Georgia from a conflict with Russia. And later you cannot go back to the same moment. Does this mean that the NATO-Georgia relations are poor? No. But a certain moment has been wasted.

“If we speak about Ukraine’s rapprochement with Europe, you have to go through a period when Russians are going to have a negative reaction to it. And then you will need to clearly show them that these actions are not against Russia. You need to show many things that will be fostered in Ukraine-EU relations after the agreement signed – things that will be beneficial also to Russia. I know several Russians who try to convince me that Ukraine’s accession to the EU would be beneficial to Russia. Now these arguments need to be put together and presented. You need to overcome the nervous reaction, the tension that has emerged. And this takes some courage.”

But it probably takes courage of both Ukraine and Europe, doesn’t it? The Ukrainian government has constantly declared that rapprochement with the EU is not directed against Russia.

“It seems to me that the tension still persists. If we speak about Russia-EU relations, they have been developing well in the past years. Many European politicians are open to cooperation with Russia. I believe we need to develop relations with Russia along all important lines, for example with regard to Kaliningrad Region. I support a liberalized visa regime with Russia and canceling visas for Russians all together. We need to speak boldly about these things and simply think about how to achieve them rather then discuss whether or not it should be done.”

Do people in Europe understand that the Ukrainian government has driven itself in a trap with the Yulia Tymoshenko case? It is being pressured, even though it is clear that under the current legislation there is no way out of this situation. Is there an understanding that failure to initial an agreement may push Ukraine into Russia’s hands?

“This argument often surfaces in conversations with Ukrainian politicians. And then Russia begins to play a new role in the discussion – it becomes a bugbear. But I don’t except this reasoning. Russia cannot be used as a bugbear in Ukraine-EU relations. It seems to me that this does not reflect the realities. I believe that today the Tymoshenko case is not only a personal case. And we need to boldly say that it was a mistake to have focused on her personality so much. This created the impression that everything depends on one person. On the other hand, it is understandable, because Tymoshenko is very popular. But other people also have the same problems that she has. This is a problem of many people whose names we even don’t know. Today a female Party of Regions MP has told me that the conditions for which Tymoshenko has suffered applied to many citizens of Ukraine. I replied that this is precisely the problem. Ukraine has poor standards in the judiciary. I find it hard to rejoice over this cause, but it’s a good thing that the Tymoshenko case has attracted attention to this problem. It would be better if it did not cost Tymoshenko time in prison.”

“LAWS CANNOT BE CHANGED BECAUSE OF ONE PERSON”

Tymoshenko is calling for the Association Agreement to be signed. Nevertheless, Germany, Austria, and other countries are still against. Can these countries be persuaded in the need to initial the agreement and then watch, up until ratification time, how the Ukrainian government is solving, among other things, the problem you have mentioned – enhancing the standards of the justice system?

“This is a very complicated thing. First, I share the position of Arsenii Yatseniuk who said that this agreement should be signed at any cost. I believe that if the agreement is not initialed, it may harm Tymoshenko. It will definitely not help her. In my opinion, the very fact of signing the agreement will have an impact on the attitude of the Ukrainian political circles. I believe that Ukrainians who demand a membership prospects clearly defined for Ukraine cannot have a better prospect than signing the agreement as it is.

“One more thing about Tymoshenko. It seems to me that the path of decriminalization which the Ukrainian government has taken is wrong. I don’t know who recommended this to President Viktor Yanukovych, but it is clear to me that it will fail. First, it was evident that Party of Regions MPs would not sign for this out of pride. It is a normal thing in our part of Europe. Second, you cannot change laws because of one person, even if it is very important person. It seems that systemic actions are needed in this situation.”

Precisely what actions you have in mind?

“There is no constitutional court in Ukraine that would trial politicians for their political actions. This most often pertain to top-level government officials: the prime minister and the president. This standard has been adopted in Europe. And I spent a lot of time trying to persuade Ukrainian diplomats to go along this path. I even wrote in your newspaper about it. I believe it would be a good opportunity to set up this kind of court and amend the Constitution. Precisely this court would have to first determine whether the Tymoshenko case is of political or criminal nature. In my opinion, this case does not have the marks of corruption. In most European countries it would be trialed as a political case. If this court recognized this case as a criminal one, it would send it to a competent court. It would be a be-nefit for Ukraine’s political system. Then there would be no signs of pressure on Ukraine. Most importantly, it would be a signal to the current government that when they find themselves in the situation, there is already a procedure to consider cases of this kind.”

“I FEEL I AM A FRIEND NOT OF ONE PARTY BUT OF UKRAINE AND THE UKRAINIAN PEOPLE”

Do they heed your advice in the Party of Regions in order to solve this problem and carry out systemic changes in the country?

“I feel I am a friend not of one party but of Ukraine and the Ukrainian people. This is my mission in the European Parliament. If I’m asked about this, I share my thoughts. Some jotted them down, so I think they send them to someone. And I understand that advice like this may be very irritating. I remember how Poles were advised to do this thing or another, and it irked us and drove us mad. But if it does not irritate people and it is interesting to them, I tell it.”

What do you think about the new law on elections which in the Verkhovna Rada passed recently?

“One of my close acquaintances who is also very knowledgeable in Ukraine’s political life has said that the opposition which has agreed to it consists of roosters that want to speed up the coming of Sunday when they will be turned into chicken broth. The majority system changes the rules of the game and it is complicated. But there are also advantages to this situation. Many politicians in Europe, including myself, are happy that there is an understanding between the government and the opposition. But this is not everything. It is also important that amendments to election legislations came a long time before the elections themselves. Introducing elements of the majority system is better than the purely proportional system. I prefer the majority system. The actions of this kind make a better government and stronger state. I give Yatseniuk and Oleksandr Turchynov their due for agreeing to it. It points to their strong pro-state stance. But the problems with elections in Ukraine in the past years had nothing to do with the election system. They pertained to access to information, power transfer procedure, and court interference in the election process. In order to achieve success in elections, you need to secure also the mentioned conditions. When I’m asked about elections in Ukraine, I always say that elections in Ukraine are the best in the territory of the former USSR, excluding Moldova – and of course not counting the Baltic states, which are now EU members. But the truth is also that the last elections did not raise the standards but, on the contrary, lowered. So it is not enough to pass a new law. I believe that you now need to again look at the comments from the European Parliament, the Council of Europe, and the OSCE, and put your best foot forward in the next elections.”