Date
Author
Беседовала Светлана СТЕПАНЕНКО; Киев
Source
Preserved copy
Translated material
“Ukraine’s membership in NATO is real”
— How do you assess the results of the visit of the NATO Secretary General to Ukraine?
— What is important is not so much the visit of the NATO Secretary General as the arrival of the North Atlantic Council in full force with him. It is important for Ukraine to discuss the state of cooperation with the North Atlantic Council within the framework of an intensified dialogue. This dialogue was initiated in Vilnius in April of this year. His ultimate goal is to move towards an action plan to acquire NATO membership.
Ukraine has been moving toward this highest level of relations since the early 90s, when NATO developed a new strategy that removed the former Soviet republics and Warsaw Pact countries from the rank of potential adversaries to the rank of partners. In 1994, Ukraine, like Russia, joined the Partnership for Peace program. In 1997, Ukraine signed the Charter of a Special Partnership. By the way, Russia took a similar step even a week earlier than Ukraine.
-- Defense Minister Anatoly Gritsenko plans to join NATO in 2008. Is this really possible?
- I agree with such assessments. Ukraine fits into the time frame allotted to it. In addition to the army, the entire security sector, including the internal troops and the security service, needs to be reformed in the spirit of civilian control. The events of the 2004 presidential campaign showed that these structures remained closed to civilian control. If we manage to solve this problem, Ukraine will be ready for NATO membership.
If in 2006 Ukraine concludes a program with the Alliance on the transition to an action plan for acquiring membership, relations with NATO will take on a new quality. And then, in two annual cycles, it will be possible to approach the level of “readiness” for membership or “basically readiness” with the conclusion that reforms are irreversible. By the way, in countries that have been NATO members since 2004, the reform process continues. So we can hardly talk about their 100% readiness.
— How do the Ukrainian army feel about the NATO perspective? Are there fears that this course will lead the country to confrontation with Russia?
- No, under no circumstances. There is a gap in the pace of rapprochement between Ukraine and Russia and NATO, and not in favor of Ukraine. In addition to the special partnership that has existed since 1997, Russia participates in discussing and voting on a limited number of major decisions with the 27 NATO countries. Ukraine does not have such a format of relations with the Alliance. That part of society that is informed about this, and this also applies to the army, no longer fears that rapprochement with the Alliance will spoil relations with Moscow.
In addition, cooperation with the Alliance greatly helps solve problems in which officers are interested. The government is obliged to carry out social adaptation of those transferred to the reserve and increase the defense budget. The state would hardly have done this voluntarily if not for its international obligations to NATO.
— How much money will need to be invested in reforming the army so that Ukraine can join NATO? Experts believe that in the early 90s the army was in better condition than it is now...
-- As part of the annual cooperation program with NATO, the minimum level of army funding is set at 2% of GDP. The 2006 budget guarantees these figures. As for the state of the army, talking about a higher level of readiness in the early 90s would have been frivolous. At that time, the force of more than a million troops was financed at 30% of the minimum requirements. The army was then going through a difficult process of legal transition to national status. Now the ground is more favorable for joining NATO.
— In Russia they don’t understand why Ukraine is not satisfied with the 1992 Tashkent Treaty on security within the CIS...
-- An individual defense system today does not guarantee military security, so it is necessary to resort to a collective one. Ukraine had little choice: the Alliance or the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO). To become a NATO member, you need to take serious steps in reforming the political system, forming a civil society, guaranteeing human rights, and promoting the development of a market economy. The CSTO has a reduced level of requirements, since it pursues the political goals of creating a bloc of the organization under the auspices of Russia. This indicates that the choice must be made in favor of NATO. It is the Alliance that is participating in the transformation of Europe, shaping the architecture of European security. Participating in NATO means having the right to vote when considering issues in which Ukraine is interested.
-- After the 2006 parliamentary elections, supporters of President Yushchenko and ex-Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko may not receive a majority in the Rada. Will this mean curtailing relations with NATO?
-- In 2003, at parliamentary hearings on the integration of Ukraine into NATO, the proposal to seek full membership in the Alliance was supported by 263 MPs. So the idea of NATO membership has supporters even in the current “old” convocation of the Rada. In 2006, the president will have many more supporters in parliament than now.
At the same time, the 2004 presidential elections reduced the percentage of citizens supporting the integration processes of joining NATO due to aggressive anti-NATO propaganda from a number of political parties. In my opinion, it is necessary to align the positions of the parties. Political parties that consider joining NATO to have no alternative from the point of view of the interests of the state should speak openly about this. This will lead to increased popularity of the ideas of Euro-Atlantic integration.