Ukraine: Slipping away from the West?

NATO membership has for some time been unpopular in Ukraine -- and even less popular in Moscow. Therefore, there has been no great outcry from the population over this decision. After all, Yanukovych has in recent years done more than his fair share of portraying NATO as a “bad thing” to his fellow countrymen. However, while the decision itself may not be an issue, the way it was carried out is worrying. It is another indicator of the new regime’s rather unique way of doing business. For me it was a further example of the consolidation of a semi-authoritarian trend that is on the increase both in Ukraine and throughout the region. Only 50 deputies from the Stability and Reforms coalition were present at the vote and yet 259 voted in favor, demonstrating the broad use of absent deputies’ voting cards. To hide this, live TV transmissions of parliament on the television were conveniently cut. What’s more, the law was rushed through totally ignoring the more than 400 changes that were proposed by the opposition. This act once again shows the tendency of the new regime in Kiev to rush laws through without proper consultation -- as was the case with the April 27 Black Sea Fleet Treaty extension.

While the US may not be overly disturbed about Ukraine’s rejection of NATO membership, at the same time Washington is aware of the need to have a strong relationship with Kiev, to keep Ukraine “close.” If Yanukovych rolls back democratic freedoms and ushers in crony capitalism, the West will find itself without a reliable partner in a strategically critical area. Clinton’s visit was also no doubt designed to try and crush the growing belief that the US is rolling back its influence and clout in the region in favor of its “reset” with Russia. This being the second such tour in 12 months, the Joe Biden tour took place in July 2009.

While Clinton is trying to say the “US can chew gum and walk at the same time,” meaning it can have good relations with Moscow as well as strong ties with the countries in what is usually referred to as Russia’s sphere of influence, it seems to me that these countries are now saying the same thing, with the obvious exception of Georgia, whose acrimonious relationship with Russia seems set to continue for some time. Ukraine, too, can chew gum and walk at the same time. What’s more, while Yanukovych is making his deals with the Russians, some of which -- Sevastopol, for example -- have not been particularly welcomed by the West, he is now expecting the West to deliver something tangible in return. He is playing on the fears of some in the West to gain more from them.

The EU is certainly not as complacent in its relations with Kiev as it once was. This is reflected by the number of high-level visits that have taken place. European Commissioner for Enlargement and European Neighborhood Policy Stefan Füle is a regular visitor. Foreign Policy Chief Catherin Ashton (who virtually goes nowhere) and, at the end of last week, EU President Herman van Rompuy was there. While the EU has no desire to see Ukraine as a full member, it simultaneously recognizes the importance of maintaining a fluid and dynamic relationship. The EU and Ukraine are currently negotiating an Association Agreement which includes an Action Plan for visa-free travel. Visa liberalization is of crucial importance to Ukrainians; they see it as a litmus test for their relations with the EU. If the EU does not deliver this (or, worse still, delivers it to the Russians first), support for the EU amongst the population will further dwindle and the EU will be viewed as an untrustworthy and dishonest partner. Ukrainians are expecting to get this by the 2012 Euro Football championships, which they are hosting together with Poland.