|
 
Viktor Yanukovych: "Recalling Budapest"
26.02.2008, 09:56
In his time the US Information Agency head Edward R.Murrow gave such a definition of notion "propaganda". He said, "Truth is the best propaganda and lies are the worst". In my opinion, when the Euroatlantic integration adherents base their policy on an assertion that the considerable part of people who live in the South and East of Ukraine do not support the idea of our state entry into NATO due to the lack of information, they use the second type of propaganda – lies.
This assertion is alleged that NATO is associated with ideological stereotypes of the former USSR in the minds of Euro-Atlantic integration opponents. In other words, millions of our fellow citizens are rated as uneducated, superstitious people who stopped in their development back in the 70s of the last century. A joke was even spread about a kind of a man from Donbass who strongly objects Ukraine's joining NATO, but has nothing against the North Atlantic Treaty.
The Party of Regions which is blocking the Verkhovna Rada work today and demands that a resolution should be approved after a nation-wide referendum and only after that Ukraine can undertake steps towards joining NATO. Accordingly, it is declared to be an exponent of that part of the society that allegedly does not have basic knowledge of the nature of NATO activities. Thus an image of a person from Western or Southern Ukraine is thrust on the society as frankly retrograde. In other words, those who are 'for' are patriots and Europeans, and who are 'against' are ignoramus and dull.
I believe this is at least disrespect for millions of our compatriots. They do not deserve to be considered as such by those who are not able to assess independently events of the modern world. Anyway, even if there are people who do not quite clearly realize what is today's NATO, the same can be said as well about those who support the idea of joining the block. A principle "have not read but know" in this case proves to be true beyond the limits of the administrative and territorial state system.
Opponents of the Ukraine's entry into NATO use quite another motive than the one imputed to them by the myth founders according to which this military and political block is considered in the eastern part of Ukraine as exclusively aggressive. I can ensure the authors of this "worst propaganda" that the Party of Regions voters who know about NATO do not yield in anything to those who support Ukraine's joining NATO. You will unlikely hear from Crimea or Lugansk region dwellers that NATO poses a threat to peace or democracy in Ukraine. Who claims and on what grounds that L'viv or Ternopil' (Western Ukraine) inhabitants are able to conduct "political informing" on this topic for Lugansk or Crimea residents? Personally I doubt whether an average dweller of Western Ukraine is a better expert in NATO issues than a typical representative from East or Center.
It is obvious that the reasons for averting the idea of Ukraine 's entry into NATO have quite another background. This is a sphere of mental, historically formed and fortified, even at a subconscious level, solidarity of a considerable number of Ukrainians with Russians. You will not explain this phenomenon with a lower-value complex compared to the 'elder brother', lack of patriotic or cosmopolitan feelings that have originated from an attempt to create a new community, the soviet people. The matter is not just in the Russian language, which is considered as native by most opponents of Ukraine's entry into NATO.
To explain this phenomenon, it is appropriate to recall S.Huntington and agree to the fact that the civilization clash after all crosses the Ukraine's territory. I do not think that accepting this fact could somehow prevent the Ukrainian society from unification. Uniqueness of our nation is indeed based on the fact that regions of various cultural and historical background perfectly coexist.
Solidarity with Russians, who in the nearest historical prospect will continue to view NATO as a geostrategic rival, will always overcome any arguments for people in south-eastern regions concerning the idea of NATO entry. And no information and enlightening actions will be able to psychologically prepare someone from a remote town of Mikhaylivskyi that one day the Ukrainian-Russian frontier would be guarded by a NATO representative and not the Ukrainian one. He will never understand it and will never agree to that. Not because of his distorted image of NATO but because it will not be a neighbour-friendly or human attitude any longer and, eventually, not in the Christian tradition in relation to those who are on the other side of the border.
If you object and ask what grounds I have for such conclusions, I will ask in my part, why not carrying out such experiment in Mikhaylivskyi town before writing a letter on joining the NATO Membership Action Plan. And if this Plan is not aimed at NATO entry, then even more so, why address the Bucharest summit?
The possibility that NATO appears on the Russian frontier would become a kind of an abnormal phenomenon which would not just worsen our relationships with the Russian Federation, but would introduce dramatic corrections to the whole system of European security. It is understood in the European Union as well. Therefore Brussels reaction to the Ukraine's accelerated entry to NATO is restrained. In the old European capitals this process is considered rather as the US interest in the sphere of rivalry with Russia. And another American 'horse' appearance in the Eastern Europe like the new EU members after the last wave of the Union enlargement is scarcely favoured by Berlin, Paris or Rome.
Using an Euroatlantic argument in the issue of accelerating implementation of the European prospects for Ukraine does not stand up to criticism as well. Firstly, achieving of the so-called Copenhagen criteria, which for an unknown reason are connected with NATO by the Euroatlantic integration supporters, are our obligations to the European Council. Secondly, NATO membership does not mean that we will be at once proposed to set negotiations on entering into the EU: it is enough to recall a Turkey case. In addition, the European Union policy in the sphere of security is not based solely on the NATO potential.
Insufficiently considered actions of the present Ukrainian authorities with their childish and funny aspiration to look as an adult in a dialogue with NATO leadership may question the rightness of economic cooperation with Russia in the nearest future. Our state's head latest visit to Russia has clearly testified that the issue of NATO enlargement is viewed in Moscow as a challenge to its national interests. And there should be no illusions about the fact that it will have to 'swallow' Ukraine's accedence to NATO as it had to 'swallow' the former Baltic republics entry into the Alliance. By launching the NATO Membership Actions Plan, Ukraine will open Pandora's box from which not only hypothetical fears could creep out. Because both in the geopolitical scope and historical humanitarian aspect it would be wrong to compare our state with Baltic republics.
And all the more, the complaints that Russia takes advantage of economic leverages in order to achieve its foreign political aims, will not produce any effect. If it is allowed for the USA, why is it forbidden for the Russian Federation? Is it because they adhere to different approaches for the notion 'democracy'? It is reasonable but not convincing.
One may not doubt that Russia will apply the whole range of economic mechanisms to avoid implementation of initiatives which it considers as unfriendly. And I wonder what arguments will Y.Tymoshenko suggest to cover her calls to the West to 'restrain Russia' and her signature under the 'letter of three'?
An attempt to persuade Russia that Ukraine's entry into NATO does not threaten its security looks even less serious. I think that Russia is able to determine what coincides with the interests of its national security, and what not. Ukraine can do it exactly the same way without outward help. Besides, an off-block status has not been invented by the Party of Regions.
The off-block status perfectly suits the internal political situation in the country. If the authorities confirmed their adherence to this doctrine, the tensions would be relieved not only in the Parliament but in the society as well. The off-block status reveals broad opportunities for our diplomacy: it does not contradict the Eurointegration aspiration of Ukraine and at the same time enables us to become a bridge between the West and Russia.
The off-block status does not weaken our security in any case. Eventually there is the Budapest memorandum which supplies us with guarantees from five large states. This document expressly regulates our off-block status in a legal way. Though neither the country's leader, nor the speaker or the prime minister have recalled this fact. Not to mention the Ministry of Foreign Affairs at all because the new minister's performance reminds the times of B.Tarasyuk tenure there, who did much harm to Ukrainian foreign policy including the security issues. It is indeed difficult to contend that the beginning of confrontation with Russia has made us more secure.
After all, we could be wrong. But similarly our political opponents could make unjust decisions. Therefore the easiest way to arrive to the truth lies through a referendum. And it should be held not after NATO Bucharest summit, but before it. For example, in Georgia people expressed their opinion on NATO entry, and accordingly a letter of the president concerning Action Plan on NATO Membership is based on the will of the predominant majority of its fellow-citizens.
The people's opinion should not be afraid of. We should worry about the consequences that may occur in case this opinion is ignored.
"Segodnya" ("Today") newspaper, February 26, 2008 | |
|
| 
| 
| 
